WikiLeaks Published Rape Victims' Names, Credit Cards, Medical Data (arstechnica.com)

Joe Mullin, writing for ArsTechnica: Even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sits trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, the WikiLeaks website continues to publish the secrets of various governments worldwide. But that's not all it's publishing. A report today by the Associated Press highlights citizens who had "sensitive family, financial or identity records" published by the site. "They published everything: my phone, address, name, details," said one Saudi man whose paternity dispute was revealed in documents published by the site. "If the family of my wife saw this... Publishing personal stuff like that could destroy people." One document dump, from Saudi diplomatic cables, held at least 124 medical files. The files named sick children, refugees, and patients with psychiatric conditions. In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. In two other cases, WikiLeaks published the names of teenage rape victims. "This has nothing to do with politics or corruption," said Dr. Nayef al-Fayez, who had a patient with brain cancer whose personal details were published.

Comments

The end justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

Publish away! All the things!

Re:The end justifies the means

[Anonymous Coward]

Publish away! All the things!

You utter, fucking cockwomble! Peoples private/personal lives and political allegiances are none of your business unless they betray, contradict and therefore hypocritize a public stance. A politician who attacks homosexuals and is homosexual is news. Conversely, a politician who presents no public position on sexuality and is homosexual is not. Wikileaks lost me when they published the names of BNP members and undermined the political agency of private individuals. It matters not that I disagreed with the politics of the BNP, wikileaks should have been sued into the ground back then!

As to the latest 'leak'. There is a big clue in the words "private" and "personal" meaning absolutely none of anyone else's business. If you think differently, you are mentally ill!

Re:The end justifies the means

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Somewhere around 20-40% of the info in these documents will turn out to be wrong or misleading in some critical way.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the alleged witches as they drown.

Also, just because some personal data is correct, that doesn't mean the entire world has any right or need to know. People suffer unfair discrimination or worse because of perfectly legitimate personal matters all the time, which is the most compelling argument for the importance of privacy.

Criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks has devolved into pretty much just Julian and a disciple or two. He doesn't have the bandwidth to do vetting, he's just burning the Earth now.

Re:Criminal

[MightyMartian]

Mod +1. Assange is now purely in the vengeance game, so far as I can tell, though to be honest, at least as far as burning Clinton's career prospects to the ground, the term "damp squib" comes to mind. If there's one thing the DNC document dump proved, he's sitting on top of a big pile of nothing, and soon enough I think the press will just move on.

Re:Criminal

[bobbied]

I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was

Of course they do vetting... They ask two questions... 1. Is it a good story (not true, just plausible is all that's required)? You can make it up as a total work of fiction, but if SOMEBODY might think it's true you meet this requirement. 2. Will it draw attention to us? It doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention.

Unless your story meets these standards, forget it.... Well, unless you are willing to pay something for it. Websites and press releases cost money you know.

Re:Criminal

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look. It's one of Slashdot's resident Liberal apologists here to downplay all the corruption, lies, bribery, racism, religious discrimination, sexism, and collusion in the DNC email leak. I suppose Chairwoman Debbie and 4 other staffers are out of a job because of this 'no big deal, nothing to see here' leak, which by coincidence is the same defense in every Hillary scandal. Including the ones where there's proof positive she's lying but continues to do it anyway.

Re:Criminal

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks started as a good idea, and promoted itself with open ideals. Since then it's been clear that Assange is the sole dictator of Wikileaks and he has kicked out earlly members who have wanted more security, more transparency, and more structure. Assange was unhappy that Domsheitt-Berg "leaked" details of unhappiness of Wikileaks management. Ever since the Afghan leaks it's been on a rapid decline in quality, relevance, and importance. Nothing in the leaks of private details of ordinary citizens have anything to do with documents of "political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest", the original Wikileaks mission.

Re: Criminal

[wierd_w]

How delightfully backwards!

The first step in addressing a problem, is acceptance that there is in fact a problem to address.

Rightly pointing out that all current choices are shit, is therefore the correct and proper direction toward addressing that problem, eg, by not voting for more political choices that are shit.

Hilariously, your rebuttle is whimsically absurd! Denial of the problem, will somehow result in correction of the problem-- and drawing attention to the fact that there is in fact a problem purpetuates the problem.

What really needs to happen is for the US to grow a pair and demand no confidence vote powers. That way when presented with the choice of 70 year old rancid tuna and 50+ year old trolls with verbal diarrhea, we can return the offered plate to the kitchen and demand they do it right this time.

Arguing bitterly over the pros and cons of rancid tuna over shitspeaking oompahloompahs does nothing to chastise the kitchen. Next time they wI'll serve you a festering blue waffle with whipped cream and shriveled oil baron salomi with a side of polluted tap water.

Unless you want to keep getting served shit, I suggest you address the problem of being served shit.

Re:Criminal

[MightyMartian]

Even if the polls tighten up, Trump simply isn't competitive in enough battleground states to deliver victory. He's only "competitive" because you don't sell newspapers by saying "Three months to go, and GOP candidate is still doomed, and could never catch up." You sell advertising by proclaiming that national polls (which are incredibly poor indicators at the best of times) indicate "tightening". Besides, it's pretty clear that Trump still doesn't really want the job.

The bigger problem for the GOP is that the demographic that is driving Trump is in decline, and while it's likely to start dooming them in the Presidential races, the Senate isn't far behind, and gerrymandering will only buy them a few more House elections before it starts to falter in all but the reddest states. The Republicans have a serious demographic crisis on their hands, and at best a decade to solve it.

Re: Criminal

[MightyMartian]

Politics, even at the ballot box, is the art of compromise. The perfect candidate will never exist, and even when you think you've found them, all you've found is a time bomb that will go off eventually.

The American system effectively offers you two choices; Trump or Clinton. You can vote third party, but that's just another way of voting for one of them, or you can stay home, which is still just a way of voting for one of them. The universe does not owe you easy answers, so you'll have to just resign yourself to the fact that every choice is effectively a vote for one of them.

Re: Criminal

[AmiMoJo]

Wouldn't work.

The system is designed to provide stability, because unstable governments that can be toppled by trashy tabloid scandals or are sandbagged by and endless barrage of no confidence motions are undesirable and cause people to lose faith in that country's economy.

Mixing it up sounds like fun, but actually direct democracy is vastly over-rated. Look at Brexit. People are fucking idiots. They can't tell obvious fiction from fact, and they ignore overwhelming expert advice despite knowing that they are extremely ignorant and constantly requesting more information because when the information comes it contradicts their established view. They vote based on their won stupid issues that they know next to nothing about, and based on bigotry, fear and xenophobia.

The only solution to this, which is far from perfect, is to adjust your system so that it has to be governed by coalition. Force the asshats to work together. It's moderately successful in parts of Europe, and it's the best system anyone has ever come up with. It's a fine balancing act though, not easy to get right.

Pile it on..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another Wikileaks hit-piece. Are there any legitimate editors on this site or do they just unquestioningly regurgitate the party line?

Re:Pile it on..

[Falconnan]

Well, let's look at this without passion for a moment. If it's true that they released this information on people who were not involved in any variation of corruption, and did so (even without malice) without checking the data for such information, this comes up to gross negligence. Whether we like it or not, some data should remain private. I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible, but crime or persecution victims need to be protected.

When we allow "all of the data" to be public, it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse. People become afraid to report crimes against their persons. Victimization thrives on access to personal details of private citizens. Let's just call this what it is: A bad idea either way. Real lives can be shattered by this type of thing. Innocent lives. I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause.

Re:Pile it on..

[Archangel Michael]

it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse

What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.

Re:Pile it on..

[PopeRatzo]

When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist"

Have you considered the possibility that racism, bigotry, and sexism are not really "dissent"?

Re:Pile it on..

[Archangel Michael]

It is actually worse than this. It is like when Hillary said that all rape victims deserve to be believed, and then was asked about Bill's Alleged Victims ....

The hypocrisy is astounding. There is clear pandering to black people in the DNC, and it is revealed repeatedly in their email scandal. Things everyone already knows, but nobody really cares about. BLM protests in Milwaukee prove that it isn't about "white cops shooting unarmed black men" because the victim was a criminal, with a stolen gun, shot by a black cop, but somehow saying that makes me a "Racist" because I don't follow the narrative that the left wants to portray.

Compare and contrast what happened in "racist Texas" during the dallas shooting there, and the black guy with the riffle who DIDN'T get shot, even though a black guy with a rifle was shooting cops.

So, the cries of "racism" over every incident, regardless of the races involved, make it harder and harder to listen to anyone crying racist. Even when it is legitimate, all those fake claims are ruining it for the real victims. Meanwhile the REAL crimes in places like Chicago go largely ignored by the whole BLM movement, even though the impact is much much more involved.

While I don't doubt there are David Dukes of the world still out there, they are mostly powerless idiots, and nobody but the racebaiters with Rev in their name pay attention to.

Re:Pile it on..

[rahvin112]

Being called a dick for saying dickish things does not chill discourse. Your speech has social consequences and if you believe that those social consequences are a problem than you are frankly not in tune with reality. There is no belief in free speech that includes a right not to be offended and there is also no right to not be criticized.

People like you will in one breath disclaim the right to be offended and attempt to defend the right to say offending things without the social consequences those statements bring. Both quell free speech. You have a right to say whatever you want, but you don't have a right to be free of social consequences for saying unpopular things. Because the only way to take away social consequences is to take away the freedom of other people.

Your a big boy, you say things other people don't like you better damn well expect them to react in ways you probably aren't going to like. Welcome to Freedom, part of being free is understanding that your freedom to be a dick comes with the consequences of people not wanting to associate with you and calling you names. You want to wear the big boy pants and say things other people find offensive you can be a big boy and deal with the consequences of doing so.

All the data means all the data

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.

Re:All the data means all the data

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fool. A criminal with an agenda is no different than a capitalist with an agenda. Assange is no more or less evil than Fox news or any other media organization.

Re:All the data means all the data

[Anonymous Coward]

Publishing someone's medical records without their consent is against the law in practically every country in the world. Leaking medical records of ordinary citizens has nothing to do with transparency. It's against the law, period.

Re:All the data means all the data

[rahvin112]

Your evidence is as strong as the evidence that "the jews control the media" because some CEO of a public company has a jewish last name. Someone jumping between government appointments and the press is NOT new, what do you think political consultants are? I personally think they should change their title to out of work politician. Do you expect presidents to hire non journalists for a press secretary position?

Seriously you act like you expect people to have a special job called presidential press secretary, even though there is only one of them and they change with every president and that after they leave they should never ever work again and certainly not in the press. After all they are just robots with no independent thought and are just arms of some giant presidential monster. In other words your argument is childish and devoid of reality.

Think it through.

[Anonymous Coward]

In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death.

As the person was already arrested, I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up. Making this info widely public is probably the only way anyone else will ever know what happened to this person.

Re:Think it through.

[Obfuscant]

Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over.

The only "stretching" going on here is the vast stretch trying to remove the label "evil" from Wikileaks.

It's ok to release the information about a gay Saudi because the government has already arrested him. It doesn't matter if the government might have shown some leniency, but now cannot do so because the info is public, or that this guy's neighbors might beat him to a pulp were the government to let him go. No, Wikileaks is right to publish this information.

And it's ok to publish the names of rape victims because it will somehow benefit the next rape victim, and besides, some women who choose to go public with the assaults become CELEBRITIES! It's not like these women live in a society that considers rape victims to be permanently impure and can be killed by their families for the disgrace they've brought. Yeah, it's not Julian's fault they live in such a society, and so he bears no responsibility for the result.

The medical records of cancer patients shouldn't be private at all, for some reason I don't understand. And credit card data for crime victims? PUBLIC INFORMATION!

This stuff feels like they're trying to promote the position that having secrets is good

Please tell me that you are not seriously arguing against the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is all about the ability of private citizens to have secrets from the government and everyone else. YES, HAVING SECRETS IS GOOD, you fucking moron, when those secrets belong to private individuals and concern their lives, health, and well being.

Re:Think it through.

[guises]

Okay, I usually don't respond to the posts that are flagrantly insulting, but I'm going to make an effort here to respond in kind. Bear with me.

You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.

It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.

(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)

But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen, but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)

Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.

I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.

Re: Julian's victim

[Anonymous Coward]

Victims - plural

Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry at

[Jester998]

Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?

Trapped?

[multi io]

He doesn't "sit trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy" any more than a prissy teenage girl who is mad at her parents and doesn't wanna come down for dinner sits trapped in her room. He can just walk out of there whenever he pleases. The only risk he'd face would be major embarrassment after NOT being deported to the US.

Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?

Most likely they are assisting people who became sick way from their home country. Are you bothered by the government helping people?

Re: Julian's victim

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I missed the trial that convicted him. Then again, everyone knows that once accused it's guilty unless proven innocent beyond any doubt, especially in sex offenses committed by men.

Re:Public Relations

[Black Parrot]

Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks

Looks to me like Wikileaks is doing a fine job of discrediting itself without any help.

Re: Julian's victim

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. He should have a trial. What's that? He is hiding in an embassy to avoid having to go to trial. That seems a little strange.

Re: Julian's victim

[admiralh]

So you also believe that Hillary too is innocent until proven guilty and are actively denouncing all the GOPers with their "Lock her up" chants, right?