Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Why wouldn't they? If, for example, I was mugged (say, both robbed and say beaten with a stick) in a foreign country, I could fully expect the police report to end up in a diplomatic transmission, which would include the stolen identity/credit card information as well as the medical records that described my injuries. Crimes against foreign nationals would often go though the State Department and whatever equivalent the other nation had.
I dont know the circumstances of all the cases described in these cases, but there are plenty of reasonable and legal reasons for a government body to have that information that does not involve Big Brother spying.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Stay classy
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks.
Time to get out the popcorn, this should get interesting.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was
Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" and "curation". They will edit things to remove facts contrary to the narrative they wish to promote. For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
While you are correct, that those things exist, so does the wolf the boy cried over in that parable.
I realize that it works, which is why it is such a popular technique. Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist". To which I usually respond ... "I didn't know saggy pants was genetic". If Saggy pants was genetic, I would assume it would apply more to the flat assed white people (and some Asians), but they seem to be able to keep their pants on.
But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit the Boy Who Cried Wolf applies here.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Saggy pants is still not racist, per se.
It is related to prison culture, and ghetto culture. The association with a specific racial group is a consequence of over expression of incidence in criminality and poverty in that racial group. Jumping straight to the racecard is itself racist; it defacto implies that the saggy pants, and the culture behind it, are intrinsically linked to that racial group. It is equally as onerous as saying "all black people are criminally minded."
Instead, saggy pants is just saggy pants. Complaints about the glorification of prominent displays of saggy pants is not racist, per the above reasoning. Counter-claims that such complaints are racism are themselves what is racist.
You were born with a powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution, for the primary functions of advanced abstract and critical thinking. Please use it responsibly.
Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist".
Come to Australia, where it is much more socially acceptable to mock saggy pants, or made-up baby names, because most of the offenders are white.
You might be just as much an arse/ass for mocking lower-class people, but the class-ism is more acceptable when not associated with race.
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Here is a story AP published that turned out to be fiction. It originated with Jon Ralston and was quickly picked up by AP and then other major media outlets. No corroboration ever materialized for the story, despite there being 3000 cameras in the room, and those that streamed live told a different story. The only media outlet to retract the story was NPR, and PBS fired Ralston.
Note also that this is the story that the DNC leadership instructed its members to pass around "without attribution", i.e. covertly smear Sanders with it. It's also the email that Assange has singled out as the most damming.
And also remember that much of the brouhaha over the leaked DNC emails was over collusion with the media.
In short, if you aren't yet skeptical of mainstream media this year, you need to start paying closer attention.