He threatened to do what now? As far as I'm informed, he has done no such thing. He has a death man's switch which is exactly what it says on the tin and has nothing to do with any charges leveled at him. Now, if he was to suffer an unfortunate and mysterious sudden death...
What wikileaks stands for is total transparency of how governments (and other large entities) go about their business, not total transparency in the form of all information about everybody anytime. Else wikileaks wouldn't take their time redacting information for safe public consumption (gasp! they do that?) and would just release the information as fast as they can verify it. The difference? The focus of this./ article is about how names of informants and the like has been leaked and can therefore be a danger to said informants. The focus is not on, say, what methods were used to make said informants talk or how evidence was collected to nail a criminal. The former has nothing to do with how wikileaks operates, the latter does.
This "leak" is a world apart from what wikileaks does and makes an unfair comparison that deviles what wikileak does.
That said, it is understandable that any unwilling exposure of a large amount of information is mislabeled "wikileaks-style" simply due to the sheer association between wikileaks and leaks in general these days... But visibility doesn't make it a correct association.
More correctly: "Yeah, why should we have access to the source material of what the journalists claim? I'm feeling perfectly fine getting fed propaganda by Fox!" But really, journalists do serve an important function as distillers of information, but they do not have an inherent right to information over anyone else because of this.
A good while ago now, but it started out as such. I don't know if you knew that already or if you're being sarcastic; if the latter let me further elaborate: WikiLeaks originally functioned like a wiki, thus its name. It no longer does, but now the name sticks. Contrast this to OpenLeaks, which starts out from the beginning with the statement that they won't release directly to the public but rather to someone they choose. Yeah, real "open" there from the start.
That aside I do think it is a good thing that more organisations like these spring up, but OpenLeaks can hardly claim the first part of their name.
I see your distinction. I don't quite agree with it, but I see where you're coming from. The rest is shades of subjectivity. I personally think people ought to soak the stuff when it is obviously not malicious and give the benefit of doubt when it is not quite clear. Rather weather the humour instead of risking being cross about somebody being light-hearted.
I personally don't really prefer those kinds of jokes, unless the situation makes the juxtaposition really humourous, but my point (that you're either failing to grasp or sarcastically ignoring) is that an censoring attitude to any kind of joke that offends you is a slipperly slope to disallow any jokes regardless of subject.
True. I can agree with moderation. But I personally prefer a humouring community to a sterile one.
Thing is, if you want something disallowed because it offends you it is a slippery slope from there to disallow jokes overall. As some of the "rougher" jokes gets pushed out, the standard for what is a "rough" joke gets lowered and with an attitude of censoring you'll soon find yourself in a community that chips away at what is allowed. Yes I'm showcasing an extreme but I'm only doing so to make a point.
Yes. I can agree with some moderation and that jokes should be without malicious intent, but the whole "thou shall not offend" attitude is a slippery slope.
I have this nice movie you really should watch. It's called Equilibrium (or Cubic in some places). I really see the great thing with no humour (and culture) that they got going. I mean really, no wars!
So in short, the 'security' of the lockdown is to cover their ass because of bad design? To continue on your example, who the hell would think it a good idea to locally define how much or how fast one may download? That should be controlled by the "server" or in this case carrier, not the client. Don't trust the client with server-critical settings!
There's no legit reason to lock down a device in such a way, other than the 'legit' reason of not wanting the user to be able to upgrade the OS without shelling out more $$$.
Hypothetical questions of how the user can use the tampered device to cause harm is bollocks. The signals are transported through the air. Use other means than locking down the device to prevent "harmful" operation, such as actually designing the server-client interface to behave intelligently.
Addendum: That said it does seem like China has some gotchas regarding terminating employees. If the local law prohibits google from doing it the way they did, then of course there is a case. If not, there isn't. In the first case they should be taking it to court, not protesting, in the latter case they should be looking for new jobs instead of protesting. In both cases, they should stop protesting.
They worked for google, they got money from google. Google got somebody else to do the work (themselves), google stopped paying a workforce no longer needed. Omfgod google is evul for not paying workforce to do nothing! Workforce doing nothing really hard! Google entitled to pay workforce doing nothing!
No seriously, you're trying to make it sound like they are entitled to something beyond their contracts. While it really suck to lose your job and I can imagine it sucking even more in China, the reality of a normal job is that you're only entitled to a paycheck for as long as you work and you're only entitled to work for as long as you're needed.
If their contracts say something else, then google is doing something illegal in the scope of the contracts. If not, you don't really have a case.
Say, by sampling randomly and not finding anything wrong or obviously framed? It is harder to fabricate such a large amount of information consistently than you might think.
If some of it is fabricated and later used to point fingers, it shouldn't be too hard for those with all the information (the military) to disassemble it, which would completely ruin wikileaks and be contrary to their mission. Oh sure, if the "fabricated" parts are never put under scrutiny we might never know! But it would also be moot, since it would never be used for anything.
Whether we agree on whether or not what he is doing currently is ethical is merely our own subjective projections of those factors and how we weigh their importance.
I can agree with most of your listed items with little to no reservation, kudos for taking the time to clarifying and itemizing your view so that it could be identified.
Regarding item 2 I completely agree that he should follow the guidelines of the shop. Else he obviously has good reason to be ashamed. It is a vendors right to dictate (within reason) the rules of his/her shop and banning electronic devices is completely reasonable. His/her shop, his/her rules.
My stance to item 4 and 6 (as you've properly guessed) is that I don't find anything unethical/wrong about the essence of what he is doing. My view is that he is simply moving goods from one market to another. If the book vendor has a reservation about it, item 5 would be a good way to go about exercising his right to have that reservation.
Basically what I get incensed about is when other people tries to dictate what one is not allowed to do when they have no right or authority to do so. The shopkeeper has that right, the customers does not.
I read and understood that. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend my comment or anything I've written thus far.
I was not at any time focusing on his special case. I don't care how he feels about his chosen trade. Many people feel bad about their trade for any given reason and many people feel good about their trade for other reasons. That's irrespective to the ETHICS of the trade in general, which is what I've been addressing and why I've made my case that he should not have any reason in GENERAL for what he is doing.
You can both be a jackass tradesman and a pleasent tradesman. It has nothing to do with the trade.
Slashdot Mirror
Except one is about being cautious and the other is about extorting legally defenseless kids of poor families. Totally the same. Not.
He threatened to do what now? As far as I'm informed, he has done no such thing. He has a death man's switch which is exactly what it says on the tin and has nothing to do with any charges leveled at him. Now, if he was to suffer an unfortunate and mysterious sudden death...
What wikileaks stands for is total transparency of how governments (and other large entities) go about their business, not total transparency in the form of all information about everybody anytime. Else wikileaks wouldn't take their time redacting information for safe public consumption (gasp! they do that?) and would just release the information as fast as they can verify it. ./ article is about how names of informants and the like has been leaked and can therefore be a danger to said informants. The focus is not on, say, what methods were used to make said informants talk or how evidence was collected to nail a criminal. The former has nothing to do with how wikileaks operates, the latter does.
The difference? The focus of this
This "leak" is a world apart from what wikileaks does and makes an unfair comparison that deviles what wikileak does.
That said, it is understandable that any unwilling exposure of a large amount of information is mislabeled "wikileaks-style" simply due to the sheer association between wikileaks and leaks in general these days... But visibility doesn't make it a correct association.
Over a 21 year period. RTFA.
Hey Bush, that you?
More correctly: "Yeah, why should we have access to the source material of what the journalists claim? I'm feeling perfectly fine getting fed propaganda by Fox!"
But really, journalists do serve an important function as distillers of information, but they do not have an inherent right to information over anyone else because of this.
A good while ago now, but it started out as such.
I don't know if you knew that already or if you're being sarcastic; if the latter let me further elaborate:
WikiLeaks originally functioned like a wiki, thus its name. It no longer does, but now the name sticks. Contrast this to OpenLeaks, which starts out from the beginning with the statement that they won't release directly to the public but rather to someone they choose. Yeah, real "open" there from the start.
That aside I do think it is a good thing that more organisations like these spring up, but OpenLeaks can hardly claim the first part of their name.
I see your distinction. I don't quite agree with it, but I see where you're coming from. The rest is shades of subjectivity. I personally think people ought to soak the stuff when it is obviously not malicious and give the benefit of doubt when it is not quite clear. Rather weather the humour instead of risking being cross about somebody being light-hearted.
I personally don't really prefer those kinds of jokes, unless the situation makes the juxtaposition really humourous, but my point (that you're either failing to grasp or sarcastically ignoring) is that an censoring attitude to any kind of joke that offends you is a slipperly slope to disallow any jokes regardless of subject.
True. I can agree with moderation. But I personally prefer a humouring community to a sterile one.
Thing is, if you want something disallowed because it offends you it is a slippery slope from there to disallow jokes overall. As some of the "rougher" jokes gets pushed out, the standard for what is a "rough" joke gets lowered and with an attitude of censoring you'll soon find yourself in a community that chips away at what is allowed. Yes I'm showcasing an extreme but I'm only doing so to make a point.
Yes. I can agree with some moderation and that jokes should be without malicious intent, but the whole "thou shall not offend" attitude is a slippery slope.
I have this nice movie you really should watch. It's called Equilibrium (or Cubic in some places). I really see the great thing with no humour (and culture) that they got going. I mean really, no wars!
Well, it doesn't cut off completely. Rather, it pointedly informs you to "hold it right" and that "you're doing it wrong!" in a condescending tone.
I'm sorry, I don't play football.
Fun fact, that's how science works. Except of course they check their sources better. Maybe. You just peer-reviewed his findings.
Hey genius!
https://github.com/JoshBlake/OpenKinect
So in short, the 'security' of the lockdown is to cover their ass because of bad design? To continue on your example, who the hell would think it a good idea to locally define how much or how fast one may download? That should be controlled by the "server" or in this case carrier, not the client. Don't trust the client with server-critical settings!
There's no legit reason to lock down a device in such a way, other than the 'legit' reason of not wanting the user to be able to upgrade the OS without shelling out more $$$.
Hypothetical questions of how the user can use the tampered device to cause harm is bollocks. The signals are transported through the air. Use other means than locking down the device to prevent "harmful" operation, such as actually designing the server-client interface to behave intelligently.
But it does train us for the future. Sometime after 2020 everybody will be able to permaroot their house in their sleep (which might be a necessity).
Addendum:
That said it does seem like China has some gotchas regarding terminating employees. If the local law prohibits google from doing it the way they did, then of course there is a case. If not, there isn't. In the first case they should be taking it to court, not protesting, in the latter case they should be looking for new jobs instead of protesting. In both cases, they should stop protesting.
They worked for google, they got money from google.
Google got somebody else to do the work (themselves), google stopped paying a workforce no longer needed.
Omfgod google is evul for not paying workforce to do nothing! Workforce doing nothing really hard! Google entitled to pay workforce doing nothing!
No seriously, you're trying to make it sound like they are entitled to something beyond their contracts. While it really suck to lose your job and I can imagine it sucking even more in China, the reality of a normal job is that you're only entitled to a paycheck for as long as you work and you're only entitled to work for as long as you're needed.
If their contracts say something else, then google is doing something illegal in the scope of the contracts. If not, you don't really have a case.
Say, by sampling randomly and not finding anything wrong or obviously framed?
It is harder to fabricate such a large amount of information consistently than you might think.
If some of it is fabricated and later used to point fingers, it shouldn't be too hard for those with all the information (the military) to disassemble it, which would completely ruin wikileaks and be contrary to their mission.
Oh sure, if the "fabricated" parts are never put under scrutiny we might never know! But it would also be moot, since it would never be used for anything.
Agreed.
Whether we agree on whether or not what he is doing currently is ethical is merely our own subjective projections of those factors and how we weigh their importance.
I can agree with most of your listed items with little to no reservation, kudos for taking the time to clarifying and itemizing your view so that it could be identified.
Regarding item 2 I completely agree that he should follow the guidelines of the shop. Else he obviously has good reason to be ashamed. It is a vendors right to dictate (within reason) the rules of his/her shop and banning electronic devices is completely reasonable. His/her shop, his/her rules.
My stance to item 4 and 6 (as you've properly guessed) is that I don't find anything unethical/wrong about the essence of what he is doing. My view is that he is simply moving goods from one market to another. If the book vendor has a reservation about it, item 5 would be a good way to go about exercising his right to have that reservation.
Basically what I get incensed about is when other people tries to dictate what one is not allowed to do when they have no right or authority to do so. The shopkeeper has that right, the customers does not.
*in general to feel bad about what he is doing.
I read and understood that. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend my comment or anything I've written thus far.
I was not at any time focusing on his special case. I don't care how he feels about his chosen trade. Many people feel bad about their trade for any given reason and many people feel good about their trade for other reasons. That's irrespective to the ETHICS of the trade in general, which is what I've been addressing and why I've made my case that he should not have any reason in GENERAL for what he is doing.
You can both be a jackass tradesman and a pleasent tradesman. It has nothing to do with the trade.