Snarky quips do not make an argument. I have pointed out that the issue of an unlawful order has little to do with this situation. Granted - I did do it in a snarky way myself. But at least my point was a bit more involved than your equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I."
I'm not surprised. But what I do see is this cult of personality around Assange and Wikileaks that ignores any possibilities outside the narrow scope of people's ideal in what both of those are or represent. What's interesting is watching how those ideals fail to match reality to such an extent that even Wikileaks itself no longer conforms to those ideals. Yet we're going to still hear very emotional, well-worded appeals about a Wikileaks that no longer exists (and denials that Assange can do any wrong).
And this is the problem right here. This isn't about reasoned consideration of the issues or a thoughtful movement towards justice. It is an emotional thrashing about that rivals mindless patriotism and religious zealotry; cheer on anything that aligns with your position and demonize anything that does not.
It looks like Assange is trying to set up Wikileaks as a Reuters-like news agency for leaks. That does seem like the best way to guarantee global coverage but it's also pretty far from the original concept which might explain the recent disillusionment of Some of Wikileaks' collaborators
The documentary I saw (which is often re-posted by Wikileaks supporters without this part) has those disillusioned individuals first complaining about Assange's focus of resources on the US cable leaks / "collateral murder" guncamera footage and then Assange's handling of that criticism (I believe the quote was "piss off").
Consider that cable about US Treasury funds ultimately being used to buy children for sex. If you have knowledge of that crime, Nuremberg tells us that you damned well better NOT follow orders, and you better to the right thing...
Yes, never mind that Manning was not ordered to commit that crime. Never mind that manning had no first-hand knowledge of the crime. Never mind that the crime happened outside US jurisdiction and was being handled by the country in question. Lets invoke Nuremberg and raise Manning up on a pedestal as a hero.
...which is precisely what makes a meta-news-organization like wikileaks so different. They're not trying to protect anyone: they reveal everything and let the consequences be responsible for themselves.
Except that they are now vetting their releases through news organizations in the attempt to avoid criticism over providing names of informants like they did their last release. They are certainly protecting people now. They are certainly revealing less than "everything". And they seem to be much more interested in consequences than originally stated.
There is absolutely nothing here which indicates what you're saying. That's just pro-piracy hyperbole. Like it or not, IP is a significant contributor to much of the world's economy. Protecting jobs and by extension the economy is actually an excellent idea. The benefactors of such efforts include both small and large companies - and even individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors.
Hyperbole - the game anyone can play. You've had your turn, me next.
I agree. Since money is the only moral factor to consider here, I'm looking forward to when governments begin to protect the narcotics industry. Narcotics are a significant portion of many economies and is intertwined with much of the world's economy. Narcotics are a benefit to large and small crime syndicates and even benefits individual dealers and users.
You're using fear words like "terror" as if that should invoke something. I suspect you're confused. Let me re-hash my points so you don't overlook them.
Google is doing nothing overtly strange. The war-driving Google was doing is no different than the war-driving thousands of others are doing. I do it because I find it interesting to see what's out there. Google does it because it wants to map whats out there and use it as another source for geolocation. In both cases, the "personal data" that's being picked up is accidental.
Why do I say your concerns are misplaced? Because, as far as I can tell, you're misguided in to thinking Google is running around logging personal information and feeding it in to their vast data trove. Of course - that's my assumption because, despite your snarky comments on me "ploinking" your points, you haven't made much of an effort yourself at explaining your point and are rather quick to dismiss anything that doesn't fall in line with your general fear-of-Google line.
I should point out to you that war-driving is an ineffective way to gather information. You will, by chance, pick up bits and pieces here and there; an email password, maybe a partial web page, etc. Most of the packet capture is going to be pretty useless. Part of that is due to moving around and altering signal strength. A lot of it is due to the need to hop channels to find access points. If you really wanted to gather data, you would war drive first to identify your target and then sit stationary at a target for an extended period of time to capture traffic. I have seen nothing that indicates that this is what Google was doing.
And so, with further clarification in mind, I repeat... I get your concern for privacy but I find it misplaced. You really should worry more about people like me. Or, worse yet, people with the same basic skillset as me but motivated to do something nefarious with that skillset.
Of course the difference is the MASSIVE SCALE of google's sniffing operations. Fun fact for you: there's a difference between one guy sniffing around in his neighborhood, and one of the biggest companies in the world or a huge government sniffing out everybody, by design and system.
Fair enough point. But scale alone does change things. What's legal for me is legal for Google.
Of course you are going to disagree, but you won't explain what political advantage there was to be gained anyway either, because there is none, and empirically the government is proven not to give a sh*t about your privacy or your perception about them giving a sh*t about your privacy.
You're entirely wrong. Public officials care very much about perception. They do a lot of things for perception alone. They may not care about a particular individual. But they will do things to make large groups of people feel good about them and their job (or future jobs).
Let me put it another way. Port scanning and scanning for security bugs is not illegal. What if google or the government scanned EVERY computer for such things, whether they are open, and read and store as much as they can off the harddrive such as passwords and private information? I guess if you're a fanboy, you'd find that just fine, because some hobbyist can scan a port as well. It would scare the hell out of a normal person.
You're probably going to be terrified at what you find at google.com then. They scan open systems every day. Put in the right search and you'll find passwords and other private information.
Wouldn't the state just extradite and prosecute? What is different in the process for a corporation?
They would ignore it. Fun fact for you: Google was doing the same thing thousands of hobbiests are doing every day using the same tools. But it's different for Google since there's political hay to be made.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Think about that for a minute. "Doing some research" does not mean you're well informed or otherwise any less clueless for the effort. Consider all the psuedo-science and crack-pot conspiracy sites out there - and the people who swear those are The Truth They Don't Want You to Know.
You're actually cutting edge. You've out-sourced your personal information security and set up a fully flexible payment schedule to support it. You're clearly executive material and deserve that Rolux you've had your eye on.
I believe that War Games vs Sneakers would be a far more interesting match up.
I don't often hear people call out Sneakers as being an inspiration. Wargames was for me and I've seen that I'm not alone in that. I was rather shocked to find out Hackers is for others.
Sneakers was a good film, though. I'd put closer in my personal list to Wargames.
The point is, once it's actually been published in the NYT, what's the point of considering it classified anymore? What damage could possibly be done that hasn't already?
To some extent, you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't whether information has been leaked. The issue is what the classification of the document is. Until that classification is changed, the document is handled accordingly. It isn't up to the rank-and-file to determine whether a classification should or shouldn't be adhered to. The rules don't change because the situation is not normal.
It seems to me if everyone else in the world has it, that it should be automatically considered declassified.
There's a difference between the classification of the document and the information the document contains. Information may be out in the public or in an adversary's hands. But the document remains classified until it is unclassified. The rank-and-file are required to continue handling the document accordingly. Another way of looking at it is that uncovering classified information by sourcing unclassified sources does not alter the classification of a document. It may be part of the process to decide to re-classify. But it is not automatic.
Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!
Eh. I admit to being too busy / lazy right now to go through point-by-point on this yet again. I believe I've done it several years ago during another conversation about this particular work. If one can't find my own writings, there's plenty of others (if you can weed out the foaming-at-the-mouth neocons who revel in reviling Moore). I suggest other readers do the same and not simply react to Moore because his politics do or do not fall in line with yours.
Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.
Michael Moore does not lie. But he is a master of mis-direction. Fahrenheit 911 was a great example of his craft and modern propaganda. It implies so many things that simply were not said. But I'll still run in to people today who use that film as a basis for completely false understandings based on what they thought the film said.
Slashdot Mirror
Another pithy quip with no actual argument. How surprising.
Snarky quips do not make an argument. I have pointed out that the issue of an unlawful order has little to do with this situation. Granted - I did do it in a snarky way myself. But at least my point was a bit more involved than your equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I."
I'm not surprised. But what I do see is this cult of personality around Assange and Wikileaks that ignores any possibilities outside the narrow scope of people's ideal in what both of those are or represent. What's interesting is watching how those ideals fail to match reality to such an extent that even Wikileaks itself no longer conforms to those ideals. Yet we're going to still hear very emotional, well-worded appeals about a Wikileaks that no longer exists (and denials that Assange can do any wrong).
OK, if you insist.
And this is the problem right here. This isn't about reasoned consideration of the issues or a thoughtful movement towards justice. It is an emotional thrashing about that rivals mindless patriotism and religious zealotry; cheer on anything that aligns with your position and demonize anything that does not.
It looks like Assange is trying to set up Wikileaks as a Reuters-like news agency for leaks. That does seem like the best way to guarantee global coverage but it's also pretty far from the original concept which might explain the recent disillusionment of Some of Wikileaks' collaborators
The documentary I saw (which is often re-posted by Wikileaks supporters without this part) has those disillusioned individuals first complaining about Assange's focus of resources on the US cable leaks / "collateral murder" guncamera footage and then Assange's handling of that criticism (I believe the quote was "piss off").
Consider that cable about US Treasury funds ultimately being used to buy children for sex. If you have knowledge of that crime, Nuremberg tells us that you damned well better NOT follow orders, and you better to the right thing...
Yes, never mind that Manning was not ordered to commit that crime. Never mind that manning had no first-hand knowledge of the crime. Never mind that the crime happened outside US jurisdiction and was being handled by the country in question. Lets invoke Nuremberg and raise Manning up on a pedestal as a hero.
...which is precisely what makes a meta-news-organization like wikileaks so different. They're not trying to protect anyone: they reveal everything and let the consequences be responsible for themselves.
Except that they are now vetting their releases through news organizations in the attempt to avoid criticism over providing names of informants like they did their last release. They are certainly protecting people now. They are certainly revealing less than "everything". And they seem to be much more interested in consequences than originally stated.
There is absolutely nothing here which indicates what you're saying. That's just pro-piracy hyperbole. Like it or not, IP is a significant contributor to much of the world's economy. Protecting jobs and by extension the economy is actually an excellent idea. The benefactors of such efforts include both small and large companies - and even individual artists, musicians, programmers, and inventors.
Hyperbole - the game anyone can play. You've had your turn, me next.
I agree. Since money is the only moral factor to consider here, I'm looking forward to when governments begin to protect the narcotics industry. Narcotics are a significant portion of many economies and is intertwined with much of the world's economy. Narcotics are a benefit to large and small crime syndicates and even benefits individual dealers and users.
It has been said that a good thing is capable of selling itself.
And yet various technical industries are paved with good products that failed in the market. Huh.
There are a number of /. readers who should kill you where you stand.
You're using fear words like "terror" as if that should invoke something. I suspect you're confused. Let me re-hash my points so you don't overlook them.
Google is doing nothing overtly strange. The war-driving Google was doing is no different than the war-driving thousands of others are doing. I do it because I find it interesting to see what's out there. Google does it because it wants to map whats out there and use it as another source for geolocation. In both cases, the "personal data" that's being picked up is accidental.
Why do I say your concerns are misplaced? Because, as far as I can tell, you're misguided in to thinking Google is running around logging personal information and feeding it in to their vast data trove. Of course - that's my assumption because, despite your snarky comments on me "ploinking" your points, you haven't made much of an effort yourself at explaining your point and are rather quick to dismiss anything that doesn't fall in line with your general fear-of-Google line.
I should point out to you that war-driving is an ineffective way to gather information. You will, by chance, pick up bits and pieces here and there; an email password, maybe a partial web page, etc. Most of the packet capture is going to be pretty useless. Part of that is due to moving around and altering signal strength. A lot of it is due to the need to hop channels to find access points. If you really wanted to gather data, you would war drive first to identify your target and then sit stationary at a target for an extended period of time to capture traffic. I have seen nothing that indicates that this is what Google was doing.
And so, with further clarification in mind, I repeat... I get your concern for privacy but I find it misplaced. You really should worry more about people like me. Or, worse yet, people with the same basic skillset as me but motivated to do something nefarious with that skillset.
Pointing at others, are you?
No. Pointing at me. I'm one of those people.
Of course the difference is the MASSIVE SCALE of google's sniffing operations. Fun fact for you: there's a difference between one guy sniffing around in his neighborhood, and one of the biggest companies in the world or a huge government sniffing out everybody, by design and system.
Fair enough point. But scale alone does change things. What's legal for me is legal for Google.
Of course you are going to disagree, but you won't explain what political advantage there was to be gained anyway either, because there is none, and empirically the government is proven not to give a sh*t about your privacy or your perception about them giving a sh*t about your privacy.
You're entirely wrong. Public officials care very much about perception. They do a lot of things for perception alone. They may not care about a particular individual. But they will do things to make large groups of people feel good about them and their job (or future jobs).
Let me put it another way. Port scanning and scanning for security bugs is not illegal. What if google or the government scanned EVERY computer for such things, whether they are open, and read and store as much as they can off the harddrive such as passwords and private information? I guess if you're a fanboy, you'd find that just fine, because some hobbyist can scan a port as well. It would scare the hell out of a normal person.
You're probably going to be terrified at what you find at google.com then. They scan open systems every day. Put in the right search and you'll find passwords and other private information.
I get your concern. But it is misplaced.
Wouldn't the state just extradite and prosecute? What is different in the process for a corporation?
They would ignore it. Fun fact for you: Google was doing the same thing thousands of hobbiests are doing every day using the same tools. But it's different for Google since there's political hay to be made.
Well I'd prefer them doing some research rather than being a clueless bunch of fucks who make their decision about my freedom based on a hunch.
Think about that for a minute. "Doing some research" does not mean you're well informed or otherwise any less clueless for the effort. Consider all the psuedo-science and crack-pot conspiracy sites out there - and the people who swear those are The Truth They Don't Want You to Know.
You're actually cutting edge. You've out-sourced your personal information security and set up a fully flexible payment schedule to support it. You're clearly executive material and deserve that Rolux you've had your eye on.
Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?
Part of the problem is expecting there to be just two sides of a story and then arbitrarily picking what the other side is.
Right. Sort of my point. Wargames compares closer to Hackers than it does Sneakers.
I believe that War Games vs Sneakers would be a far more interesting match up.
I don't often hear people call out Sneakers as being an inspiration. Wargames was for me and I've seen that I'm not alone in that. I was rather shocked to find out Hackers is for others.
Sneakers was a good film, though. I'd put closer in my personal list to Wargames.
Of course I also like that "Would You Like to Play A Game?" movie so maybe my taste's just bad. (shrug) Reminds me of my youth.
I propose a new flame war: War Games vs. Hackers. I'm firmly in the War Games camp and find Hackers to be an unintentional comedy.
The point is, once it's actually been published in the NYT, what's the point of considering it classified anymore? What damage could possibly be done that hasn't already?
To some extent, you're asking the wrong question. The issue isn't whether information has been leaked. The issue is what the classification of the document is. Until that classification is changed, the document is handled accordingly. It isn't up to the rank-and-file to determine whether a classification should or shouldn't be adhered to. The rules don't change because the situation is not normal.
Ah, so when the Taliban do read them and the US forces don't, it will put the Americans at an advantage?
Yes - because the people who had a need to know didn't already have access to these documents. Like... say... a young intel analyst.
It seems to me if everyone else in the world has it, that it should be automatically considered declassified.
There's a difference between the classification of the document and the information the document contains. Information may be out in the public or in an adversary's hands. But the document remains classified until it is unclassified. The rank-and-file are required to continue handling the document accordingly. Another way of looking at it is that uncovering classified information by sourcing unclassified sources does not alter the classification of a document. It may be part of the process to decide to re-classify. But it is not automatic.
Again with the generalities. Micheal Moore IS good, not only can he manipulate people, he can evidently erase all evidence of manipulation from their brains, rendering them incapable of even pointing out HOW they had been manipulated! The man is an evil genius!
Eh. I admit to being too busy / lazy right now to go through point-by-point on this yet again. I believe I've done it several years ago during another conversation about this particular work. If one can't find my own writings, there's plenty of others (if you can weed out the foaming-at-the-mouth neocons who revel in reviling Moore). I suggest other readers do the same and not simply react to Moore because his politics do or do not fall in line with yours.
9/11 just happened, and it wasn't anything seriously enough happening to require our President's attention?!? God damn man, seriously?!?!?
The United States is not a micro-manage Real Time Strategy game.
Please point out where MM is lying. I hear this all the time, but his work has been fact checked left, right, up, down and sideways and no one can find the glaring lies that some people claim are there. Please, you seem quite upset by him, so I just know you have actual factual, verifiable examples of him lying.
Michael Moore does not lie. But he is a master of mis-direction. Fahrenheit 911 was a great example of his craft and modern propaganda. It implies so many things that simply were not said. But I'll still run in to people today who use that film as a basis for completely false understandings based on what they thought the film said.