It is different, actually. If you have an iPhone/iPod/iPad, you have two options: install apps from Apple's app store, or jailbreak your phone and get your apps "black market" style. It's as if you had bought a lawnmower at Sears and now you can only buy fuel for it at Sears, or in the black market.
Yeah yeah you can get an Android, I know (I do have an Android). The thing is, as a developer, if you want to enter the mobile app market today, your app has to run on iOS. And it's a lot of effort that can just go to waste if Apple decides to just remove your app from the store one day without any justification whatsoever.
That is only true if you were required to purchase and use the iPhone. There are even more options than Android. Microsoft just announce they are going to allow the porn game on their new kinnect. So, should people be calling for a boycott of Microsoft now, too (based on this decision of theirs)?
The sad thing, really, is that people really, truly believe that they have no choice but Apple products. They do. The question is whether they have the fortitude to live up to their own ideals. If not, then they are no different that Apple, Paypal, MC/VISA.
And let us not forget that this app was only in the store for about a week, so it is doubtful that there were too many purchasers of iPhones solely because of its existence. In addition, the app was not even sponsored by Wikileaks, but a third party developer.
Maybe the laws are different over there, but the last I check here, knowingly accepting stolen property is still a crime.
Why do people keep bringing this one up? The data in the stolen cables is not property because the US government can not have copyright to anything, and data is not property if it is not under copyright. Transferring classified materials is usually only a crime if you had clearance to receive the materials in the first place. The exceptions to that rule probably don't apply to Assange.
Do I need to say this on every Wikileaks thread?
The bigger picture is that this is just another step on the road towards fascism, where all the corporations line up to show that they are on the side of the government. In return the corporations hope to get greater influence over government regulations, government policy and the flow of government dollars.
You know, if Assange or Wikileaks was being accused of copyright infringement, your position would make sense, but they aren't and as such, such a point isn't germane. Copyright has nothing to do with the legality of releasing government documents, otherwise, tax returns and health records would be legal to release. It is true that the US government does not rely on copyright for its protection of data, they have other statutes, which trump copyright.
But back to the original point. Are you saying that a business should not have the right to determine what products they choose to produce or sell?
Which is funny, because Julian Assange and Wikileaks didn't steal anything... the documents were given to them by a third party, widely believed to be Bradley Manning. Wikileaks is guilty only of receiving the data and publishing the parts they feel are morally justifiable to make public, not stealing, and not espionage, and certainly not treason (they aren't even eligible to commit that one).
Deep Throat provided stolen, classified documents... nobody calls for the heads of Woodward and Bernstein.
Maybe the laws are different over there, but the last I check here, knowingly accepting stolen property is still a crime. Is Assange or Wikileaks benefiting financially from the use of the stolen property? If so, then how is it different than a fence who re-sells the stolen property that has come into their possession.
The fact that they may be journalists does not make them above the law (ask Woodward and Bernstein). How many journalists have been in jail for failing to name a source? While it is true that many undercover journalists do not go to jail for their actions, there isn't any protection for them, only an unwillingness by a prosecutor to prosecute them.
Assange and Wikileaks, as journalists, are free to publish what they see fit. Assange and Wikileaks, as journalists, are also free to experience the consequences of exercising their freedom.
How is Apple choosing what to sell in their app store any different than Sears choosing what to sell in their stores? I really wish Sears would sell some things that they don't, should I ask everyone to "shout a bit" to remind the public too? If you don't like Apple, or their products, or their App Store, fine, don't buy from them.
[quote] It seems to me that ordinary users are bumping up against the walls of the garden more and more often now [/quote]
No, ordinary users aren't bumping up against anything./. users are anything but ordinary users, regardless of the platform in question.
Hmmm. divulging that one of the political aids has a brain tumor that may not be treatable and another is suspected of having HIV, seems to be both personal and private information. In addition, do you think that if a congressman or prime minister was accused of these charges that Wikileaks would not release it? The reason Wikileaks didn't release a story about Tiger Woods is because, if you aren't the first to release it, then it's not really a leak, is it?
Wikileaks can serve a noble purpose, and I believe they do, however, they can just as easily server other purposes. There are always consequences for one's actions and what is noble for one person may not be for another. Wikileaks tries and takes the approach that they are just releasing information and it is up to the readers or others to determine what to do with it. However, that is a pretty naive attitude to take when real people's lives are involved.
Assange is upset that his personal information regarding the alleged sexual misconduct got released. I imagine the same can be said for anyone arrested of DWI or any criminal charges. Yes, they may be innocent until proven guilty (in the US, anyway), but the arrest and leveling of charges are public and put in the local newspaper. However, what he has done, through Wikileaks is even more insidious - if you had cancer, or were gay, or had HIV, how would you feel if your friends, family, coworkers, the whole damn world found out about it from something like Wikileaks, just because you happen to be associated with some government. I'm sure the world is a much better place knowing that some aide, whatever her name is, will be spending her last Christmas with her family as she isn't expected to live another year. But then, Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of individuals, so I guess, somebody else did under their name.
No, there is no difference, at least not how Assange publishes information on Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a real organization, just like many corporations. Are you saying that leaks relating to illicit activity of, say the head of a major bank should not be published? Even if that is what you are saying, Wikileaks begs to differ. In the recent cable leaks, was a lot of information relating to individuals health conditions, medical records, affairs, etc. Why should the head of Wikileaks be allowed a pass, when the people he reports on aren't?
And before anybody comments, that in Assange's case, they are trumped up charges by the CIA or some government, please don't. The charges against him were filed before his current leaks which are pissing off many a government, particularly the US. Besides, do you really think if the CIA was clairvoyant, they wouldn't use this ability on something more important like Iraq or Afghanistan?
Whether what he did with the two woman is right or wrong, is up for the Swedish court system to decide. Releasing information about the case, while embarrassing for him, is no different than what he does. Heck, for all we know, his organization is the leak, so he can claim he can't get a fair trial now that the info is out.
Personally, I think that if the women's accounts are true, he should be held accountable. I'm pretty sure, as is the case with the second woman, that having sex while one is asleep, means it is not consensual. If the prime minister of some country had done it, Wikileaks would be all over it. There is an old saying about people in glass houses and stones.
This is fact. The public must know everything. I focus on worng doing because this is what is usualy hidden from the public. Good deed are always get extensive publicity for re-election purpose.
It is not fact at all (that the public must know of everything). It only applies in our western culture. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans, of which much of our culture is based on did not subscribe to that notion. Even in the US, that is not totally true, which is why some congressional meetings and even state and local government meetings are permitted to be behind closed doors and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
I agree whole heartedly that the government needs to be transparent. However, individuals do not have a right to know everything going on. There are cases where the common good or security preclude the desire to have access to everything. I will also concede that the government, at least the US government, tries to hide behind withholding information because of national security. Since the information is withheld, makes it hard to tell they are being truthful about it. But that does not change the real fact that some information needs to be withheld and therefore, we as individuals do not have a right to total access of government documents.
Case in point, not health related, and also not national security. A child is put up for adoption and the mother asks to have the records sealed, which are then sealed. 20 years later the child wants to find his/her birth mother and wants access to those records. Is it granted? Currently, it depends on what state you are in, but it is a possibility. Now, take it one step further, Wikileaks or some other group gets a hold of adoption records and wants to publish them, they are, after all government documents. Should they be allowed to?
Another case, John Doe is a criminal but testifies and enters the witness protection program. He builds a comfortable and successful life. Should Wikileaks be able to publish his file, if they came into possession of it, because, again, it is a government record?
If the answer to either of those above scenarios is "No," then you have to admit that the public does not have the right to every piece of information the government has. I know that those are two specific cases, but as soon as you start having to add exceptions to the rule ("The public has the right to everything except for..."), then you don't have a rule at all.
Why raising FUD then? If you got real criticism(eg: more then "i suspect") please say it or just let Wikileak do its job. If they ever cross the boundary you will know. When that happen, Julian Assange will get arrested for the actual Wikileak publication, not questioned about unrelated claims in hope to discredit him. (And, leaders health issue is non-issue, see above)
I don't think I am raising FUD. However, with regards to Mr. Assange, unless he is the one directly breaking the law, I don't see him being prosecuted for anything. When the Pentegon Papers broke, the publisher of the paper didn't go to jail. Mr. Assange is the publisher, it wouldn't be him going to jail, but one of the underlings.
With regard to his current legal problems, they were there before his recent leaks against the US government. The only thing that has changed is that the leak made him famous in a much broader circle than before (really, prior to the most recent leak, most people didn't even know what Wikileaks was, let alone who he is). So, now, that he is famous, his private life is coming under public scrutiny just like anyone else's who is famous.
If being in the spotlight is uncomfortable for him, then he should be reminded that he is only feeling the public scrutiny that he brings to all of those people he reports on. Just as an elected official chooses to run for office and basically give up any real sense of privacy, so to has Mr. Assange, given the nature of the business he has chosen to be in. Same for Dan Rather, Rush Limbaugh or any other public person.
Wikileaks is not a US operation. Also, Assange is not a US citizen. USG has zero authority over them. Why do you think he's being chased internationally by those ridiculous "the condom broke" swedish warrants? That's the USG pressuring other governments to "do something." If the USG had actual authority over either the leak operation or Assange, he'd have been in Guantanamo already. Best they could do was dig into the guy's sex life and try to shitcan his reputation.
Since the charges were actually filed against him by the swedes, prior to the release of the US documents, I can't buy that the US was behind it. His own publicity and popularity is what brought his sex life to the the public eye, much like any celebrity now a days. But, unless you think the US government is clairvoyant and got the swedes to file the charges a couple of months before the leaks, I don't see how they are behind his current sex scandal legal problems.
So, are you saying that it is alright to publish information that is obtained by violating people's rights? Would it be okay for the media to report on the names of, say rape victims? If we can agree for a moment that rape victims are entitled to their privacy and it is alright not to disclose their identity, then why is it alright to disclose information regarding the physical and mental health of the leaders of other countries? Obviously, people were quite upset when the rape charges were disclosed against the founder of Wikileaks. And yet, he was a person of interest by the authorities before the latest leaks.
Why is it okay to disclose the government interactions of some people and not others? I ask this seriously. Dont' all people have basic human rights? Until the moral/ethical dilemma is resolved, groups like Wikileaks will always be in hot water and called on the carpet for it.
As for the government not being protected, that is true, but it's employees are. The cables and emails were created by human beings, some of which (not all) were in the employ of the government. However, do we really want to take the approach that how those individual people communicate with each other should be carefully worded and screened, because their private emails and cables may one day be released? These were not official communiques of the government which would be public. Many of these documents are people's personal email and observations. A fast portion of it is not even work related. Do not government workers still have protections under the bill of rights? What about the people mentioned in these emails and cables? While it may be interesting to know that the health of a world leader is failing, isn't that individual human being afforded the basic right of having his or her health issues be private. And if not, then why are yours or mine considered private and not theirs?
As for Wikileak not accessing the information directly and therefore not applying to them. That sounds like a defense the government would use. "Yes, sir, we have your private information, but that is okay, because technically, we weren't the ones who took it, we simply came into possession of it and published it for the world to see." Wikileaks depends on and encourages people to give them the information they publish. As such, they cannot claim innocence as if this just somehow fell on their doorstep accidentally.
I am not saying that they should or should not do what they do. I am only saying that if it is a violation of somebody else's rights and they are encouraging people to do it, then they themselves are violating people's rights.
The whole Wikileaks thing has opened up a can of worms with the availability of information available on the internet -- whether obtain legally or not. One danger of the way Wikileaks operates is that by indiscriminately releasing information obtained from government sources, that these same governments will crack down and increase security so that when there really is something germain and important that needs to be reported, it will no longer be possible to get that information.
It is impressive that Wikileaks was able to obtain all those documents. Unfortunately, in winning the battle of proving they could publish it all, they may have lost the war for the rest of us by making real information that much harder to get. (Which I know has nothing to do with the actual topic of violation of rights, but those are my concerns).
Wikileak did not violate any person's right. These documents was taken from the government, which is not a person. Governements has no right to privacy. In fact, they have a duty of transparency.
So reporting on the health issues of world leaders, who are persons, does not violate anyone's rights? Hardly.
Governement's wrong doing must be know to the public.
That is a value statement and not a statement of law or fact. I happen to agree with the statement, but it has no basis is anything.
This is how democracy work. Leaks are important to journalists, good journalism are important to democracy. What Wikileak publish is important.
This has nothing specific to democracy, nor is the United States government a democracy (it is a republic). If it were a democracy, then we wouldn't need a congress as the people would vote on everything. Instead, they locally elect people to represent them in the republic.
Regardless, while leaks may be important to journalists, they are not a required for good journalism to occur. They are only useful for investigative journalism, which very often, these days, has a political agenda associated with it and therefore is more appropriately investigative editorialism.
As many of Wikileaks releases deal with countries that are ruled by dictators, it seems that the leaks are more conducive to making their governments more transparent, versus democratic/republic ones.
Yes, the government is not a person in the human sense, neither is a corporation, but in the legal sense, they are a person. And legal entities have protections under the constitution, too.
While it would be naive to assume that journalist could report on everything that needed to be reported on through overt means (versus covert means and leaks). Putting journalistic freedom at a higher power than the people, then just makes the journalists the tyrant versus the king or the government.
There must be a proper balance. I am not saying that Wikileaks crossed that boundary, although I suspect they have in some of their reporting (again, people's personal health histories come to mind).
People, both human and corporate/government have certain rights and expectations of privacy. People also have the right to know what their government is doing (again, a value judgment, but a pretty commonly accepted principle).
So, the question really is about whether the people's right to know outweighs the individual's right to privacy. It is a difficult question and a slippery slope. Particularly when it comes to who is the final arbitrator when there is a conflict.
For instance, would people be so worked up and fighting for the freedom to release the current set of Wikileak documents if instead of Wikileaks, it was Fox News that had obtained the information and was now in trouble. I doubt it.
Anyway, in summary, a free press is good for all types of governments, not just democracies. But, the free press needs to be balanced against the individuals own rights. If there are no checks and balances, if the press is not held accountable, then they just become the new tyrant instead of the government.
Their current "leaks", you know, the ones causing all of the current controversy, are from cables and emails. Last I checked, the State Department did not give their consent to the release.
So, are you saying that only the government can violate a person's rights? Sure seems that the US Supreme Court deals with a lot more than just government cases.
So it is a violation of my constitutional rights for the government to access my email without my consent or a warrant. Why, then, is it alright for Wikileaks to do it?
Is it just me or does any of this sound familiar. It seems ever since the data center lost control of the data by the introduction of those toys (called the personal computer, back in the day), they've been trying to get it back. We've had citrix servers, remote access, thin clients, etc. Everything with the notion that all you need is a dumb terminal or a scaled down pc not much more than a dumb terminal and everything you need will be taken care of on the back end.
We've seen that model fail over and over, why would cloud computing, using the internet instead of coax or leased lines be any different? If you like the idea of somebody else having the ultimate control of your data and how you can access it, great, go for it. However, if you are concerned with who at google, or wherever has access to your data, what will they do with it, etc., then why would you ever want this. Wasn't it the slashdot crowd that was upset not too long ago because google was scanning emails for marketing purposes? What will happen when they do it to your corporate documents and corporate emails?
Thin clients were supposed to hold down costs, eliminate upgrade headaches and make everyone more productive. That didn't happen. Now we are told that cloud computing is the answer, and yet, all it is is repackaging of the old thin client model, but run on a public network with a third party corporation serving up your data. And this is supposed to be good, how?
I heard similar arguments in the 1980s that the mainframe was dead. Still seams to be a lot of mainframe jobs out there. Because consumers have switched from creating something with their computers to being consumers of information doesn't mean that is the case in the business world. My android phone is great and fun to use, but I sure would hate to have to create a legal brief on it (or even to review one).
Normally, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Mr. Stallman, but in this case, I think he's spot on. First, it is nice to have access to your data anywhere you might be, on the other hand, the first rule in securing data is to limit access to it. If I'm at the local coffee shop, using an internet cafe computer, how do I know what has been cached or not locally. I don't, which means I should assume that everything is (from a security perspective) and not do anything that might disclose sensitive information like bank accounts and passwords. Oh, wait, to use the cloud services, I have to enter my password, so right there is a potential security problem.
In arguing against Mr. Stallman's position, many point out how the use of computers has changed since the internet and how everything is now in the cloud. That might be fine if you are updating FB or tweeting, etc. But if you are a business, do you really want your employees transmitting sensitive corporate information over unsecure and unencrypted lines? Plus, in the past, if the salesperson lost their laptop, their data was exposed. Now, if they lose it, the data of everything they might have access to on the corporate site is exposed.
Also, for cloud computing to really be effective, people need broadband. Didn't they just report, yesterday, that 68% of the country (US) does not have access to broadband (3mbit or greater speed)?
Cloud computing sounds like a great idea, but, how do you secure the data? Is everyone going to have a FOB, like a lot of banks use for online banking? What about when the cloud is unavailable (anybody hear about the DOS attacks by anonymous)? The current notion of storing everything on the internet on somebody else's server doesn't seem like the most logical thing in the world (other than from a marketing perspective).
I wonder if Wikileaks had been using chromeOS and was accused of violated google's acceptable use policy, what would have happened to their data. We've already seen what happened to their funds with paypal and the major credit cards. Why would we think google would be any different?
Isolationism works great as long as everyone else leaves, you alone, too. However, most isolationists still want the rest of the world to come to their aid when times are bad or they need something. How would the US be different if they didn't get oil and raw materials from other countries? We'd still have an industrial/agrarian economy with a lot of manual labor, no exports or imports. But, at least it would be of our own doing. The good news about such a system, is that there would also probably be a lot fewer mouths to feed in the US, because they'd be cut off from medical advances and research from other countries. Most isolationists only mean it when they have the upper hand in the equation.
That is only one way to have your voice heard. When the printing press first became available, it too was a controlled resource, but that didn't stop people from still using the written word or their voice in the public square. The US's declaration of independence did not depend on the printing press, even though by then it was readily available.
are you aware that you are showing 1410 as a reference, and justifying the LACK of freedom in today, by that date.
excuse me, but you are referencing fucking high middle ages in which feudal barons and lords ruled the land, and catholic church was still in power. (renaissance was just starting).
so, you are basically saying that, we have as much freedom as high middle ages, AND THIS IS NORMAL.
Now, don't get me wrong, having a few corporations able to control everything is a problem. But, what is the alternative? Having the government control access to everything? Even more of a concern, however, and this is what I believe gave Wikileaks its real power, is having just a few individuals/corporations owning most of the media outlets in the world.
the alternative is limiting any group, person, entity can grow in size.
the only reason such a max limit does not exist, is that the pioneers of economics in 18th century, were not able to foresee that small partnerships and businesses like 'huntington & bradley' could grow up to a size that would dwarf kingdoms.
because those pioneers was not able to foresee a threat to freedoms from small businesses growing as big as british empire, they thought that if there was equality in politics, and everyone free to engage in business, all would be well.
it didnt. in the size of 15 top economic entities of the world, there are at least 5 major corporations, over countries.
The fact that we are able to discuss this issue on the internet, hosted by some corporation somewhere, using god knows whose servers and infrastructure means that there still are some freedoms available.
Granted, tick off one of the major players and they may flex their muscles, but that is how it's been throughout history, whether the pharoh, the praetorium, the church, the king, the general, even the guy with the bigger stick than yours.
The difference is that in the past, power was a physical thing. Sure gold was important, but it was only important in that ultimately if you had enough of it you could raise an army to defend or force your will. In the past, might made right. Then since the enlightenment, we shifted to knowledge is power, although a couple of world wars and other conflicts still tried the old way. Now, it is the control of knowledge that is power.
But in all of those time frames, there was never the true freedom you are wanting. There was always somebody who had a say over what was done. Things have always been controlled by relatively few at the top. In the early part of the last century, it was the railroad barons (at least in the US). The controlled the movement of goods. Today, it is a few mega-corporations that control the movement or flow of information.
So, yes, it's sad to say, that things haven't really changed much since the middle ages, or even earlier.
Well, actually, there is one change. In the past, people were willing to fight and die for the little freedoms they had. Today, however, they aren't. And, because of that, those that have get more and those who don't lose what little they have.
they are choosing not to let me use their resources, but, it turns out that they are the controller of majority (dominant majority) of those resources.
that effectively ends up pushing me to, well, 'set up my printing press', or its equivalent. ironically, to be able to make my voice heard to the masses with my 'equivalent' services, i have to first BEAT those corporations so that i can actually access those resources they have been withholding of me.
so, you are basically saying, every person is free, but the PRACTICE of that freedom requires engaging in a feudal turf battle with the dominant lord in that zone.
BR. excuse me, but that kind of freedom, we had in medieval times. its 2010.
That is only one way to have your voice heard. When the printing press first became available, it too was a controlled resource, but that didn't stop people from still using the written word or their voice in the public square. The US's declaration of independence did not depend on the printing press, even though by then it was readily available.
You are only restricted in your freedoms if you are wanting to use somebody else's resources. The internet is not the only form of communication and for the most part doesn't even exist in most of the world. Heck, they don't even have electricity and running water in most of the world.
Although the barriers are higher now, the situation you describe was there long before capitalism or even feudalism. It basically is summed up by survival of the fittest. However, now, being fit has to deal with economic fitness, not physical.
But even in the current situation, you or I am still free to espouse what we want, within reason of course (no yelling Fire in a crowded theatre, etc.). What we aren't guaranteed and never have been guaranteed is to reach the whole world with what we want to espouse. Technology gives us the ability to reach the whole world easier, but it doesn't give us a right.
Now, don't get me wrong, having a few corporations able to control everything is a problem. But, what is the alternative? Having the government control access to everything? Even more of a concern, however, and this is what I believe gave Wikileaks its real power, is having just a few individuals/corporations owning most of the media outlets in the world.
If I don't like Walmart, I can still go elsewhere, but where do you go to get news and information of what is going on? The internet is the great equaliser when it comes to the dissemination of information, but as you have already stated, it, too, is really a controlled group.
So, yes, I am saying that, at least in the US, every person is free. They are also free to practice that freedom. They do not mean that others have the responsibility to pass on the content of their message, because, unfortunately, those others also have their freedoms.
So, yes, we still live in a feudal system, like in the middle ages. The difference is who is now the feudal lord.
Umm, wouldn't that be chief editor as it is the role of the editor to decide what gets printed or not. Happens everyday in every newspaper and news organisation. Why is the content on Fox News different than CNN or MSNBC? Because of the editorial policy enforced by the editor. There is no freedom of the press in the sense you or most people think of it. The only thing really different in the West versus rest of the world is that corporations get to set editorial content instead of government. But in the end, there is no real freedom of the press.
While I agree in general with what you are saying, if you are using the assets of the "corporations which dominate the economic side," why would you assume to have any freedoms?
Should not the corporation that provides the service have a say in who can use that service and how? If not, what about their freedoms? There is an old adage about not biting the hand that feeds you, so this has been around a lot longer than the rise of capitalism.
Amazon, Paypal, etc. is not stopping anyone from exercising their freedoms (most likely speech in the context of your post). They are just not choosing to let you use their resources to do it. If you want to set up your own printing press or the electronic equivelant, you are free to do so. If that is economically not feasible, that isn't because you don't have the freedom to do it, you just don't have the means.
Besides, once Amazon dropped Wikileaks, they were back up and running within 24 hours. So, it seems the system works. As for paypal, i'm sure that people who want to donate to them will find another way to do it. Nobody's freedoms have been restricted here.
If Wikileaks is encouraging people to take confidential information from their employers (corporate espionage) so they can post it AND Paypal has a policy that you cannot use a paypal account if you are encouraging people to break the law, what is the issue. If Wikileaks was the only company that paypal enforced this policy on, that would be one thing, but they have done it a number of times.
Paypal is not make a political statement, it is only enforcing it's own clearly stated policies. Mastercard, VISA and American Express all have the same policy, although Wikileaks didn't use them to solicit donation. So, if you are going to close your paypal account, you should also cancel all your credit cards, too.
Why would these pay systems do that? Could be that if Wikileaks is found to be violating the laws of some country or another that they (Paypal, credit cards, etc.) could be held liable for funnelling funds to them. Loosing a few accounts from people acting emotionally is a whole lot less painful than loosing millions in fines or being banned from operating in that country.
The good news about all of this, however, is that Wikileaks has risen to enough of threat/source (depending on how you look at it) that others are taking notice. However, that is a two edged sword because now they are being placed under the same public scrutiny that they subject others to.
Why is it amusing that they would deny a MAN MADE disaster and not one created by God? God can do anything, man is not capable of such great power. Makes perfect sense when you put the right colored lenses on.
Because they can blame God for the flood, but only have themselves to blame for global warming?
Slashdot Mirror
It is different, actually. If you have an iPhone/iPod/iPad, you have two options: install apps from Apple's app store, or jailbreak your phone and get your apps "black market" style. It's as if you had bought a lawnmower at Sears and now you can only buy fuel for it at Sears, or in the black market.
Yeah yeah you can get an Android, I know (I do have an Android). The thing is, as a developer, if you want to enter the mobile app market today, your app has to run on iOS. And it's a lot of effort that can just go to waste if Apple decides to just remove your app from the store one day without any justification whatsoever.
That is only true if you were required to purchase and use the iPhone. There are even more options than Android. Microsoft just announce they are going to allow the porn game on their new kinnect. So, should people be calling for a boycott of Microsoft now, too (based on this decision of theirs)?
The sad thing, really, is that people really, truly believe that they have no choice but Apple products. They do. The question is whether they have the fortitude to live up to their own ideals. If not, then they are no different that Apple, Paypal, MC/VISA.
And let us not forget that this app was only in the store for about a week, so it is doubtful that there were too many purchasers of iPhones solely because of its existence. In addition, the app was not even sponsored by Wikileaks, but a third party developer.
Maybe the laws are different over there, but the last I check here, knowingly accepting stolen property is still a crime.
Why do people keep bringing this one up? The data in the stolen cables is not property because the US government can not have copyright to anything, and data is not property if it is not under copyright. Transferring classified materials is usually only a crime if you had clearance to receive the materials in the first place. The exceptions to that rule probably don't apply to Assange.
Do I need to say this on every Wikileaks thread?
The bigger picture is that this is just another step on the road towards fascism, where all the corporations line up to show that they are on the side of the government. In return the corporations hope to get greater influence over government regulations, government policy and the flow of government dollars.
You know, if Assange or Wikileaks was being accused of copyright infringement, your position would make sense, but they aren't and as such, such a point isn't germane. Copyright has nothing to do with the legality of releasing government documents, otherwise, tax returns and health records would be legal to release. It is true that the US government does not rely on copyright for its protection of data, they have other statutes, which trump copyright.
But back to the original point. Are you saying that a business should not have the right to determine what products they choose to produce or sell?
They have in the past, so it's possible and likely that they would be in the future, too. Not just editors, but reporters and publishers, too.
Which is funny, because Julian Assange and Wikileaks didn't steal anything... the documents were given to them by a third party, widely believed to be Bradley Manning. Wikileaks is guilty only of receiving the data and publishing the parts they feel are morally justifiable to make public, not stealing, and not espionage, and certainly not treason (they aren't even eligible to commit that one).
Deep Throat provided stolen, classified documents... nobody calls for the heads of Woodward and Bernstein.
Maybe the laws are different over there, but the last I check here, knowingly accepting stolen property is still a crime. Is Assange or Wikileaks benefiting financially from the use of the stolen property? If so, then how is it different than a fence who re-sells the stolen property that has come into their possession.
The fact that they may be journalists does not make them above the law (ask Woodward and Bernstein). How many journalists have been in jail for failing to name a source? While it is true that many undercover journalists do not go to jail for their actions, there isn't any protection for them, only an unwillingness by a prosecutor to prosecute them.
Assange and Wikileaks, as journalists, are free to publish what they see fit. Assange and Wikileaks, as journalists, are also free to experience the consequences of exercising their freedom.
Once again, why is The Guardian's app still in the store then?
Because, Apple is a business that is allowed to make it's own decisions as to what products it is willing to sell in it's own store.
How is Apple choosing what to sell in their app store any different than Sears choosing what to sell in their stores? I really wish Sears would sell some things that they don't, should I ask everyone to "shout a bit" to remind the public too? If you don't like Apple, or their products, or their App Store, fine, don't buy from them.
[quote] It seems to me that ordinary users are bumping up against the walls of the garden more and more often now [/quote]
No, ordinary users aren't bumping up against anything. /. users are anything but ordinary users, regardless of the platform in question.
Hmmm. divulging that one of the political aids has a brain tumor that may not be treatable and another is suspected of having HIV, seems to be both personal and private information. In addition, do you think that if a congressman or prime minister was accused of these charges that Wikileaks would not release it? The reason Wikileaks didn't release a story about Tiger Woods is because, if you aren't the first to release it, then it's not really a leak, is it?
Wikileaks can serve a noble purpose, and I believe they do, however, they can just as easily server other purposes. There are always consequences for one's actions and what is noble for one person may not be for another. Wikileaks tries and takes the approach that they are just releasing information and it is up to the readers or others to determine what to do with it. However, that is a pretty naive attitude to take when real people's lives are involved.
Assange is upset that his personal information regarding the alleged sexual misconduct got released. I imagine the same can be said for anyone arrested of DWI or any criminal charges. Yes, they may be innocent until proven guilty (in the US, anyway), but the arrest and leveling of charges are public and put in the local newspaper. However, what he has done, through Wikileaks is even more insidious - if you had cancer, or were gay, or had HIV, how would you feel if your friends, family, coworkers, the whole damn world found out about it from something like Wikileaks, just because you happen to be associated with some government. I'm sure the world is a much better place knowing that some aide, whatever her name is, will be spending her last Christmas with her family as she isn't expected to live another year. But then, Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of individuals, so I guess, somebody else did under their name.
No, there is no difference, at least not how Assange publishes information on Wikileaks. Wikileaks is a real organization, just like many corporations. Are you saying that leaks relating to illicit activity of, say the head of a major bank should not be published? Even if that is what you are saying, Wikileaks begs to differ. In the recent cable leaks, was a lot of information relating to individuals health conditions, medical records, affairs, etc. Why should the head of Wikileaks be allowed a pass, when the people he reports on aren't?
And before anybody comments, that in Assange's case, they are trumped up charges by the CIA or some government, please don't. The charges against him were filed before his current leaks which are pissing off many a government, particularly the US. Besides, do you really think if the CIA was clairvoyant, they wouldn't use this ability on something more important like Iraq or Afghanistan?
Whether what he did with the two woman is right or wrong, is up for the Swedish court system to decide. Releasing information about the case, while embarrassing for him, is no different than what he does. Heck, for all we know, his organization is the leak, so he can claim he can't get a fair trial now that the info is out.
Personally, I think that if the women's accounts are true, he should be held accountable. I'm pretty sure, as is the case with the second woman, that having sex while one is asleep, means it is not consensual. If the prime minister of some country had done it, Wikileaks would be all over it. There is an old saying about people in glass houses and stones.
This is fact. The public must know everything. I focus on worng doing because this is what is usualy hidden from the public. Good deed are always get extensive publicity for re-election purpose.
It is not fact at all (that the public must know of everything). It only applies in our western culture. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans, of which much of our culture is based on did not subscribe to that notion. Even in the US, that is not totally true, which is why some congressional meetings and even state and local government meetings are permitted to be behind closed doors and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
I agree whole heartedly that the government needs to be transparent. However, individuals do not have a right to know everything going on. There are cases where the common good or security preclude the desire to have access to everything. I will also concede that the government, at least the US government, tries to hide behind withholding information because of national security. Since the information is withheld, makes it hard to tell they are being truthful about it. But that does not change the real fact that some information needs to be withheld and therefore, we as individuals do not have a right to total access of government documents.
Case in point, not health related, and also not national security. A child is put up for adoption and the mother asks to have the records sealed, which are then sealed. 20 years later the child wants to find his/her birth mother and wants access to those records. Is it granted? Currently, it depends on what state you are in, but it is a possibility. Now, take it one step further, Wikileaks or some other group gets a hold of adoption records and wants to publish them, they are, after all government documents. Should they be allowed to?
Another case, John Doe is a criminal but testifies and enters the witness protection program. He builds a comfortable and successful life. Should Wikileaks be able to publish his file, if they came into possession of it, because, again, it is a government record?
If the answer to either of those above scenarios is "No," then you have to admit that the public does not have the right to every piece of information the government has. I know that those are two specific cases, but as soon as you start having to add exceptions to the rule ("The public has the right to everything except for..."), then you don't have a rule at all.
Why raising FUD then? If you got real criticism(eg: more then "i suspect") please say it or just let Wikileak do its job. If they ever cross the boundary you will know. When that happen, Julian Assange will get arrested for the actual Wikileak publication, not questioned about unrelated claims in hope to discredit him. (And, leaders health issue is non-issue, see above)
I don't think I am raising FUD. However, with regards to Mr. Assange, unless he is the one directly breaking the law, I don't see him being prosecuted for anything. When the Pentegon Papers broke, the publisher of the paper didn't go to jail. Mr. Assange is the publisher, it wouldn't be him going to jail, but one of the underlings.
With regard to his current legal problems, they were there before his recent leaks against the US government. The only thing that has changed is that the leak made him famous in a much broader circle than before (really, prior to the most recent leak, most people didn't even know what Wikileaks was, let alone who he is). So, now, that he is famous, his private life is coming under public scrutiny just like anyone else's who is famous.
If being in the spotlight is uncomfortable for him, then he should be reminded that he is only feeling the public scrutiny that he brings to all of those people he reports on. Just as an elected official chooses to run for office and basically give up any real sense of privacy, so to has Mr. Assange, given the nature of the business he has chosen to be in. Same for Dan Rather, Rush Limbaugh or any other public person.
Wikileaks is not a US operation. Also, Assange is not a US citizen. USG has zero authority over them. Why do you think he's being chased internationally by those ridiculous "the condom broke" swedish warrants? That's the USG pressuring other governments to "do something." If the USG had actual authority over either the leak operation or Assange, he'd have been in Guantanamo already. Best they could do was dig into the guy's sex life and try to shitcan his reputation.
Since the charges were actually filed against him by the swedes, prior to the release of the US documents, I can't buy that the US was behind it. His own publicity and popularity is what brought his sex life to the the public eye, much like any celebrity now a days. But, unless you think the US government is clairvoyant and got the swedes to file the charges a couple of months before the leaks, I don't see how they are behind his current sex scandal legal problems.
So, are you saying that it is alright to publish information that is obtained by violating people's rights? Would it be okay for the media to report on the names of, say rape victims? If we can agree for a moment that rape victims are entitled to their privacy and it is alright not to disclose their identity, then why is it alright to disclose information regarding the physical and mental health of the leaders of other countries? Obviously, people were quite upset when the rape charges were disclosed against the founder of Wikileaks. And yet, he was a person of interest by the authorities before the latest leaks.
Why is it okay to disclose the government interactions of some people and not others? I ask this seriously. Dont' all people have basic human rights? Until the moral/ethical dilemma is resolved, groups like Wikileaks will always be in hot water and called on the carpet for it.
As for the government not being protected, that is true, but it's employees are. The cables and emails were created by human beings, some of which (not all) were in the employ of the government. However, do we really want to take the approach that how those individual people communicate with each other should be carefully worded and screened, because their private emails and cables may one day be released? These were not official communiques of the government which would be public. Many of these documents are people's personal email and observations. A fast portion of it is not even work related. Do not government workers still have protections under the bill of rights? What about the people mentioned in these emails and cables? While it may be interesting to know that the health of a world leader is failing, isn't that individual human being afforded the basic right of having his or her health issues be private. And if not, then why are yours or mine considered private and not theirs?
As for Wikileak not accessing the information directly and therefore not applying to them. That sounds like a defense the government would use. "Yes, sir, we have your private information, but that is okay, because technically, we weren't the ones who took it, we simply came into possession of it and published it for the world to see." Wikileaks depends on and encourages people to give them the information they publish. As such, they cannot claim innocence as if this just somehow fell on their doorstep accidentally.
I am not saying that they should or should not do what they do. I am only saying that if it is a violation of somebody else's rights and they are encouraging people to do it, then they themselves are violating people's rights.
The whole Wikileaks thing has opened up a can of worms with the availability of information available on the internet -- whether obtain legally or not. One danger of the way Wikileaks operates is that by indiscriminately releasing information obtained from government sources, that these same governments will crack down and increase security so that when there really is something germain and important that needs to be reported, it will no longer be possible to get that information.
It is impressive that Wikileaks was able to obtain all those documents. Unfortunately, in winning the battle of proving they could publish it all, they may have lost the war for the rest of us by making real information that much harder to get. (Which I know has nothing to do with the actual topic of violation of rights, but those are my concerns).
Wikileak did not violate any person's right. These documents was taken from the government, which is not a person. Governements has no right to privacy. In fact, they have a duty of transparency.
So reporting on the health issues of world leaders, who are persons, does not violate anyone's rights? Hardly.
Governement's wrong doing must be know to the public.
That is a value statement and not a statement of law or fact. I happen to agree with the statement, but it has no basis is anything.
This is how democracy work. Leaks are important to journalists, good journalism are important to democracy. What Wikileak publish is important.
This has nothing specific to democracy, nor is the United States government a democracy (it is a republic). If it were a democracy, then we wouldn't need a congress as the people would vote on everything. Instead, they locally elect people to represent them in the republic.
Regardless, while leaks may be important to journalists, they are not a required for good journalism to occur. They are only useful for investigative journalism, which very often, these days, has a political agenda associated with it and therefore is more appropriately investigative editorialism.
As many of Wikileaks releases deal with countries that are ruled by dictators, it seems that the leaks are more conducive to making their governments more transparent, versus democratic/republic ones.
Yes, the government is not a person in the human sense, neither is a corporation, but in the legal sense, they are a person. And legal entities have protections under the constitution, too.
While it would be naive to assume that journalist could report on everything that needed to be reported on through overt means (versus covert means and leaks). Putting journalistic freedom at a higher power than the people, then just makes the journalists the tyrant versus the king or the government.
There must be a proper balance. I am not saying that Wikileaks crossed that boundary, although I suspect they have in some of their reporting (again, people's personal health histories come to mind).
People, both human and corporate/government have certain rights and expectations of privacy. People also have the right to know what their government is doing (again, a value judgment, but a pretty commonly accepted principle).
So, the question really is about whether the people's right to know outweighs the individual's right to privacy. It is a difficult question and a slippery slope. Particularly when it comes to who is the final arbitrator when there is a conflict.
For instance, would people be so worked up and fighting for the freedom to release the current set of Wikileak documents if instead of Wikileaks, it was Fox News that had obtained the information and was now in trouble. I doubt it.
Anyway, in summary, a free press is good for all types of governments, not just democracies. But, the free press needs to be balanced against the individuals own rights. If there are no checks and balances, if the press is not held accountable, then they just become the new tyrant instead of the government.
Their current "leaks", you know, the ones causing all of the current controversy, are from cables and emails. Last I checked, the State Department did not give their consent to the release.
So, are you saying that only the government can violate a person's rights? Sure seems that the US Supreme Court deals with a lot more than just government cases.
So it is a violation of my constitutional rights for the government to access my email without my consent or a warrant. Why, then, is it alright for Wikileaks to do it?
Is it just me or does any of this sound familiar. It seems ever since the data center lost control of the data by the introduction of those toys (called the personal computer, back in the day), they've been trying to get it back. We've had citrix servers, remote access, thin clients, etc. Everything with the notion that all you need is a dumb terminal or a scaled down pc not much more than a dumb terminal and everything you need will be taken care of on the back end.
We've seen that model fail over and over, why would cloud computing, using the internet instead of coax or leased lines be any different? If you like the idea of somebody else having the ultimate control of your data and how you can access it, great, go for it. However, if you are concerned with who at google, or wherever has access to your data, what will they do with it, etc., then why would you ever want this. Wasn't it the slashdot crowd that was upset not too long ago because google was scanning emails for marketing purposes? What will happen when they do it to your corporate documents and corporate emails?
Thin clients were supposed to hold down costs, eliminate upgrade headaches and make everyone more productive. That didn't happen. Now we are told that cloud computing is the answer, and yet, all it is is repackaging of the old thin client model, but run on a public network with a third party corporation serving up your data. And this is supposed to be good, how?
I heard similar arguments in the 1980s that the mainframe was dead. Still seams to be a lot of mainframe jobs out there. Because consumers have switched from creating something with their computers to being consumers of information doesn't mean that is the case in the business world. My android phone is great and fun to use, but I sure would hate to have to create a legal brief on it (or even to review one).
Normally, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to Mr. Stallman, but in this case, I think he's spot on. First, it is nice to have access to your data anywhere you might be, on the other hand, the first rule in securing data is to limit access to it. If I'm at the local coffee shop, using an internet cafe computer, how do I know what has been cached or not locally. I don't, which means I should assume that everything is (from a security perspective) and not do anything that might disclose sensitive information like bank accounts and passwords. Oh, wait, to use the cloud services, I have to enter my password, so right there is a potential security problem.
In arguing against Mr. Stallman's position, many point out how the use of computers has changed since the internet and how everything is now in the cloud. That might be fine if you are updating FB or tweeting, etc. But if you are a business, do you really want your employees transmitting sensitive corporate information over unsecure and unencrypted lines? Plus, in the past, if the salesperson lost their laptop, their data was exposed. Now, if they lose it, the data of everything they might have access to on the corporate site is exposed.
Also, for cloud computing to really be effective, people need broadband. Didn't they just report, yesterday, that 68% of the country (US) does not have access to broadband (3mbit or greater speed)?
Cloud computing sounds like a great idea, but, how do you secure the data? Is everyone going to have a FOB, like a lot of banks use for online banking? What about when the cloud is unavailable (anybody hear about the DOS attacks by anonymous)? The current notion of storing everything on the internet on somebody else's server doesn't seem like the most logical thing in the world (other than from a marketing perspective).
I wonder if Wikileaks had been using chromeOS and was accused of violated google's acceptable use policy, what would have happened to their data. We've already seen what happened to their funds with paypal and the major credit cards. Why would we think google would be any different?
Isolationism works great as long as everyone else leaves, you alone, too. However, most isolationists still want the rest of the world to come to their aid when times are bad or they need something. How would the US be different if they didn't get oil and raw materials from other countries? We'd still have an industrial/agrarian economy with a lot of manual labor, no exports or imports. But, at least it would be of our own doing. The good news about such a system, is that there would also probably be a lot fewer mouths to feed in the US, because they'd be cut off from medical advances and research from other countries. Most isolationists only mean it when they have the upper hand in the equation.
That is only one way to have your voice heard. When the printing press first became available, it too was a controlled resource, but that didn't stop people from still using the written word or their voice in the public square. The US's declaration of independence did not depend on the printing press, even though by then it was readily available.
are you aware that you are showing 1410 as a reference, and justifying the LACK of freedom in today, by that date.
excuse me, but you are referencing fucking high middle ages in which feudal barons and lords ruled the land, and catholic church was still in power. (renaissance was just starting).
so, you are basically saying that, we have as much freedom as high middle ages, AND THIS IS NORMAL.
Now, don't get me wrong, having a few corporations able to control everything is a problem. But, what is the alternative? Having the government control access to everything? Even more of a concern, however, and this is what I believe gave Wikileaks its real power, is having just a few individuals/corporations owning most of the media outlets in the world.
the alternative is limiting any group, person, entity can grow in size.
the only reason such a max limit does not exist, is that the pioneers of economics in 18th century, were not able to foresee that small partnerships and businesses like 'huntington & bradley' could grow up to a size that would dwarf kingdoms.
because those pioneers was not able to foresee a threat to freedoms from small businesses growing as big as british empire, they thought that if there was equality in politics, and everyone free to engage in business, all would be well.
it didnt. in the size of 15 top economic entities of the world, there are at least 5 major corporations, over countries.
The fact that we are able to discuss this issue on the internet, hosted by some corporation somewhere, using god knows whose servers and infrastructure means that there still are some freedoms available.
Granted, tick off one of the major players and they may flex their muscles, but that is how it's been throughout history, whether the pharoh, the praetorium, the church, the king, the general, even the guy with the bigger stick than yours.
The difference is that in the past, power was a physical thing. Sure gold was important, but it was only important in that ultimately if you had enough of it you could raise an army to defend or force your will. In the past, might made right. Then since the enlightenment, we shifted to knowledge is power, although a couple of world wars and other conflicts still tried the old way. Now, it is the control of knowledge that is power.
But in all of those time frames, there was never the true freedom you are wanting. There was always somebody who had a say over what was done. Things have always been controlled by relatively few at the top. In the early part of the last century, it was the railroad barons (at least in the US). The controlled the movement of goods. Today, it is a few mega-corporations that control the movement or flow of information.
So, yes, it's sad to say, that things haven't really changed much since the middle ages, or even earlier.
Well, actually, there is one change. In the past, people were willing to fight and die for the little freedoms they had. Today, however, they aren't. And, because of that, those that have get more and those who don't lose what little they have.
they are choosing not to let me use their resources, but, it turns out that they are the controller of majority (dominant majority) of those resources.
that effectively ends up pushing me to, well, 'set up my printing press', or its equivalent. ironically, to be able to make my voice heard to the masses with my 'equivalent' services, i have to first BEAT those corporations so that i can actually access those resources they have been withholding of me.
so, you are basically saying, every person is free, but the PRACTICE of that freedom requires engaging in a feudal turf battle with the dominant lord in that zone.
BR.
excuse me, but that kind of freedom, we had in medieval times. its 2010.
That is only one way to have your voice heard. When the printing press first became available, it too was a controlled resource, but that didn't stop people from still using the written word or their voice in the public square. The US's declaration of independence did not depend on the printing press, even though by then it was readily available.
You are only restricted in your freedoms if you are wanting to use somebody else's resources. The internet is not the only form of communication and for the most part doesn't even exist in most of the world. Heck, they don't even have electricity and running water in most of the world.
Although the barriers are higher now, the situation you describe was there long before capitalism or even feudalism. It basically is summed up by survival of the fittest. However, now, being fit has to deal with economic fitness, not physical.
But even in the current situation, you or I am still free to espouse what we want, within reason of course (no yelling Fire in a crowded theatre, etc.). What we aren't guaranteed and never have been guaranteed is to reach the whole world with what we want to espouse. Technology gives us the ability to reach the whole world easier, but it doesn't give us a right.
Now, don't get me wrong, having a few corporations able to control everything is a problem. But, what is the alternative? Having the government control access to everything? Even more of a concern, however, and this is what I believe gave Wikileaks its real power, is having just a few individuals/corporations owning most of the media outlets in the world.
If I don't like Walmart, I can still go elsewhere, but where do you go to get news and information of what is going on? The internet is the great equaliser when it comes to the dissemination of information, but as you have already stated, it, too, is really a controlled group.
So, yes, I am saying that, at least in the US, every person is free. They are also free to practice that freedom. They do not mean that others have the responsibility to pass on the content of their message, because, unfortunately, those others also have their freedoms.
So, yes, we still live in a feudal system, like in the middle ages. The difference is who is now the feudal lord.
Umm, wouldn't that be chief editor as it is the role of the editor to decide what gets printed or not. Happens everyday in every newspaper and news organisation. Why is the content on Fox News different than CNN or MSNBC? Because of the editorial policy enforced by the editor. There is no freedom of the press in the sense you or most people think of it. The only thing really different in the West versus rest of the world is that corporations get to set editorial content instead of government. But in the end, there is no real freedom of the press.
While I agree in general with what you are saying, if you are using the assets of the "corporations which dominate the economic side," why would you assume to have any freedoms?
Should not the corporation that provides the service have a say in who can use that service and how? If not, what about their freedoms? There is an old adage about not biting the hand that feeds you, so this has been around a lot longer than the rise of capitalism.
Amazon, Paypal, etc. is not stopping anyone from exercising their freedoms (most likely speech in the context of your post). They are just not choosing to let you use their resources to do it. If you want to set up your own printing press or the electronic equivelant, you are free to do so. If that is economically not feasible, that isn't because you don't have the freedom to do it, you just don't have the means.
Besides, once Amazon dropped Wikileaks, they were back up and running within 24 hours. So, it seems the system works. As for paypal, i'm sure that people who want to donate to them will find another way to do it. Nobody's freedoms have been restricted here.
If Wikileaks is encouraging people to take confidential information from their employers (corporate espionage) so they can post it AND Paypal has a policy that you cannot use a paypal account if you are encouraging people to break the law, what is the issue. If Wikileaks was the only company that paypal enforced this policy on, that would be one thing, but they have done it a number of times.
Paypal is not make a political statement, it is only enforcing it's own clearly stated policies. Mastercard, VISA and American Express all have the same policy, although Wikileaks didn't use them to solicit donation. So, if you are going to close your paypal account, you should also cancel all your credit cards, too.
Why would these pay systems do that? Could be that if Wikileaks is found to be violating the laws of some country or another that they (Paypal, credit cards, etc.) could be held liable for funnelling funds to them. Loosing a few accounts from people acting emotionally is a whole lot less painful than loosing millions in fines or being banned from operating in that country.
The good news about all of this, however, is that Wikileaks has risen to enough of threat/source (depending on how you look at it) that others are taking notice. However, that is a two edged sword because now they are being placed under the same public scrutiny that they subject others to.
Why is it amusing that they would deny a MAN MADE disaster and not one created by God? God can do anything, man is not capable of such great power. Makes perfect sense when you put the right colored lenses on.
Because they can blame God for the flood, but only have themselves to blame for global warming?