Have you read your own comment? You sound just like those people on Cops who try to start a fist fight with a cop, then call it brutality and abuse when the cop puts your face in the dirt like you deserve.
You got modded down for being a douche, nothing more.
People who are really intelligent should also understand that snarky, sarcastic, or otherwise offensive responses never help.
And you've completely failed to realize that not very many slashdot contributions are intended to help, but are in fact only intended to be snarky, sarcastic or flat out insulting.
Whats so unbelievable about it? Do you have a problem with a man leading girl scouts or something? Its not exactly unheard of. Personally I think boyscouts should be lead by men, and girls by women, but you'll find on military bases and such, where the men aren't always numerous enough or get deployed, and the wives will step in to fill the gap.
Its not ideal in my opinion, but its better for the kids than nothing at all. It goes both ways. Daddies teach little girls things just like mommies teach little boys things... I'm guessing you don't have any children and are probably a single parent child... or possibly 12 years old/too stupid to realize how the actual world works.
You know, its funny how its unique that police are the only profession who covers each others asses...
Wait... its not... pretty much every single profession out there is the same way.
Most people with any sort of social skills don't want to rat out someone for what the perceive as a minor infraction or just a simple mistake. You want a little leeway yourself so you give it to others (well, most well adjusted people work this way, you certainly may be different). You know, don't tell the boss I was late... look, I lost my temper because the guy hit me in the eyebrow and it hurt like a bitch for a second, whatever.
For me, if I ask a coworker to cover my ass in a mistake, it might mean someone doesn't get pretty pictures in their email, for a cop its entirely different, so we must hold them to a higher standard.
However, they are still human, and really are no different than me or you.
Not for racism, bigotry, their general unprofessionalism, etc. I mean, that's kind of a given for local-level Texas cops.
Wow... talk about ignorance.
I'm fairly confident you should look up the actual meaning of bigot and then take a long hard look in the mirror until you realize how it applies to you and your life.
The rest of your post goes on to show exactly how ignorant you are. Your post is no different than every other form of racism, ignorance and hate. The only difference is you didn't pick skin color or religion, you picked profession and location.
I suggest you go tell your cop friends how stupid you think they are, let us know how that works out for you.
I'm quite talented at teaching new concepts to people and to kids.
Yea, you and every other fresh out of school teacher.
You don't even do it professionally and you think you're good at it. You are exactly the problem with Academia in general. You think you are the muthafuck'n bomb and deserve to be paid more, work less hours, and never have to compete to keep your job.
You're talking about bad teachers and how hard it is to get rid of them when you have EXACTLY 0 EXPERIENCE out side of... being taught yourself.
You think you're different than the rest. You are just more of the same, and you are the problem with education in America. Too arrogant to realize how special you aren't. You sound just like my sister-in-law, who after couldn't manage to teach at any single school for any length of time because of 'insert reason it was someone elses fault here'.
Now, after I do get through all that, within 6 years I'll need a Masters or I'll no longer be allowed to teach.
Yes, theres a lot of shit I need more training to do in order to keep doing it, your profession is in no way unique. Welcome to life, once you actually get out of school and start living in the real world instead of being coddled MAYBE, just MAYBE you'll get it. I rather doubt it, its far more likely you'll bitch about how it takes a few years to get tenure and say its the bad teachers fault.
Apparently there isn't a shortage of people willing to do exactly what you are complaining about for exactly the salaries you are complaining about. For someone who's supposed to be a great teacher I'd have thought someone along the way would have taught you the most basic of economics, specifically supply and demand, which you clearly utterly fail to understand. Requirements keep getting higher, salaries keep getting lower and still positions get filled. There are people far more qualified than you doing the job, and it'll always be that way since you'll just whine about how hard it is.
Your attitude already lets everyone around you that doesn't have his/her head stuck up their academic ass realize that you are going to be pretty bad at it.
You should actually look up the Trieste and get some factual information.
It most certainly could navigate on its own, and did. Do you think the propulsion system built on it was there for looks? Like spoilers on a Toyota Camry or something? The Trieste was used to hunt for the USS Thresher submarine after it was lost... do you think they just sunk to the bottom, looked around in the 10 square meters of ocean floor they could view, rose back to the surface, had someone drag them over a few meters and did it all over again... with no station keeping to actually make sure they weren't drifting on the way down and actually looking at the same spot?
And to counter some of the other statements being made, the Trieste was not attached to a surface ship during its dive, only when it was taken off the deck of the surface ship and lowered into the water, and then again when it was picked up and put back on the surface ship. At all times while it was submerged Trieste was completely on its own power, life support and navigation. Should it have 'sunk', they would not be able to 'reel it in' as it wasn't connected.
From the link I pasted originally:
The Trieste consisted of a float chamber filled with gasoline for buoyancy, with a separate pressure sphere. This configuration (dubbed a bathyscaphe by the Piccards), allowed for a free dive, rather than the previous bathysphere designs in which a sphere was lowered to depth and raised from a ship by cable.
Sorry Chinese dudes, the record will always be held by a little Belgium built ship named Trieste, occupied by its designer and an American Navy officer. Unless they find a new deep spot in the ocean or an unexplored cave, both of which are highly unlikely.
he set out to build the deepest diving research sub in the world;
Someone should point out that he's a few years late to the race, Trieste did it in the 60s. The record is almost 11k meters in my world, not sure what they are talking about at 7k
I guess perhaps we have completely different definition of 'research' or something.
Well, theoretically, having Assange take the heat and public response rather than the organization itself, while the organization gets stuff done would be ideal for their productivity and them accomplishing what we'd all like them to accomplish.
Unfortunately, thats not the case, and you are exactly right. Assange is just an attention whore who started Wikileaks for this very purpose.
Second, this isn't an American court case so quoting American law is rather retarded. England really doesnt' give a flying fuck what cybercrime.gov thinks.
But lets pretend that its all happening in America.
They were authorized to access the data. They were authorized to download the file.
They have no concern what so ever. They did not access the computer system without authorization, they were in fact explicitly authorized AND given the second bit of information needed to do something useful with what they accessed.
Anyone else who downloads the file on the other hand, is probably not authorized to do so.
Wikileaks can not claim unauthorized access after telling them to download it. Thats like claiming I can have you arrested for stealing my car... because I let you borrow it a month ago.
The law you quoted does not apply in any way. There may be some other law that does, but the one you quoted does not.
The password is 56 characters in length, given that its plain text, that means you get roughly 4 bits of entropy per character, so we can divide by 2 to get our useful bytes/bits of entropy, or 28 bytes of solid entropy, or 224 bits.
Thats actually a pretty good password, far safer than any place that uses a MD5 or SHA1 hash of your password for verification, SHA1 is only 80 bits of useful entropy once you take all the shortcuts to make it easier to process into account. (160 bits intended, weaknesses make it worth about 80 bits last I heard, could be less now).
I can say with certainty that WL is uninterested in the contents of your Diary, no matter how secret they may be. (For example.)
Thats an impressive statement considering you have no idea who you're talking to, unless the AC is actually you or your friend, you have no idea what their diary has in it. That could be the POTUS or PM of the UK, in which case, I'm sure they'd be all over it.
Its makes you a hypocrite if you protest murdering when its your family, but you say its okay when its everyone else.
If you scream 'EVERYONE SHOULD AT THE WAY I TELL THEM BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY WAY THATS RIGHT!!!', then you turn around and act completely opposite... THAT makes you a hypocrit.
This isn't even a mildly difficult thing to understand.
Its more along the lines of Wikileaks saying 'shooting someone in self defense is okay', then suing the guy they tried to mug... who shot Wikileaks in self defense while they were trying to mug him.
I'm not sure what else I can do to make it clear to someone as thick as yourself, but they are bitching about having someone else do to them exactly what they do to everyone else. That makes it hypocrisy.
If you have a system for constructing your passwords your security has already failed.
Really? So using a random number generator to generate passwords is a failure?
No, its not. Neither is using a 'system for constructing your passwords', if its done right. You don't do it because pretty much everyone will fuck up the implementation, but it most certain can be done properly.
Example: SSL and SSH
Keys are generated at connect and repeatedly during the session, all automatically. Both use a well known and well understood method for generating keys and exchanging them. Both have completely open source implementations (working ones) that you can review to understand the exact system used.
The reason people who know security say 'don't fucking use any sort of system for generating passwords for large scale systems' is because you will fuck it up. Like most things in our world, you are told not to do it not because it can't be done, but because you'll do it wrong and hurt someone.
No, not even a little. I can't think of one well known wiki that is 'about maximum user freedom'. Even the biggest, flagship 'open' wiki, Wikipedia, severely limits random users ability to do things.
Every wiki I have any involvement in personal is read only to the public and either requires logins with verified identities behind them, or is only editable by employees and contributors of the company that owns it.
Wiki's are simply pieces of software that make it easier to edit web pages. They care not about freedom. You're projecting what you want them to be which just makes you look silly. Computers don't give a flying fuck about 'freedom', people do.
But how effective the leaks are in exposing malfeasance depends in part on the reputation of those exposing it, else if their reputation is poor their opponents can just write them off.
And this is why Wikileaks is no longer anything any sane person cares about, just angsty unbalanced people looking for something to shout about.
Working with the media has done nothing but harm Wikileaks image as they have found themselves embroiled in jealousy and political spats with the media. It's hurt their image badly, which has a detrimental effect on people's view of them as a trustworthy organisation.
Uhm, they did that on their own. The media just reported what was happening. You're saying its the NYT's fault that Assange is a douche and the rest of the crew over there is a bunch of selfish attention whores who fight amongst themselves and screw over people they've never met in order to get attention for their 'cause'?
Prior to working with the media whether you agreed with them or not it was hard to see them as anything other than an organisation that just leaks what it has without engaging in any particular partisanship or petty political squabbling with the media.
Are you fucking kidding or just too blind to see they've had an agenda from day one? Almost entirely driven by Assange. It blows me away that people still don't see that. Talk about blinding yourself.
So effectively it's about neutrality- by ignoring the media Wikileaks moves back to a position of relative neutrality.
And the reason for this is because you think the media is what made Wikileaks biased... not the actual people involved... really...
Working with the media has let the media put their own biased political spin on everything they release- ignoring stuff the media finds inconvenient to it's political viewpoint, and widely publicising arguably less relevant, but more politically beneficial content.
Ahhh, I see the problem. You have no idea what any of the stuff Wikileaks has 'leaked' is. You can't possibly have seen any of it or you'd be fully aware that this is in fact EXACTLY WHAT WIKILEAKS DOES. Watch any murder videos lately?
On the subject of danger I agree Wikileaks is partially to blame if someone is put in danger, but again I believe the media is also, and similarly I believe the government is also for ever documenting on a low level security clearance system to which many tens of thousands of people had access to the names of such informers. The blame has to be shared, and Wikileaks at least made an effort to resolve the issue, yet those efforts proved detrimental to it's cause as it inherently meant working with inept and biased organisations.
So let me get this straight, you're saying its MY fault that my employee steals my car out of the driveway because I let him borrow it last week to make a work delivery and he made a copy of the key to steal it? Seriously? Thats what you're saying here. Its not Wikileaks fault... its the militaries fault because they trusted their soldiers. You live in a fantasy world that does not exist. You have to trust SOME people or nothing will ever get done.
You know why it happened? Manning thought he'd get by with it. He was wrong, and we won't have this issue for another 30-40 years while he rots in a military prison as to set an example for anyone else considering treason while in service of the military. He'll be the example to make it clear to anyone else considering it that its not something you're going to enjoy dealing with afterwords.
If you don't think thats enough, I'm all for torturing him a fair amount to reenforce the point.
Let me ask you something, have you ever accepted responsibility for your actions at any point in your life or do you try to blame everyone else around you as well when you fuck up?
Well it's about weighing the dangers against the benefits, and as the dangers to date have seemed to be completely negligible I'm not sure I can blame them.
Thats pretty damn easy to say sitting at your desk behind a computer in the comfort of an air conditioned office, bullshitting on slashdot.
I highly doubt if your head was on the chopping block, you'd have a different opinion.
also exact positions of military bases useful for mortars
Okay, so while I agree with the point that large amounts of information was leaked that directly endangered someone....
Exact coordinates... to a military base... to hit it with mortars... You do realize that iraqi and afghani fighters don't have GPS guided mortars right? They fire by sight... and I assure you, they didn't need any leaked documents to know where several thousand soldiers were living in their own country.
They know where all the bases are, and they aim by sight, not by electronics. Hell, they know where the bases are before they are built, its not like you can actually hide them from the natives. The people that live there aren't so stupid that when a new camp pops up one day with a bunch of soldiers and military equipment they think its just a new family from Kabul.
So, you don't deny the right of the "innocent" people to have their identity protected, you just deny Assange's right to complain that actions of The Guardian allegedly breached the rights to anonymity for these people?
Yes. Its called hypocrisy. He wants to be treated differently than he wants to treat everyone else, and this is just another one of those things that shows it, yet a bunch of angsty teenagers like yourself keep thinking he's just gods gift to the planet because you're too ignorant to realize he's using you.
Would it matter for you if I'm pointing that the complaint is actually issued by WikiLeaks as an organisation?
Well, forming an intelligible sentence would be a good start, but I think I understand it well enough.
Assange is the public face of Wikileaks, he speaks for them. Until they denounce him entirely, he and Wikileaks are one and the same, just like the POTUS speaks for America to the rest of the world. Your front man is the guy that people listen to as representing you, if you do not agree with what your front man does on a daily basis, you need to find another front man, not expect me to give a shit 5 years later when you try to point out they are different... after riding on the fact that you wanted people to think they were the same for the previous 5 years.
Please show me his personal communications with all Wikileaks relationships (business or personal) and then show me all of the information he has related to the custody battle he lost. Just the documents from his side, not the ones that he tried to make public record without any consideration for the harm it would cause to the children (literally, not figuratively).
He's never been against privacy for himself, thats different. Its everyone elses privacy that should exist because everyone else is evil and he is the only one who can be trusted.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you read your own comment? You sound just like those people on Cops who try to start a fist fight with a cop, then call it brutality and abuse when the cop puts your face in the dirt like you deserve.
You got modded down for being a douche, nothing more.
Irony: It took me about 4 rereads to parse your first sentence.
People who are really intelligent should also understand that snarky, sarcastic, or otherwise offensive responses never help.
And you've completely failed to realize that not very many slashdot contributions are intended to help, but are in fact only intended to be snarky, sarcastic or flat out insulting.
There is a major difference between writing well and being a grammar Nazi.
Just for reference, you need to read what you wrote and fix it before talking about someone else's writing.
Whats so unbelievable about it? Do you have a problem with a man leading girl scouts or something? Its not exactly unheard of. Personally I think boyscouts should be lead by men, and girls by women, but you'll find on military bases and such, where the men aren't always numerous enough or get deployed, and the wives will step in to fill the gap.
Its not ideal in my opinion, but its better for the kids than nothing at all. It goes both ways. Daddies teach little girls things just like mommies teach little boys things ... I'm guessing you don't have any children and are probably a single parent child ... or possibly 12 years old/too stupid to realize how the actual world works.
You know, its funny how its unique that police are the only profession who covers each others asses ...
Wait ... its not ... pretty much every single profession out there is the same way.
Most people with any sort of social skills don't want to rat out someone for what the perceive as a minor infraction or just a simple mistake. You want a little leeway yourself so you give it to others (well, most well adjusted people work this way, you certainly may be different). You know, don't tell the boss I was late ... look, I lost my temper because the guy hit me in the eyebrow and it hurt like a bitch for a second, whatever.
For me, if I ask a coworker to cover my ass in a mistake, it might mean someone doesn't get pretty pictures in their email, for a cop its entirely different, so we must hold them to a higher standard.
However, they are still human, and really are no different than me or you.
Not for racism, bigotry, their general unprofessionalism, etc. I mean, that's kind of a given for local-level Texas cops.
Wow ... talk about ignorance.
I'm fairly confident you should look up the actual meaning of bigot and then take a long hard look in the mirror until you realize how it applies to you and your life.
The rest of your post goes on to show exactly how ignorant you are. Your post is no different than every other form of racism, ignorance and hate. The only difference is you didn't pick skin color or religion, you picked profession and location.
I suggest you go tell your cop friends how stupid you think they are, let us know how that works out for you.
You sir, are one ignorant fuck.
I'm quite talented at teaching new concepts to people and to kids.
Yea, you and every other fresh out of school teacher.
You don't even do it professionally and you think you're good at it. You are exactly the problem with Academia in general. You think you are the muthafuck'n bomb and deserve to be paid more, work less hours, and never have to compete to keep your job.
You're talking about bad teachers and how hard it is to get rid of them when you have EXACTLY 0 EXPERIENCE out side of ... being taught yourself.
You think you're different than the rest. You are just more of the same, and you are the problem with education in America. Too arrogant to realize how special you aren't. You sound just like my sister-in-law, who after couldn't manage to teach at any single school for any length of time because of 'insert reason it was someone elses fault here'.
Now, after I do get through all that, within 6 years I'll need a Masters or I'll no longer be allowed to teach.
Yes, theres a lot of shit I need more training to do in order to keep doing it, your profession is in no way unique. Welcome to life, once you actually get out of school and start living in the real world instead of being coddled MAYBE, just MAYBE you'll get it. I rather doubt it, its far more likely you'll bitch about how it takes a few years to get tenure and say its the bad teachers fault.
Apparently there isn't a shortage of people willing to do exactly what you are complaining about for exactly the salaries you are complaining about. For someone who's supposed to be a great teacher I'd have thought someone along the way would have taught you the most basic of economics, specifically supply and demand, which you clearly utterly fail to understand. Requirements keep getting higher, salaries keep getting lower and still positions get filled. There are people far more qualified than you doing the job, and it'll always be that way since you'll just whine about how hard it is.
Your attitude already lets everyone around you that doesn't have his/her head stuck up their academic ass realize that you are going to be pretty bad at it.
You should actually look up the Trieste and get some factual information.
It most certainly could navigate on its own, and did. Do you think the propulsion system built on it was there for looks? Like spoilers on a Toyota Camry or something? The Trieste was used to hunt for the USS Thresher submarine after it was lost ... do you think they just sunk to the bottom, looked around in the 10 square meters of ocean floor they could view, rose back to the surface, had someone drag them over a few meters and did it all over again ... with no station keeping to actually make sure they weren't drifting on the way down and actually looking at the same spot?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Thresher_(SSN-593)
And to counter some of the other statements being made, the Trieste was not attached to a surface ship during its dive, only when it was taken off the deck of the surface ship and lowered into the water, and then again when it was picked up and put back on the surface ship. At all times while it was submerged Trieste was completely on its own power, life support and navigation. Should it have 'sunk', they would not be able to 'reel it in' as it wasn't connected.
From the link I pasted originally:
The Trieste consisted of a float chamber filled with gasoline for buoyancy, with a separate pressure sphere. This configuration (dubbed a bathyscaphe by the Piccards), allowed for a free dive, rather than the previous bathysphere designs in which a sphere was lowered to depth and raised from a ship by cable.
Sorry Chinese dudes, the record will always be held by a little Belgium built ship named Trieste, occupied by its designer and an American Navy officer. Unless they find a new deep spot in the ocean or an unexplored cave, both of which are highly unlikely.
Uhm, yes.
he set out to build the deepest diving research sub in the world;
Someone should point out that he's a few years late to the race, Trieste did it in the 60s. The record is almost 11k meters in my world, not sure what they are talking about at 7k
I guess perhaps we have completely different definition of 'research' or something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
Well, theoretically, having Assange take the heat and public response rather than the organization itself, while the organization gets stuff done would be ideal for their productivity and them accomplishing what we'd all like them to accomplish.
Unfortunately, thats not the case, and you are exactly right. Assange is just an attention whore who started Wikileaks for this very purpose.
Except they did no such thing.
Second, this isn't an American court case so quoting American law is rather retarded. England really doesnt' give a flying fuck what cybercrime.gov thinks.
But lets pretend that its all happening in America.
They were authorized to access the data. They were authorized to download the file.
They have no concern what so ever. They did not access the computer system without authorization, they were in fact explicitly authorized AND given the second bit of information needed to do something useful with what they accessed.
Anyone else who downloads the file on the other hand, is probably not authorized to do so.
Wikileaks can not claim unauthorized access after telling them to download it. Thats like claiming I can have you arrested for stealing my car ... because I let you borrow it a month ago.
The law you quoted does not apply in any way. There may be some other law that does, but the one you quoted does not.
The password is 56 characters in length, given that its plain text, that means you get roughly 4 bits of entropy per character, so we can divide by 2 to get our useful bytes/bits of entropy, or 28 bytes of solid entropy, or 224 bits.
Thats actually a pretty good password, far safer than any place that uses a MD5 or SHA1 hash of your password for verification, SHA1 is only 80 bits of useful entropy once you take all the shortcuts to make it easier to process into account. (160 bits intended, weaknesses make it worth about 80 bits last I heard, could be less now).
I can say with certainty that WL is uninterested in the contents of your Diary, no matter how secret they may be. (For example.)
Thats an impressive statement considering you have no idea who you're talking to, unless the AC is actually you or your friend, you have no idea what their diary has in it. That could be the POTUS or PM of the UK, in which case, I'm sure they'd be all over it.
Its makes you a hypocrite if you protest murdering when its your family, but you say its okay when its everyone else.
If you scream 'EVERYONE SHOULD AT THE WAY I TELL THEM BECAUSE ITS THE ONLY WAY THATS RIGHT!!!', then you turn around and act completely opposite ... THAT makes you a hypocrit.
This isn't even a mildly difficult thing to understand.
Its more along the lines of Wikileaks saying 'shooting someone in self defense is okay', then suing the guy they tried to mug ... who shot Wikileaks in self defense while they were trying to mug him.
I'm not sure what else I can do to make it clear to someone as thick as yourself, but they are bitching about having someone else do to them exactly what they do to everyone else. That makes it hypocrisy.
For better or worse, we'll find out: since the raw information is now available, we can see what was redacted and if it was done with an agenda.
Wow, you're one of those idiots who still thinks they don't have an agenda.
I don't think you know what the word means.
Everyone has an agenda, the question is, WHAT IS WIKILEAKS AGENDA? Not, do they have one?
To follow that up, if you haven't figured it out yet, theres no point in having a conversation with you. You're simply too dense to bother with.
If you have a system for constructing your passwords your security has already failed.
Really? So using a random number generator to generate passwords is a failure?
No, its not. Neither is using a 'system for constructing your passwords', if its done right. You don't do it because pretty much everyone will fuck up the implementation, but it most certain can be done properly.
Example: SSL and SSH
Keys are generated at connect and repeatedly during the session, all automatically. Both use a well known and well understood method for generating keys and exchanging them. Both have completely open source implementations (working ones) that you can review to understand the exact system used.
The reason people who know security say 'don't fucking use any sort of system for generating passwords for large scale systems' is because you will fuck it up. Like most things in our world, you are told not to do it not because it can't be done, but because you'll do it wrong and hurt someone.
Wikis are about maximum user freedom
No, not even a little. I can't think of one well known wiki that is 'about maximum user freedom'. Even the biggest, flagship 'open' wiki, Wikipedia, severely limits random users ability to do things.
Every wiki I have any involvement in personal is read only to the public and either requires logins with verified identities behind them, or is only editable by employees and contributors of the company that owns it.
Wiki's are simply pieces of software that make it easier to edit web pages. They care not about freedom. You're projecting what you want them to be which just makes you look silly. Computers don't give a flying fuck about 'freedom', people do.
But how effective the leaks are in exposing malfeasance depends in part on the reputation of those exposing it, else if their reputation is poor their opponents can just write them off.
And this is why Wikileaks is no longer anything any sane person cares about, just angsty unbalanced people looking for something to shout about.
Working with the media has done nothing but harm Wikileaks image as they have found themselves embroiled in jealousy and political spats with the media. It's hurt their image badly, which has a detrimental effect on people's view of them as a trustworthy organisation.
Uhm, they did that on their own. The media just reported what was happening. You're saying its the NYT's fault that Assange is a douche and the rest of the crew over there is a bunch of selfish attention whores who fight amongst themselves and screw over people they've never met in order to get attention for their 'cause'?
Prior to working with the media whether you agreed with them or not it was hard to see them as anything other than an organisation that just leaks what it has without engaging in any particular partisanship or petty political squabbling with the media.
Are you fucking kidding or just too blind to see they've had an agenda from day one? Almost entirely driven by Assange. It blows me away that people still don't see that. Talk about blinding yourself.
So effectively it's about neutrality- by ignoring the media Wikileaks moves back to a position of relative neutrality.
And the reason for this is because you think the media is what made Wikileaks biased ... not the actual people involved ... really ...
Working with the media has let the media put their own biased political spin on everything they release- ignoring stuff the media finds inconvenient to it's political viewpoint, and widely publicising arguably less relevant, but more politically beneficial content.
Ahhh, I see the problem. You have no idea what any of the stuff Wikileaks has 'leaked' is. You can't possibly have seen any of it or you'd be fully aware that this is in fact EXACTLY WHAT WIKILEAKS DOES. Watch any murder videos lately?
On the subject of danger I agree Wikileaks is partially to blame if someone is put in danger, but again I believe the media is also, and similarly I believe the government is also for ever documenting on a low level security clearance system to which many tens of thousands of people had access to the names of such informers. The blame has to be shared, and Wikileaks at least made an effort to resolve the issue, yet those efforts proved detrimental to it's cause as it inherently meant working with inept and biased organisations.
So let me get this straight, you're saying its MY fault that my employee steals my car out of the driveway because I let him borrow it last week to make a work delivery and he made a copy of the key to steal it? Seriously? Thats what you're saying here. Its not Wikileaks fault ... its the militaries fault because they trusted their soldiers. You live in a fantasy world that does not exist. You have to trust SOME people or nothing will ever get done.
You know why it happened? Manning thought he'd get by with it. He was wrong, and we won't have this issue for another 30-40 years while he rots in a military prison as to set an example for anyone else considering treason while in service of the military. He'll be the example to make it clear to anyone else considering it that its not something you're going to enjoy dealing with afterwords.
If you don't think thats enough, I'm all for torturing him a fair amount to reenforce the point.
Let me ask you something, have you ever accepted responsibility for your actions at any point in your life or do you try to blame everyone else around you as well when you fuck up?
Well it's about weighing the dangers against the benefits, and as the dangers to date have seemed to be completely negligible I'm not sure I can blame them.
Thats pretty damn easy to say sitting at your desk behind a computer in the comfort of an air conditioned office, bullshitting on slashdot.
I highly doubt if your head was on the chopping block, you'd have a different opinion.
What an inconsiderate fuck you are.
also exact positions of military bases useful for mortars
Okay, so while I agree with the point that large amounts of information was leaked that directly endangered someone ....
Exact coordinates ... to a military base ... to hit it with mortars ... You do realize that iraqi and afghani fighters don't have GPS guided mortars right? They fire by sight ... and I assure you, they didn't need any leaked documents to know where several thousand soldiers were living in their own country.
They know where all the bases are, and they aim by sight, not by electronics. Hell, they know where the bases are before they are built, its not like you can actually hide them from the natives. The people that live there aren't so stupid that when a new camp pops up one day with a bunch of soldiers and military equipment they think its just a new family from Kabul.
I'm too lazy to look.
He has admitted to leaking them.
And just saying 'Citation Needed' doesn't make it any less true. I know, I do it all the time.
So, you don't deny the right of the "innocent" people to have their identity protected, you just deny Assange's right to complain that actions of The Guardian allegedly breached the rights to anonymity for these people?
Yes. Its called hypocrisy. He wants to be treated differently than he wants to treat everyone else, and this is just another one of those things that shows it, yet a bunch of angsty teenagers like yourself keep thinking he's just gods gift to the planet because you're too ignorant to realize he's using you.
Would it matter for you if I'm pointing that the complaint is actually issued by WikiLeaks as an organisation?
Well, forming an intelligible sentence would be a good start, but I think I understand it well enough.
Assange is the public face of Wikileaks, he speaks for them. Until they denounce him entirely, he and Wikileaks are one and the same, just like the POTUS speaks for America to the rest of the world. Your front man is the guy that people listen to as representing you, if you do not agree with what your front man does on a daily basis, you need to find another front man, not expect me to give a shit 5 years later when you try to point out they are different ... after riding on the fact that you wanted people to think they were the same for the previous 5 years.
He has previously released personal information.
Citation needed.
Please show me his personal communications with all Wikileaks relationships (business or personal) and then show me all of the information he has related to the custody battle he lost. Just the documents from his side, not the ones that he tried to make public record without any consideration for the harm it would cause to the children (literally, not figuratively).
He's never been against privacy for himself, thats different. Its everyone elses privacy that should exist because everyone else is evil and he is the only one who can be trusted.