The presentation was most likely made to get others on board but they were already doing it well before (maybe not documented or in documents we'll never get to see).
Why do you think this is "most likely"? Are there any leads to support this assumption?
Since the plan was hatched, disgruntled volunteers mentioned in the PDF broke away from Wikileaks, financial institutions withdrew services, Apelbaum was harassed by the US Government and Amazon denied service to Wikileaks' website."
It's always nice to have a good conspiracy - but chronology is a bitch. Even before the plan was hatched, Paypal has canceled Wikileaks accounts twice, disgruntled volunteers were gruntling very publicly, Wikileaks had to change providers several times and Julian Assange reported harrassment from every government he had to deal with.
You googled for "rape", you will get search results with "rape". You can't draw any conclusions out of that.
But I agree, this story has an huge impact. But there are many factors involved, that make an intelligence involvement unplausible or unneccessary. One very important factor was: Assange made this political in an instant with his "dirty tricks" statement. And Wikileaks published their first official statement ever calling Assange the site's "founder" - until then they had maintained Assange was just a spokesperson.
Assange is right, he said never "CIA" - but what did he say? IIRC he mentioned "significant forces" that are allegedly behind the smear campaign. Who could that be? One question: If Assange has just been warned about these "dirty tricks" - why would he have sex with two different women he just had met in Sweden?
Wikileaks has no office in the United States. They won't tell who is a member of Wikileaks. And they say, even they can't tell who is a source and who is not. This leads me to the conclusion: Wikileaks can't possibly profit from any law the US might adopt. Or am I missing something?
On the other side: if you grant source protection without any restrictions, you can rephrase the law: "No one has to talk to the police or judges at any circumstances".
I did not find the exact quote I was looking for, but close enough. Here is a press release from 2009:
Wikileaks source documents are received in Sweden and published from Sweden so as to derive maximum benefit from this legal protection. Should the Senator or anyone else attempt to discover our source we will refer the matter to the Constitutional Police for prosecution, and, if necessary, ask that the Senator and anyone else involved be extradited to face justice for breaching fundamental rights."
Wikileaks does not confine to government data. They published e.g. the membership list of an rightwing party in UK, they published court documents of people whou were found not guilty in the Dutroux case, they published an wrong HIV test of Steve Jobs.
But like you I don't think, molestation charges are not Assanges "own medicine".
I ask you one simple question... If he was such a 'douchebag' all along, why did we not hear ANY of this until he dared to challenge the US military? Why are all these little details suddenly 'leaking' now? The obvious answer is that it's all BS. But no one even questions it. It's scary how blindly people follow media.
It's the concept of linear time. Since he has apparently slept with the two women after the publication of the "war diaries", no details about that could leak before.
If you wanted information about Assange being a douchebag, this is available for years for anyone who is interested. Since when you got interested in Assanges character?
The credibility of Wikileaks is at stake, but not because of Assanges bedtime stories.
For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.
But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this:
Confirm our editor applied for Swedish residency on Aug 18 to obtain prior-restraint protections http://bit.ly/czWlGT
When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.
Another migration board spokesperson, Gunilla Wikstroem, told Swedish news agency TT the application was on hold since some information was missing,
This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.
SAM: It's not about abortion. It's about the next 20 years. Twenties and thirties, it was
the role of government. Fifties and sixties, it was civil rights. The next two decades,
it's gonna be privacy. I'm talking about the Internet. I'm talking about cellphones.
I'm talking about health records, and who's gay and who's not. And moreover, in a
country born on a will to be free, what could be more fundamental than this?
Flash was unstable on Linux for years, but in the last two years the problem has apparently subsided. No more crashes in Firefox, not even in Konqueror. How is this possible?
I never intended to repeat the discussion, I just wanted to see if there is a problem and what it might be. Your goal to avoid an discussion is spectacularly failed.
Since nobody is still interested in this discussion you can tell me the lemma and I won't loe any further word on the subject.
You invested a fair amount of time and emotions in writing this, but you won't even say which article you are talking about? It's usually just one word.
I would never argue that Wikipedia has problems. But in this special case the problem lies probably elsewhere.
I think the case is highly unusual - not only the 12 people who were sabotaged by this one troll. Perhaps Tom has forgotten to tell some crucial details.
...but that is no answer to my question. Yes, there were many questionable decisions in Wikipedia, but not every single one is related to every other incident.
...which article you are talking about?
It sounds pretty unusual that a dozen contributors lose interest in one article at the same time. Perhaps you can provide a link to the delete discussion?
I've always thought, rather than have revision-upon-revision-upon-revision, so that you have to dig through 20 different bills to arrive at the final document, they should just republish the whole U.S. Code with the changes made. That way you only need to look at one document - the final one. It's not as if we're running out of electrons or paper.
I don't know about the U.S. Code but lawmakers all around the world do this already. Representatives vote for the "patch", but citizens only have to read the final document.
The bill would change the United States Code. You would not have to know the "Respect for Marriage Act" at all, you just have to know the United States Code.
My point: law makers use a kind of revisioning system already. The Respect for Marriage Act is like a proposed patch for the United States Code.
You have to learn the difference between "a bill" ang "the law". If you are not an healthcare professional 99 percent of the bill will never concern you, nor can any criminal court use the health care bill to put you in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually they claimed to have a DMCA takedown system.
The presentation was most likely made to get others on board but they were already doing it well before (maybe not documented or in documents we'll never get to see).
Why do you think this is "most likely"? Are there any leads to support this assumption?
It's always nice to have a good conspiracy - but chronology is a bitch. Even before the plan was hatched, Paypal has canceled Wikileaks accounts twice, disgruntled volunteers were gruntling very publicly, Wikileaks had to change providers several times and Julian Assange reported harrassment from every government he had to deal with.
You googled for "rape", you will get search results with "rape". You can't draw any conclusions out of that.
But I agree, this story has an huge impact. But there are many factors involved, that make an intelligence involvement unplausible or unneccessary. One very important factor was: Assange made this political in an instant with his "dirty tricks" statement. And Wikileaks published their first official statement ever calling Assange the site's "founder" - until then they had maintained Assange was just a spokesperson.
Assange is right, he said never "CIA" - but what did he say? IIRC he mentioned "significant forces" that are allegedly behind the smear campaign. Who could that be? One question: If Assange has just been warned about these "dirty tricks" - why would he have sex with two different women he just had met in Sweden?
Assange and Wikileaks have sometimes problems to get their tall stories straight. And it's not always the fault of the media.
Wikileaks has no office in the United States. They won't tell who is a member of Wikileaks. And they say, even they can't tell who is a source and who is not. This leads me to the conclusion: Wikileaks can't possibly profit from any law the US might adopt. Or am I missing something?
On the other side: if you grant source protection without any restrictions, you can rephrase the law: "No one has to talk to the police or judges at any circumstances".
Newspaper article from 2010:
Wikileaks does not confine to government data. They published e.g. the membership list of an rightwing party in UK, they published court documents of people whou were found not guilty in the Dutroux case, they published an wrong HIV test of Steve Jobs. But like you I don't think, molestation charges are not Assanges "own medicine".
For example: Assange claimed for years, Wikileaks contributors are protected by the Swedish law, he even threatened to sue anyone who tried to expose a Wikileaks source.
But if you read the Twitter-stream of Wikileaks carefully, you will see this: this:
When you follow the link, you will read nothing about "prior-restraint" protections - in fact Wikileaks has until now no protection at all under the Swedish press laws. And they will not get it soon, because Wikileaks did not fill out the application correctly.
This is only one of the countless contradictions Assange was caught on. For example Assange claimed in 2009 a 17 year old Wikileaks contributor by the police in Iceland to press him for information about Wikileaks. In fact the juvenile was caught breaking into a business premises and was subsequently interrogated in the presence of his parents, police did not even know about any Wikileaks connections. Even when he had to wait for less than 30 minutes at an airport in Australia Assange did spread conspiracy theories about foul play and intelligence agency involvement.
Exactly what I thought when I saw it on engadget & Co.
Flash was unstable on Linux for years, but in the last two years the problem has apparently subsided. No more crashes in Firefox, not even in Konqueror. How is this possible?
Since nobody is still interested in this discussion you can tell me the lemma and I won't loe any further word on the subject.
I would never argue that Wikipedia has problems. But in this special case the problem lies probably elsewhere.
I think the case is highly unusual - not only the 12 people who were sabotaged by this one troll. Perhaps Tom has forgotten to tell some crucial details.
How can I distract from any problem by asking for a link? I'd like to understand the problems involved.
...but that is no answer to my question. Yes, there were many questionable decisions in Wikipedia, but not every single one is related to every other incident.
...which article you are talking about? It sounds pretty unusual that a dozen contributors lose interest in one article at the same time. Perhaps you can provide a link to the delete discussion?
The real problem: CNN has no real interest in facts anymore. interview the extremists on every side and leave it there.
Jon Steward has something to say about the problem
If you don't trust the Parliamentary System at all - how would you know that the "actual bills" are compiled correctly?
I don't know about the U.S. Code but lawmakers all around the world do this already. Representatives vote for the "patch", but citizens only have to read the final document.
Let's look at an example, shall we? I picked a bill from govtrack.us: Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.
The bill would change the United States Code. You would not have to know the "Respect for Marriage Act" at all, you just have to know the United States Code.
My point: law makers use a kind of revisioning system already. The Respect for Marriage Act is like a proposed patch for the United States Code.
If this was the issue, how could one of the crime capitals of the world get the Olympics? Rio is not known for its secure environment.
You have to learn the difference between "a bill" ang "the law". If you are not an healthcare professional 99 percent of the bill will never concern you, nor can any criminal court use the health care bill to put you in jail.