The Wikileaks Question

[vanlose kid]

There are many issues that arise from being a “closed” leaks website, which OpenLeaks will be. Who gets first dibs at leaked documents? Do the leaked documents get distributed to the highest bidding news outlet? Who is held responsible once leaks are released? Will the government target OpenLeaks, or the news outlet that distributes the news?

what a joke.

*

Just to clarify...

The German Domscheit-Berg, along with several other former Wikileaks staffers, plans to launch a website they’re calling OpenLeaks as early as next week, Domscheit-Berg told Forbes in an interview. Like WikiLeaks, the new site will allow leakers to anonymously submit information to a secure online dropbox. But unlike its parent site, it won’t publish that information itself. Instead, it will allow the source to designate any media or non-governmental organizations he or she chooses and have that information passed on for fact-checking, redaction and publication. That difference, argues Domscheit-Berg, will allow OpenLeaks to accomplish much of the transparency achieved by WikiLeaks, without drawing the same political fury and legal pressure.

http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2 ... will-work/

same difference, namely this: Openleaks will not publish the original leaked documents.

key word there is "much" of the same transparency.

deflection by way of MSM spin.

*

[The Hacktivist]

I went over to a forum called Webslueths to see what they had to say about Mr. Assange et. al.


It is all:

This man must be stopped, people are dying because this criminal is attacking America and putting the private meetings of our leaders online for everyone to read. These documents represent our leaders at work and they have a right to work in private like anyone else, do not read these documents it is a crime to do so.



:headache:


No joke.

[wintler2]

I went over to a forum called Webslueths to see what they had to say about Mr. Assange et. al.
It is all:
This man must be stopped, people are dying because this criminal is attacking America and putting the private meetings of our leaders online for everyone to read. These documents represent our leaders at work and they have a right to work in private like anyone else, do not read these documents it is a crime to do so.
:headache:
No joke.

You poor dear, sit down & have a cup of tea. I know a 15y.o who holds that view, despite having himself hacked school-issue laptops for himself and others. Its the message coming out of the big screen, i guess.

[JackRiddler]

.

The split in Wikileaks is just a reality. Looking from this distance it seems to be attributable to genuine discomfort with Assange's style, as well as the desire by some to take distance from Assange due to the attacks on him. My impulse is not to give the latter much respect as a motive (insofar as it's the case), especially right now with Assange's defense becoming an imperative in defense of journalistic freedom, like him or not. But I haven't been in the position of those who have dealt with him, and if they're not going out of their way to attack him on the way to trying out their own model, they should of course follow the imperatives of their own consciences.

I think OpenLeaks should be wished well in trying out their model, which is one of many possible ones and is at least in theory good: the leaker chooses who they'd want as their ideal editor or release point, with OpenLeaks as the theoretically safe mediator that protects the leaker's identity while getting the material to the releaser. Let's hope it is successful, because we should want a dozen such new organizations or venues for leaks to spring up, to specialize in different fields and regions. We also shouldn't want to see a single central authority being the sole determiner of what is the one legitimate way to expose abuses of secrecy -- especially not the corporate media partners that Wikileaks for its own understandable reasons has worked with.

Then there the danger that false fronts will be set up to catch leakers, and the consequences to anyone so entrapped or stung will be horrible, but in the big picture such operations will become obvious, provided (big provisions!) that the open information system (i.e., the Internet) as a whole can be protected against coming attempts to repress it. And provided the international community of all of us who follow and participate in our own ways becomes stronger and acts to keep communication about the various efforts open and confirmable. That's a lot of conditionals in a hard world, yes.

.

[elfismiles]

Scott Horton AntiWar Radio on KPFK with guest Glenn Greenwald re: Bradley Manning
http://archive.kpfk.org/parchive/mp3/kp ... pecial.MP3

[afisara]

How can I read the articles on Wikileaks? I know there a several different mirrors for it and theres the original wesite, then the current one. But for some reason I can't seem to find any documents or articles of which they said Wikileaks holds. Can any of you help me out with a link?

[Plutonia]

How can I read the articles on Wikileaks? I know there a several different mirrors for it and theres the original wesite, then the current one. But for some reason I can't seem to find any documents or articles of which they said Wikileaks holds. Can any of you help me out with a link?

You mean the cables?

Start here - it's a search-able database of cables that is synched with Wikileaks releases: http://www.dazzlepod.com/cable/

Wikileaks new home: http://wikileaks.ch/

Wikileaks the forum: http://www.wikileaksforum.net/

And you may want to check this site out cause the newbs are crowdjournalizing the raw cables... very slowly: http://operationleakspin.org/

Does that answer your Q?

[JackRiddler]

.

Yes! XKCD confirms his third-grader's understanding of the politics!



Ha, ha, that's, like, karma man. Kewl.

Now I wonder from whom Wikileaks could possibly get the leak that includes all of the "Names, addresses, IPs and phone numbers of everyone in Anonymous"? Within what institution would we expect to see located an entity that would be interested in, and potentially able to, get that information? Hmmmmmmmm... might that be a part of the problem?

Never underestimate the power of thinking based in simplistic platitudes stated as law to make a certain kind of science geek (and the debunker police) believe that since they can work and design complexly engineered technologies (or someone they admire can) they also understand how power works. Occam's Razor is not a methodological heuristic but an iron law that also applies to all human affairs, did you know? Never attribute to malice that which you don't want to know fuck about. God Winslaw! The natural sciences are not a set of millions of propositions subject to constant testing, refinement and falsifiability but a single capital-S institution that has rendered history, humanities and empathic reasoning* irrelevant to understanding politics. I know what confirmation bias is, therefore mine is right and yours is stupid! Win!

I know, how about an XKCD where the concept however depicted is that in the first panel the surveillance state as part of its routine operation grounded in its ability to keep what it does secret crawls up the butts of everyone in the world including the author of XKCD and logs irrelevant discoveries about his stool; in the second, as the result of a mistake, he lands in Guantanamo or has his Yemeni relatives get erased by a drone (except he doesn't seem to have Yemeni relatives and in his work shows no ability to empathize with people outside his limited idea of set, which is the problem) ; and in the third Clinton or some other avatar of empire complains that all this freelance leaking of Teh Secrets is very, very bad for the world-saving business.

Ha, ha, that'll be so funny!

.

PS - Not meant as a defense of Anonymous. I've got a problem with the concept for how simple it would be to subvert; it's the likely reason (even more than his ego) that Assange works in the open.

Note * Which would be the ability to imagine your way into other people's mindsets while still attempting to apply logic to what you feel; also, to spot sociopaths, especially when they're on the rampage like the present day power elite.

.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Jack, I think you're ODing on informed rage if you're really devoting paragraphs to railing against that cute little cracker who runs XCKJSD or whatever.

A highly recommended diversion:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mkb23/research ... masons.pdf

[JackRiddler]

Jack, I think you're ODing on informed rage if you're really devoting paragraphs to railing against that cute little cracker who runs XCKJSD or whatever.

A highly recommended diversion:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mkb23/research ... masons.pdf

Nah, believe it or not it's usually not a rant that builds for very long but a set of thoughts that pop into my head as a complete package and then I have fun writing it down. I'm partial to the scorched-earth form, it's true. But it's not the only thing, I hope!

Besides, the argument that "lookie-lookie leakers get leaked on too must be karma ha ha" is one of the common platitude-bombs in play in the current affair, including on this site, so this was directed more generally to that argument here (since I won't be bothered with sending this to the cute little cracker himself).

Oh shit, I was doing some work and then dropped in here and now it's almost 3 which means I can run outside and see some eclipse before bed! Now that's good.

.

[hanshan]

.

Yes! XKCD confirms his third-grader's understanding of the politics!



Ha, ha, that's, like, karma man. Kewl.

Now I wonder from whom Wikileaks could possibly get the leak that includes all of the "Names, addresses, IPs and phone numbers of everyone in Anonymous"? Within what institution would we expect to see located an entity that would be interested in, and potentially able to, get that information? Hmmmmmmmm... might that be a part of the problem?

Never underestimate the power of thinking based in simplistic platitudes stated as law to make a certain kind of science geek (and the debunker police) believe that since they can work and design complexly engineered technologies (or someone they admire can) they also understand how power works. Occam's Razor is not a methodological heuristic but an iron law that also applies to all human affairs, did you know? Never attribute to malice that which you don't want to know fuck about. God Winslaw! The natural sciences are not a set of millions of propositions subject to constant testing, refinement and falsifiability but a single capital-S institution that has rendered history, humanities and empathic reasoning* irrelevant to understanding politics. I know what confirmation bias is, therefore mine is right and yours is stupid! Win!

I know, how about an XKCD where the concept however depicted is that in the first panel the surveillance state as part of its routine operation grounded in its ability to keep what it does secret crawls up the butts of everyone in the world including the author of XKCD and logs irrelevant discoveries about his stool; in the second, as the result of a mistake, he lands in Guantanamo or has his Yemeni relatives get erased by a drone (except he doesn't seem to have Yemeni relatives and in his work shows no ability to empathize with people outside his limited idea of set, which is the problem) ; and in the third Clinton or some other avatar of empire complains that all this freelance leaking of Teh Secrets is very, very bad for the world-saving business.

Ha, ha, that'll be so funny!

.

PS - Not meant as a defense of Anonymous. I've got a problem with the concept for how simple it would be to subvert; it's the likely reason (even more than his ego) that Assange works in the open.

Note * Which would be the ability to imagine your way into other people's mindsets while still attempting to apply logic to what you feel; also, to spot sociopaths, especially when they're on the rampage like the present day power elite.

.

Jack - keep on w/ the 3am rants. They're really quite amusing

emphasis added - it's a pithy synopsis - tx

...

[AhabsOtherLeg]

How can I read the articles on Wikileaks? I know there a several different mirrors for it and theres the original wesite, then the current one. But for some reason I can't seem to find any documents or articles of which they said Wikileaks holds. Can any of you help me out with a link?

Posted it twice in the thread already! My rage mounts!

Only joking, here you go: http://ht.ly/3kggO

Use at own risk, I can't vouch for the creators of the website or the search engine, but it seems legit.

[nathan28]

My impression is that a lot of this has to do with decontextualized, categorical idealizations being taken for actual circumstances.

XCKD or whatever the guy's name is clearly can't understand that "diplomatic" secrecy is a different animal from personal privacy because both involve keeping things from public awareness.

For example:

http-colon-slash-slash-www-dot-washingtontimes-dot-com/news/2010/dec/21/wikileaks-assange-complains-hes-victim-leaks/ (link broken on purpose to diminish googlitude of the moonies)

The Guardian published details Saturday of the Swedish police report in which two women accuse Mr. Assange of rape, based on what it [i.e., The Guardian] described as "unauthorized access" to prosecutors' files. Mr. Assange claimed the newspaper was "selectively publishing" parts of it and questioned the timing of the leak, saying it was given to the paper a day before his bail hearing last week.

"The leak of the police report to the Guardian was clearly designed to undermine my bail application. It was timed to come up on the desk of the judge that morning," Mr. Assange was quoted as saying in Tuesday's paper. "Someone in authority clearly intended to keep Julian in prison, and shopped (the report) around to other newspapers as well."

If you can't see the difference between a leak as part of a program of a politically motivated character assassination and leaks motivated by a program aiming at greater political transparency (i.e., a democratic effort) because you get caught up on the 'leak' part, that's just idealist conceptualist nonsense at work.

Of course, that third-grade idea, "SECRECY" is a lot easier to digest than complicated ones. Paranoids like me see context-motivated commands and prescriptions behind broad, abstract concepts like that.

Same thing with the nonsense about "diplomacy". I'm not sure how sealing bank documents about terrorist funding inside diplomatic pouches constitutes "diplomacy," especially for 9/11 Truthtards who would be interested in why the US State Dep't (with a special appearance by the CIA) would be aiding a document destruction campaign that might be rather embarrassing, but, well, that's why I'm not a Truthtard.

[nathan28]

I can't find this cable under those listed as originating from the Damascus office, and don't have any text to search for--does anyone have a link or know where it's reported? On edit I'm browsing 213.251.145.96 .

DEAR NUTJOBS: THIS LEAK PORTRAYS ISRAEL IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.

WikiLeaks: Israel Suspected of Assassinating Syrian Official in 2008

A third leaked cable reveals that the U.S. embassy in Damascus suspected that Israel was behind the 2008 assassination of a top security aide to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. General Muhammad Suleiman was shot dead by a sniper in the Syrian city of Tartous on August 1, 2008. At the time, Suleiman was special presidential adviser for arms procurement and strategic weapons.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/21/headlines

[psynapz]

XCKD or whatever the guy's name is clearly can't understand that "diplomatic" secrecy is a different animal from personal privacy because both involve keeping things from public awareness.
[...]
Same thing with the nonsense about "diplomacy". I'm not sure how sealing bank documents about terrorist funding inside diplomatic pouches constitutes "diplomacy," especially for 9/11 Truthtards who would be interested in why the US State Dep't (with a special appearance by the CIA) would be aiding a document destruction campaign that might be rather embarrassing, but, well, that's why I'm not a Truthtard.

Not sure how to contextualize this one from XKCD for you then, nathan, so I think I'll leave it ironically decontextualized:



I personally hate it almost as bad as that insipid and trollish NWO Family Circus drawing bastard. Yet I love about 40% of the rest of the XKCD comics. He's a pure math geek, and arrogantly so; IMHO, he should probably stick to that end of the philosophical spectrum.

Sticks and circles may break our memes but games will never stop us.