On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based on the quarter of a million documents that he had handed over to The Guardian just three months earlier. [. . .]"The Man Who Spilled the Secrets," by Sarah Ellison, documents the tumultuous relationship between The Guardian and Wikileaks.
In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission.
What was that character that was in that batman movie that always tossed a coin?Two-face.
In a second or two from now, that coin, likely a penny, will drop for delmoi.What?
You have read THE BOOK, Goldstein's book, or parts of it, at least. Did it tell you anything that you did not know already?'posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:09 AM on January 15, 2011 [11 favorites]
'You have read it?' said Winston.
'I wrote it. That is to say, I collaborated in writing it. No book is produced individually, as you know.'
'Is it true, what it says?'
'As description, yes. The programme it sets forth is nonsense. The secret accumulation of knowledge--a gradual spread of enlightenment--ultimately a proletarian rebellion--the overthrow of the Party. You foresaw yourself that that was what it would say. It is all nonsense. The proletarians will never revolt, not in a thousand years or a million. They cannot. I do not have to tell you the reason: you know it already. If you have ever cherished any dreams of violent insurrection, you must abandon them. There is no way in which the Party can be overthrown. The rule of the Party is for ever. Make that the starting-point of your thoughts.'
did you honestly know that your government kidnaps the citizens of friendly countries, flies them to Afghanistan, has them raped, and then dumps them by the side of a third country when it decides they've raped the wrong guy? Because I didn't.That particular story was well known before wikileaks leaked anything. He actually sued the US and won, I believe. What we didn't know was that there were higher level people involved who didn't want to release him because they felt he "knew too much" IIRC.
-Despite its supposed belief in the virtues of free information and open governance we know very little about its own governance and controls. Bylaws, elected officers, a budget, a board of directors, a voting membership, designated executive staff, and an audit comitee.Well first of all the finances are being handled by the Wau Holland Foundation which is an ordinary non-profit, subject to whatever laws they have in Germany. And according to the wikipedia article I just read they've raised $1.2 million for wikileaks. It's true that we don't know that much about their internal structure, and it's a fair point that maybe we should know what the information wikileaks actually has is.
Probably already seen by all and sundry, but relevant nonetheless. Assange walks out of an interview when asked about his own private life .What they've said is that their goal is justice, and their method is transparency. They are not advocating that everything should be knowable by everyone, but rather that light be shined on injustice. Presumably Assange doesn't think his personal life, or the structure of wikileaks is covering up any injustice (although others obviously disagree)
It is not a clearing house for leaks, but instead manipulates the leaked information to pursue a political agenda. What are they holding in their vaults? We don't even have an inventory of documents in the backlog. How do we know they arnt blackmailing corporations and governments in exchange for hiding things in the queue.If they release all the documents without editing, they've got blood on their hands. If they release too many documents too QUICKLY, they're irresponsible. If they release them slowly, they're manipulating things for political purposes. If they don't cooperate with existing organizations and news outlets, they're rogues. If they do, they're just part of the system.
Raw information is not raw power. Knowledge is not power. Power is power.Indeed. I'm always frustrated by the naive belief that access to large data streams will -- in and of itself -- help or free anyone. Twitter's co-founder Ev Williams was interviewed at last year's SXSW, and he repeated that idea several times. Big Data isn't the answer -- it's a potential tool, but by itself it often makes the situation worse, because the only people with the capacity to filter, analyze, and interpret are the ones who already had resources and (to some extent) power.
Journalists are supposed to be protected in the United States.Just to be clear, the constitution grant's freedom of the press. They mean that literally: freedom to print whatever you want on printing presses. The concept of "The press" has sort of become a term to mean the institution of journalism, which, I guess leads people to believe that "freedom of the press" means "freedom for journalists". But there were no "neutral journalists" when the first amendment was written, that's something that cropped up later on.
I'd like to see him extradited to Sweden on the rape charges thoughWell, they would have to charge him first. Right now, they just want to extradite him for "questioning"
I'm always frustrated by the naive belief that access to large data streams will -- in and of itself -- help or free anyone. Twitter's co-founder Ev Williams was interviewed at last year's SXSW, and he repeated that idea several times. Big Data isn't the answer -- it's a potential tool, but by itself it often makes the situation worse, because the only people with the capacity to filter, analyze, and interpret are the ones who already had resources and (to some extent) power.Yeah exactly. It "empowers" huge corporations (or governments) to analyze you and profile you automatically
Why do you think this is relevant? It's perfectly reasonable to take a position that individuals have a right to privacy whereas governments do not. This is not a contradictory position.The documents were not written by governments, they were written by people.
The documents were not written by governments, they were written by people.Won't somebody think of elite bureaucrats and corporate CEOs!?!?!?! They're people too! They deserve the right to subvert the rule of law in privacy, just like everyone else!!!
The release of these documents not only affects governments, it affects people.
Am I way off-base to interpret his stance as being that any effort to keep any piece of information from being public is inherently the machinations of conspiratorial government?Yes, you're way off-base.
do you share his essential anarchistic views regarding governments?What are those?
Am I way off-base to interpret his stance as being that any effort to keep any piece of information from being public is inherently the machinations of conspiratorial government?
But I don't see the difference between saying that "all secrets are authoritarian conspiracies" and That "authoritarian conspiracies cannot exist without secret communication"Well, it's just simple logic. Given that A implies B, and given that B is true, we cannot say that A is true. An example would be
Ugh. No. No, it's not anything like the idea of communism.Ideology that works on paper, doesn't in real life... I think it is. Tell me, how do you imagine things would change if the US government made everything public, fully accessible for anyone to see?
It would have less ability to project power, for one.The point I was trying to get at, as I always have in these WikiLeaks debates, is that the life that people enjoy is a product of kept secrets. Problem is, most folks don't know that. I suppose I'm saying don't bite the hand you don't know is feeding you.
The point I was trying to get at, as I always have in these WikiLeaks debates, is that the life that people enjoy is a product of kept secrets. Problem is, most folks don't know that. I suppose I'm saying don't bite the hand you don't know is feeding you.Soylent Green is delicious, you're saying?
Soylent Green is delicious, you're saying?Particularly bad example given that the need to maintain a secret about Soylent Green was that nobody would eat it if they knew where it came from and that no other food sources sufficient to sustain humanity existed.
The breathless techno-optimism of it all makes me mental, but I try to remember that it drives the curve.Indeed. In a lot of ways it strikes me as similar to people who make campaign finance reform their life's work. Anyone who pretends it will fix everything is delusional, but it's good work. Financo-optimism? Something like that.
Ideology that works on paper, doesn't in real life... I think it is. Tell me, how do you imagine things would change if the US government made everything public, fully accessible for anyone to see?How do you know whether or not wikileaks ideology will work in real life as it's never been tried? This is a pretty obvious example of confusing your own imagination with reality. You imagine wikileaks won't work, and so you say it won't work in practice. But because it's in your imagination that's basically the definition of something happening in theory, not practice. You are basically saying, "In one theory, this could work. But it won't work in practice because my theory says it won't work"
The point I was trying to get at, as I always have in these WikiLeaks debates, is that the life that people enjoy is a product of kept secrets.Only if by "people" you mean "Not Iraqis" or people in any other country where the U.S. government has caused problems. It's not a moral argument, it's essentially hedonistic: You don't mind if other people suffer if it benefits you, and in order for that to happen the people causing the suffering need to be able to operate in secret.
Guardian: Gaddafi condemns Tunisia uprising - Libyan leader claims protesters led astray by WikiLeaks disclosures amid reports of unrest in LibyaMan, if I hear one more, just one more claim of "Foreign hands" being behind a "Conspiracy" I will go fucking nuts.
« Older Growing Up Gay (Part 1, Part 2) is a two-part docu... | The Price of Altruism... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by dougrayrankin at 4:08 AM on January 15, 2011 [4 favorites]