WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

[Twerp128]

Right, they just did a random screening. Okay. They won't say it outright. But it still stinks like old underpants. This isn't an issue of copyright, it's an issue of freedom of the press.

I think it was more a case of, the media pointed it out to Amazon with all the press they were getting.

 

[MacGuffin]

So currently it seems like the U.S. government is trying to fight a battle against the internet.

I'm very interested in how that will turn out, because in my eyes the U.S. government can only be the loser, even if they'd shut down the whole internet.

MasterCard and the Swiss Postfinance are already under DOS attacks and hackers worldwide are preparing an attack on PayPal and Amazon. Now let's see how long it takes for those companies to realize, that being the U.S. government's lap-dogs can cost them money and reputation.

How about a little forum challenge?

When I look at this whole discussion, it reminds me of a topic we had in school: Is total freedom of press desirable or dangerous? I've looked on the internet and found the text we discussed in class back then. I paste it here as a quote without mentioning the author first, because we didn't know the author back then either.

Let's discuss it (anyone who knows the source of this text please remain silent).

Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power' in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood.

Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:

First, into those who believe everything they read;

second, into those who have ceased to believe anything;

third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white.

To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably.

Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous. They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others.

This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.

The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print.

They hate every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods.

These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they are lost for all positive, political work.

The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own.

They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve.

For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon.

Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number- a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.

The quote doesn't stop here, one paragraph is missing. I left it away on purpose. I will paste it later and then reveal the author (if some swot hasn't revealed it already )

I really want to see an honest, unprejudiced discussion about it.

So don't spoil it!!!

 

[ViperVX]

We all know the author, but the whole Wikileaks deal is not about the majority, the ignorant and the elite. It's the daily blog featuring videos on 'How the sausage is made'.

 

[MacGuffin]

No. It has everything to do with this topic. It's what it's all about with WikiLeaks. It's about the key question of this thread:

"Is a total freedom of press good or bad or should an elite decide about what the people get to know?"

 

[AiR]

For those who want a video-summay of what I wrote on the previous page, here's Glenn Beck, of all people, telling us the situation behind Assange's arrest.

Ignore Glenn's confused comments on social democrats and Vladimir Putin (United Russia is not social democratic nor are social democrats radical leftists.)
I also want to add that donating to Wikileaks is just as easy as ever using your online bank and doing a bank transfer. I donated again just now and all the details you need are on Wikileaks donation page, takes less than 5 minutes.

 

[nomix]

Sure I do. I just think a line should be drawn when the law is broken. I sometimes get the impression that the press believes they should be above the law. Dealing in stolen goods for personal fame and fortune, for example. And now a legitimate criminal investigation is being conducted, but it's being interfered with by the people benefiting the most, with the excuse that it's their journalistic right and any attempts to hinder them are an assault on free speech and the freedom of the press. I can't help but suspect that certain greedy people know how to "work the system" and get rich/famous for it. That may or may not be the case here, we may never know, because no competent investigation will be permitted.

Give in, we've been over and over on this. Yes, the leak is a breach of federal law, and as such is a crime. No one is really debating that. What's on the table is wether you can prosecute anyone from publishing said information once the leak is made. And you can't.

The assaults on Wikileaks are just as much an assault on free speech as a hypotetical assault on the New York Times. There are lines you do not cross, ever.

I believe the original statement mentioned quite a number of DDOS attacks to their (AWS) servers? Do you really think they were ignorant to this massive story and totally unaware that their own servers were at it's center? I don't think it was a "random" screening at all. And nor do I believe the government sent them an email to "shut it down or die". I think they were well aware of what was going on and knew how sensitive a position they were being put in. Whether they were really afraid of the government, or the massive amount of bad publicity the story was amassing, who knows. They decided what was best for the their company.

Well, we have it from PayPal that the US government forced their hand, I'm inclined to believe that the same was true with Amazon. And for that matter, is the right way to deal with a DDOS attack to punish the victim of said activity?

It's funny about the whole freedom of speech accusations, because I honestly believe the only outcome of this leak is that our politicians are going to feel that they themselves can't speak their minds in private anymore, for fear that their may be transcripts that get leaked again and their careers can be ruined or even their lives put in danger.

Which brings up something different. Now, I want you to read this very carefully. I'm not crazy about the leaks in general. I've stated so repeatedly over several pages. You mention potential concequences. They are potential concequences. But that is not relevant to the subject at hand, the subject at hand is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must be preserved unaccosted, and the potential concequences of free speech is not an argument to restrict it.

Personally, I think everyone is entitled to privacy, even government officials. Yes, they work for the people, but that doesn't give us the right to break down their doors and invade at any time. Political Correctness all the time sounds horrible to me, but that may be the result of this.

What Bill Clinton did in his bedroom was private. What he said during politicial meetings in the Oval was not. Secret, classified, perhaps. But not private. Not private in the same way as what you talk about in your own livingroom, public officials doing their job does not have the same expection of privacy as they do when they are at home.

A good suit - $3000, a failed presidential campaign - $212 million, a successful presidential campaign - $300 million, having the head of state lobby your corporate interests in foreign market - priceless.

The US legalized corruption ages ago. It's nothing new.

I think it was more a case of, the media pointed it out to Amazon with all the press they were getting.

As we've had confirmed by PayPal, the US government forced their hand on the issue. Wouldn't suprise me if the same isn't true for Amazon.

At least Kevin Rudd has seen sense, breaking the sacred principle of never dissenting outside the cabinet in a Westminster system government. Funny.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terr...ian-Assange-not-responsible-for-cable-release

 

[Cellos88GT]

You were basically saying "If i could hack the site and shut it down, I'd like to and/or I would", correct?

Analogy- if somebody said to me "If I had a knife right now, I'd try and stab you", would I consider that a threat against me??? Um, yes.

And it wouldn't necessarily be the US prosecuting you, it would most likely be the country in which the company that owns the servers is based in. Which I ironically think is Sweden.

Here's the difference: I'm not causing any physical harm or endangering anybody's life. If Sweden were to prosecute me, how could they? They're going to come into our country and physically remove me in order to try me? No, I don't think so. If institutions have the ability to shut down torrenting sites, which technically aren't doing anything illegal in their inherent nature, then why can't we shut down something that holds private intellectual property of the government? Wikileaks holds stolen property, how they got it does not matter. If someone did the same thing in this country they would get tried for treason why does this website get such a pass? I don't care about their agenda and what they say, but they have property that does not belong to them. If I shut down such a site, I would be doing this country an enormous favor and they would do everything they could to blow the court systems in Sweden off and protect me from their stupid trial.

This is not about the freedom of the press as much as many of you would like to pretend it is.

 

[Buktu]

Here's the difference: I'm not causing any physical harm or endangering anybody's life. If Sweden were to prosecute me, how could they? They're going to come into our country and physically remove me in order to try me? No, I don't think so. If institutions have the ability to shut down torrenting sites, which technically aren't doing anything illegal in their inherent nature, then why can't we shut down something that holds private intellectual property of the government? Wikileaks holds stolen property, how they got it does not matter. If someone did the same thing in this country they would get tried for treason why does this website get such a pass? I don't care about their agenda and what they say, but they have property that does not belong to them. If I shut down such a site, I would be doing this country an enormous favor and they would do everything they could to blow the court systems in Sweden off and protect me from their stupid trial.

This is not about the freedom of the press as much as many of you would like to pretend it is.

You are arguing that you should be allowed to do something that is obviously illegal, against an organization who has done nothing illegal, simply because you do not approve of what they're doing.

 

[Cellos88GT]

You are arguing that you should be allowed to do something that is obviously illegal, against an organization who has done nothing illegal, simply because you do not approve of what they're doing.

Holding private and stolen information is legal? where and when did this happen?

 

[ViperVX]

Holding private and stolen information is legal? where and when did this happen?

Here's the difference: I'm not causing any physical harm or endangering anybody's life. If Sweden were to prosecute me, how could they? They're going to come into our country and physically remove me in order to try me? No, I don't think so. If institutions have the ability to shut down torrenting sites, which technically aren't doing anything illegal in their inherent nature, then why can't we shut down something that holds private intellectual property of the government? Wikileaks holds stolen property, how they got it does not matter. If someone did the same thing in this country they would get tried for treason why does this website get such a pass? I don't care about their agenda and what they say, but they have property that does not belong to them. If I shut down such a site, I would be doing this country an enormous favor and they would do everything they could to blow the court systems in Sweden off and protect me from their stupid trial.

This is not about the freedom of the press as much as many of you would like to pretend it is.

1. Government can't have private property be default, all government property is public property.
2. US laws do not extend to Sweden or UK.
3. Until legal action is called by US (which it wasn't, and it's been weeks) the property cannot be labeled stolen, it's holders aren't criminals.

 

[argatoga]

Holding private and stolen information is legal? where and when did this happen?

It isn't private. It was paid for by the tax payers.

As for what you said before. Whoever leaked it should be fired and prosecuted. Those who are sharing it now should not. Again see the Pentagon papers. The government should have nothing to fear about this leak if they have been acting as they should.

 

[Cellos88GT]

It isn't private. It was paid for by the tax payers.

So by that logic, if someone stole a cop car and donated it to a ride share organization where it was to be used by the public, this wouldn't be illegal?

 

[ViperVX]

So by that logic, if someone stole a cop car and donated it to a ride share organization where it was to be used by the public, this wouldn't be illegal?

Don't mix intellectual and material property in one bin.

 

[narf]

stolen information

The information wasn't stolen, it is still there.

Bad joke, I know... but it does hold a kernel of truth.

 

[nomix]

Holding private and stolen information is legal? where and when did this happen?

It has to be, unless we want to make it completely impossible to conduct any form of investigative journalism. There's not a journalist that hasn't gotten a leaked piece of paper in their hands at least once. I've had it happen several times, physicly and over e-mail. And you know what? It wasn't patient files, it was internal board documents deciding something in secret. This was not information cleared for release, but the board could probably have prosecuted me for handling stolen goods if your legal thinking were applickable. As it were, I wasn't, thousands of readers were able to learn the truth about a decision that was made behind closed doors just to avoid a proper pubic debate. Now, some months later, they've just announced that they are changing their decision.

You need journalists in a free society. Once you start defining when you can and when you can not recieve information and publish it, there's no bloody point, is there?

So by that logic, if someone stole a cop car and donated it to a ride share organization where it was to be used by the public, this wouldn't be illegal?

The theft is not legal, as the leak was also illegal. But for the seventh or eight time: This isn't about the leak, it's about the publishing of documents. The theft was not an action of free speech, but the publishing of it is. It is impossible to construde that stealing a patrol car could POSSIBLY be a matter of free speech.

 

[Cellos88GT]

Don't mix intellectual and material property in one bin.

What about intellectual property regarding the construction of military satellites? rockets? airplanes? etc. Why should I be allowed to look at those documents? Why should I have exposure to this information?

 

[brydie76]

Here's the difference: I'm not causing any physical harm or endangering anybody's life. If Sweden were to prosecute me, how could they? They're going to come into our country and physically remove me in order to try me? No, I don't think so. If institutions have the ability to shut down torrenting sites, which technically aren't doing anything illegal in their inherent nature, then why can't we shut down something that holds private intellectual property of the government? Wikileaks holds stolen property, how they got it does not matter. If someone did the same thing in this country they would get tried for treason why does this website get such a pass? I don't care about their agenda and what they say, but they have property that does not belong to them. If I shut down such a site, I would be doing this country an enormous favor and they would do everything they could to blow the court systems in Sweden off and protect me from their stupid trial.

This is not about the freedom of the press as much as many of you would like to pretend it is.

1. Ok, better analogy- "If I had some matches right now, I'd burn down your business". You were threatening to incapacitate the virtual "shop-front" of this organisation.

2. Seriously? Sweden would issue an arrest warrant for you, your the authorities that preside over the jurisdiction you are currently in will then arrest you. An extradition hearing will be held, and if there is a prima facie case you will be extradited to Sweden to face the charges there. Does sound familiar...?

3. There is a legal distinction between the theft and the leaking of property (theft is the taking of property, with no intention of returning it. Leaking is where copies of a document are taken. The originals stay where they are, somebody has just illegally obtained and disseminated copies.) Hence why wikileaks (or any other person/organisation possessing the leaked documents for that matter) can be charged with possession of stolen property. By your definition, we should be charging every person who downloaded the cables (including major news agencies) with possession of stolen property)
Oh yeah, and as others have said, even if something is marked as confidential/secret/whatever, it is still under the ownership of the people. Only access to it is restricted. Again, this is why the documents cannot be regarded as stolen if the people who technically own them took them. Hence the need for criminal law regarding leaking the documents.

4. The reason the site/Assange cannot be charged with treason has been stated over and over. Assange is an Australian citizen, not American. You can only commit treason against the country you are a citizen of. And I'm not even sure if organisations can be accused of treason in the first place (and no way would Wikileaks be a US-based organisation)

5. Yeah, the US is going to put one hacker's interests over that of a fair judicial system, international fairness, the wishes of the prosecutors, etc. There is also a little thing (at least, I hope the US has this- works wonders in Aus) called the separation of powers- the judicial system is completely separate from the legislative system. The government has no control over the courts, the judges or their rulings. In other words, the only thing the government could do for you if you were charged is try and fight having to arrest you (which I doubt would happen-way people are talking at the moment it seems like Sweden and the US have an extradition treaty in place) or give you a good lawyer. They don't have the power to wave a wand and make the charges go away. Or at least I hope all of that is true, somebody clues up on US law feel free to correct me if there is no separation of powers in the US.

And nomix (on Rudd's comments)- John Howard has come out and said the same thing. For the first time, I'm respecting Howard more than the entire Labor party. Scary....

EDIT- sorry for any typos/weird words, typing this quickly on my phone.

 

[klankymen]

If institutions have the ability to shut down torrenting sites, which technically aren't doing anything illegal in their inherent nature, then why can't we shut down something that holds private intellectual property of the government?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Your argumentation is fallacious - if China can violate human rights, why can't we? If islamists can call for a Jihad, then why can't we?

Oh, and by the way, that's almost exactly what right wing pundits, politicians and whackjobs in the united states are doing - calling for somebody to be killed over his saying something that they don't agree with.... sound familiar?

 

[nomix]

And nomix (on Rudd's comments)- John Howard has come out and said the same thing. For the first time, I'm respecting Howard more than the entire Labor party. Scary....

This is a day. I agree with Howard and Rudd. That's like learning you like the same cloths as Simon Cowell.

One point I'd like to make is that in terms of extradition from Sweden, there are quite a few legal obstacles. Firstly, I'm sure espionage is a capitol crime in the US. Sweden (or any other EU country) don't extradite people to nations where they risk the death penalty, torture, inhuman treatment and so on. Furthermore, Assange could make a very real argument that he is being prosecuted as a political dissenter by the US, and I think that would be very iffy for a Swedish court to ignore.

Edit: Oh, and Carl Bildt (foreign minister of Sweden) has thouroughly denied the rumors of talks over extradition with the US government.

 

[brydie76]

This is a day. I agree with Howard and Rudd. That's like learning you like the same cloths as Simon Cowell.

One point I'd like to make is that in terms of extradition from Sweden, there are quite a few legal obstacles. Firstly, I'm sure espionage is a capitol crime in the US. Sweden (or any other EU country) don't extradite people to nations where they risk the death penalty, torture, inhuman treatment and so on. Furthermore, Assange could make a very real argument that he is being prosecuted as a political dissenter by the US, and I think that would be very iffy for a Swedish court to ignore.

Edit: Oh, and Carl Bildt (foreign minister of Sweden) has thouroughly denied the rumors of talks over extradition with the US government.

I know, until today I was a much bigger supporter of Gillard and the Labor party. But after her remarks this week, combined with the above article about Rudd and Howard.... I honestly have to say I cannot support Gillard's Labor any more, which is huge for me to admit. But rationality and level-headedness is much more important politically than supporting "your" party no matter what I guess!

And I think Sweden would get assurance from the US that Assange would not receive the death penalty before they extradite him. That's what Aus did a couple of months ago when extraditing the guy who allegedly murdered his wife on their honeymoon (he was convicted of manslaughter over here, but the US- Alabama specifically from memory- wants to try him for murder).

Oh, (for anybody wanting to argue it) I do realise how iffy my definition of theft vs leaking is in my previous post, especially in relation to things like torrenting. But a) that's what law reform is for and b) I'm not sure if anybody has been tried in a criminal court for tormenting yet, only sued in civil court. Correct me if I'm wrong again.