Meet the Most Dangerous Man in Cyberspace: The American Face of Wikileaks

An awful lot of what is classified isn't data that would harm the country if another country got it, it's stuff they don't want you and I to know.

Those $350 toilet seats and hammers were classified data too once upon a time.

I'm siding more with the disclosure guys than with the govts on this one. BUT I feel they have a responsibility to be cautious about what and when they disclose. There's sense, common sense, and good sense. They can be selective with what they disclose (which is just what the media is doing with this reporting).

NPR is reporting Assange turned himself in early this morning.

I heard on NPR that Assange asked the pentagon for assistance in editting the documents. They refused , so he put it all out on the web. Did anyone else catch this? It was Sunday morning.

pilotbraden wrote: I heard on NPR that Assange asked the pentagon for assistance in editting the documents. They refused , so he put it all out on the web. Did anyone else catch this? It was Sunday morning.

They still redacted a LOT of info (basically, any names). Of course, when going through a 1/4 million documents, that is a lot of editing. Some slipped through the cracks. But yes, the pentagon did refuse.

I've also been hearing hearsay on the internets about some gnarly stuff on the russians coming out soon. "Hai guyz, watch this!"

Regardless of what is in the documents, if they are classified at all, and someone leaks them, it is a very serious matter. According to the law, it is treasonous in fact, some acts punishable by death. You guys apparently haven't had to sit though a clearance briefing. At this point he could be deported to the US and tried as an enemy combatant if they so choose to do so.

Anyway, who's to say what is still in the hundreds of thousands that he still has, and I doubt very much that any of us know really what is going on behind the scenes.

To relate just the "embarrassing" documents, how many here have said things about their co-workers? What if they all knew what you said in private? Would that hamper your ability to get things done?

Dave, one problem: Assange didn't leak them. He published them. While leaking them is a serious offense, publishing leaked papers is perfectly legal (see the Pentagon Papers for a prior example).

Whoever leaked 'em is in deep doo-doo, though.

Baxter, it seems that according to Faux News Assange was asked to return the stolen property of the US government the first time around, he refused. Now he's done it again: received stolen property.

He then released that information. To release information knowing that it will probably cause harm to the US is in direct violation of the Espionage Act.

So he too is in deep crap.

Xceler8x wrote:

Jensenman wrote: Matt hit the nail on the head. Applebaum and Assange have decided they know better than anyone what information should be released to the public. This afternoon, Faux News (threw that in to make iggy happy! ) reported that Assange has threatened to release some other stuff he has held back if the WikiLeaks site is brought down. So he feels blackmail is necessary to accomplish his aims. That indicates that in his view 'the ends justify the means.' Looks like Assange is a student of Machiavelli.

You must have a lot of trust in government. Most times if you tick off a large powerful government they will employ dirty tricks. Things like accusing you of "enough" rape to put you in jail. Once you're in jail you can be dealt with. Either a convict can kill you, you can be extradited, or you can be sent to black ops prison in some distant portion of the world where the NSA is safe from Congressional oversight. When the government won't protect you, wat do? You do what Assange has done. Create your own protection. I'm not supporting Assange or his agenda. I'm just trying to give another viewpoint. Just because the guy is trying to protect himself against people who don't care about his well-being doesn't mean the guy is a monster. I do find it ironic that most authorities will say "If you're doing nothing wrong, why hide something?" That's their excuse for disregarding your privacy. Now that the government's privacy is non-existent it's a world crisis. Welcome to the life of a private citizen! Hell, if you're doing nothing wrong why worry about hiding stuff?

I trust the US government a damn sight more than I trust Assange. Our government will at least give him a trial, which is more than he offers in return. He has declared himself judge, jury and executioner, i.e. he feels he is always right in trying to embarrass the US.

If he releases those alleged Russian cables or whatever they are, well, his days will be numbered. He will be tried and convicted by them in secret and in absentia and then dealt with. So in a real sense he will be hoist on his own petard.

as much as you guys want to villify this guy, the world needs nutters willing to fight for the freedom of information.

Some guys a while ago.. Like in 1776 fought for free speech(among other things).. Maybe they should have been shut down by the establishment..

The torture.. Civilian killings.. None of that crap made it to the news anywhere in the world without this guy. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11632839

It's not OK for a TSA agent to touch my penis, but you know what It's OK for our government to commit murder in our name or torture people. Just make sure to fly your "don't tread on me flag" while spouting this drivel.

So I assert once again.. While we all may hate the guy, He is needed. A check to our balance.

Jensenman, even then, much of the argument hinges on whether or not wikileaks is a news organization. Much smarter people than I have laid out the legal precedents under which Assange has broken NO laws (while the US has possibly broken several in it's attempt to shut him down).

I'm not necessarily defending Assange. I just find it interesting in that it's a really good example of how the world has changed, but the laws have not -- yet.

There's a difference between freedom of information and publishing classified documents. I totally agree that the press needs to hold officials accountable, but that should not include classified publishing. To put it another way, what he has done is the same as selling stolen goods in my opinion.

My only problem with the whole Wikileaks thing, is that is the established media was doing their job, reporting on this type of thing, being the silent "Fourth Branch of Government" as intended by the Founding Fathers, then Wikileaks wouldn't exist. Instead the media sits on their hands and reports garbage, creating a demand for actual government watchdog reporting.

In reply to Tim Baxter:

I find that defense of the media kinda BS. If you are doing something that will harm others, then you take responsibility IMHO.

racerdave600 wrote: There's a difference between freedom of information and publishing classified documents. I totally agree that the press needs to hold officials accountable, but that should not include classified publishing. To put it another way, what he has done is the same as selling stolen goods in my opinion.

The question then becomes who decides what is classified? Is there a "reasonableness" test? After all, there is much that could be classified that actually covers up wrong-doing and therefore keeps accountability at bay.

In reply to ZOO: Sorry, but government employees should decide what is classified, not some hacker, or the media, or the Assange lunatics of the world. Sure some stuff is probably incorrectly marked classified because of the embarrassment factor, but that's probably the overwhelming minority. Meanwhile, in the Wikileaks example, there are numerous instances of real damaging information being released that, at a minimum, will make it difficult for the U.S. (and other countries) to conduct for policy negotiations. If that reduces the chance to head off war on the Korean Peninsula, can we really say what Wikileaks did was a good thing? Furthermore, there are definite instances of Wikileaks releasing the names, locations, and other identifying information of informants cooperating with U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Who wants to sell those guys life insurance?

Sorry, I might not like big government, but I think what Assange and Wikileaks did was harmful and more out of spite than for any truly benevolent purpose. Even now, Assange is attempting to blackmail the U.S. by releasing a lot more information if he's detained. I guess that shows that he's not really about trying to do what's best and just wants to feed off the notoriety. The sad thing is, as much as so many people have a paranoid view of the U.S. government, the U.S. government clearly is in a pretty weak position because, contrary to popular belief, it does follow its own self-imposed rules...note the comments in this very thread that indicate that Russia would take a very different approach toward dealing with Assange and wikileaks.

LainfordExpress wrote: My only problem with the whole Wikileaks thing, is that is the established media was doing their job, reporting on this type of thing, being the silent "Fourth Branch of Government" as intended by the Founding Fathers, then Wikileaks wouldn't exist. Instead the media sits on their hands and reports garbage, creating a demand for actual government watchdog reporting.

the NYTimes and the UK paper The Guardian published the same E36 M3. They aren't getting villified. Wikilieaks just published this info like any good news organization worth its E36 M3 would...

Visa and Mastercard stopped the ability to donate to wikileaks, however you can still use either card to donate to the KKK or various other hate organizations.

hmmm..

Tim Baxter wrote: Jensenman, even then, much of the argument hinges on whether or not wikileaks is a news organization. Much smarter people than I have laid out the legal precedents under which Assange has broken NO laws (while the US has possibly broken several in it's attempt to shut him down). I'm not necessarily defending Assange. I just find it interesting in that it's a really good example of how the world has changed, but the laws have not -- yet.

Not picking on you, Baxter, but I do have a question.

Do you believe that Assange (or his employs or cohorts) did not offer any incentive whatsoever for people to leak the info? Because if they offered rewards (money, sex, whatever) in exchange for someone committing a crime, then they were most certainly aiding and abetting (which IS a crime).

I find it hard to believe that some people in military positions would take the kind of risk they did (treason?) to enable Mr. Assange to "do the right thing" with information that (some say) is fairly meaningless for no personal gain at all.

Just a thought...

Big ego wrote: Visa and Mastercard stopped the ability to donate to wikileaks, however you can still use either card to donate to the KKK or various other hate organizations. hmmm..

Visa and Mastercard pulled the plug because it was apparent to them that Wikileaks was committing crimes, and they did not want to be (caught) enabling criminal activity.

Like it or not, until crimes are committed, those other organizations are not committing crimes. I can pretty much guarantee that if the KKK got their proverbial butt in the kind of a sling that Mr. Assange has currently put his own into, that Visa and MC would be pulling the plug on them too.

The part of the sideshow that's interesting to me is how many US based corporations rolled over when asked to by the Feds. Assange and his organization have been accused of, but not charged with any crimes, yet they've been shut down by Amazon, Paypal, Visa and Master cards.

I'm not criticizing any of these organizations, it's probably good business. What I find interesting is how easily these massive institutions can be co-opted by the US government. There was no obvious legal imperative to do so (such as a court order), they did it of their own (apparent) free will.

In reply to fifty:

Have you see how the US government has treated several corporations over the last several years. You reckon they don't want to be deemed to big for whatever and taken over or fined and regulated out of existence. Your friendly neighborhood congressman has the power to make their lives miserable. In this day and age they can do whatever they want with apparently no limit. Mr Assange has them covering up crap like a cat on a hot tin roof. I wouldn't stand between the government and him either.

SVreX wrote:

Big ego wrote: Visa and Mastercard stopped the ability to donate to wikileaks, however you can still use either card to donate to the KKK or various other hate organizations. hmmm..

Visa and Mastercard pulled the plug because it was apparent to them that Wikileaks was committing crimes, and they did not want to be (caught) enabling criminal activity. Like it or not, until crimes are committed, those other organizations are not committing crimes. I can pretty much guarantee that if the KKK got their proverbial butt in the kind of a sling that Mr. Assange has currently put his own into, that Visa and MC would be pulling the plug on them too.

are they committing crimes? If so then why haven't the NYTIMES or The Guardian been blocked by Visa or Mastercard?

Yes they are private organizations and can block anyone.. but... Seems too convenient.

fifty wrote: The part of the sideshow that's interesting to me is how many US based corporations rolled over when asked to by the Feds. Assange and his organization have been accused of, but not charged with any crimes, yet they've been shut down by Amazon, Paypal, Visa and Master cards. I'm not criticizing any of these organizations, it's probably good business. What I find interesting is how easily these massive institutions can be co-opted by the US government. There was no obvious legal imperative to do so (such as a court order), they did it of their own (apparent) free will.

I know it's old fashioned and clearly not popular these days, but perhaps, rather than waiting till they were otherwise compelled to, they chose to act because not enabling organizations that put national security and the lives of others at risk is the right thing to do.

I know the whole idea of acting responsibly and the concept of differentiating between what one has a right to do and what one ought to do gets little attention in today's world, particularly among the younger folks, but perhaps (this time) these companies got it right.

mpolans wrote: I know it's old fashioned and clearly not popular these days, but perhaps, rather than waiting till they were otherwise compelled to, they chose to act because not enabling organizations that put national security and the lives of others at risk is the right thing to do. I know the whole idea of acting responsibly and the concept of differentiating between what one has a right to do and what one ought to do gets little attention in today's world, particularly among the younger folks, but perhaps (this time) these companies got it right.

If that were the case, then they'd also act against the online porn and gambling industries, prostitution, illegal firearm transactions etc etc. The treatment of wikileaks was clearly selective. I don't have a bone to pick about it, I'm just curious what pressure was placed upon them.

RacerDave, PinchValve, I'm not defending the media. I'm explaining there are existing laws on the books precisely for this sort of thing that have been there since the release of the Pentagon Papers caused a hubbub decades ago. The point is, publishing classified documents is quite legal. Releasing them is not. I didn't make the law, and I think it's kind of a weird distinction to make in the first place. But they didn't ask me.

Far from defending the media, I agree with Lainford. If they had been doing their job over the past, oh, 10 or 20 years, wikileaks would be largely irrelevant. But they don't, and we don't ask them to.

SVRex, I have no idea what motivates the leakers. Maybe they were offered hookers and blow, maybe they're just disgruntled jerks, maybe they see themselves as some sort of knighted whistle-blowers, telling truth to power at any cost. I have no clue.

I can only speak for myself, and I know when I put my years in, I just kept my mouth shut about pretty much everything I saw and heard. Under the UCMJ I would have been obligated to report anything I knew to be unlawful, but embarrassing and stupid? Hell that's what the military and government traffficks in daily. If you're going to release everything that's embarrassing and dumb, you'll have to release almost everything.

Regardless of all the above, I'm mostly interested in the whole thing because of what it signifies:

The internet is inherently decentralized, democratic and libertarian to the point of anarchy. And everything on the internet is a commodity. There is no scarcity, only dispersion.

It was built to be that way way back when the gov't ran it (and thought only they would have access). When everyone had access, it only accelerated and magnified the inherent traits built in. What we're seeing now is how those traits affect pretty much everything. Media was an obvious and easy first casualty, but wikileaks is the first example of how the internet will, inevitably, change the way governments operate. Essentially, we're seeing the same sort of power shift they saw in Gutenberg's day.

We can argue about it, and rail against the change, and wail and gnash our teeth, but this shift is happening. It WILL happen.

What really matters is how soon we come to grips with the new reality, and how well we manage to craft whatever comes next.

I don't disagree, and I don't know what motivates them either.

I'm just observing that you said Assange broke no laws, and I don't think that has been established yet. It is VERY possible that he broke a WHOLE BUNCH of laws, including the ones he has currently been arrested for.