backtop


Print 105 comment(s) - last by iiiears.. on Dec 12 at 3:08 PM


Wikileaks has lost its domain name and is now only reachable by direct IP. It has lost virtually all its primary sources of funding.

An hacker activist has helped make Wikileaks difficult to reach, even before the recent domain name takedown.  (Source: Vimeo)

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in England on supposedly unrelated charges.  (Source: AP Photo)
Site's options continue to shrink

Wikileaks aired hundreds of thousands of classified documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that were stolen from the U.S Military, and shared 250,000 stolen classified U.S. State Department cables with The New York Times and other news organizations worldwide. The website certainly irritated the governments of U.S., China, Britain and many other organizations worldwide.  They moved to cut off the site's funding, first convincing Amazon to throw it off its hosting platform, then working with Paypal to sever its primary source of funding.  

But when 
Wikileaks yesterday published a list of top targets to hurt U.S. national security, the site seemingly sealed its own fate.  Its Swiss bank account was closed, and Wikileaks reportedly lost the money in it (the bank contended that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange lied in the paperwork, saying he resided in Switzerland, which he does not).

Now the DNS Company, the web listing organization which provided 
Wikileaks with the right to use the domain name "wikileaks.org", has terminated its affiliation with the site.  That means that attempts to reach the site by domain name no longer succeed.

The site also lost another hosting service -- EveryDNS.net -- and has jumped to a mix of Swiss and French hosting at the present.  But France's government is already moving to ban the site from its nations servers.

Meanwhile the site is under a distributed denial of service attack from a "hacktivist" who goes by the moniker The Jester – or "th3 j35t3r".  On his Twitter feed, The Jester writes, "TANGO DOWN - for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops, 'other assets' & foreign relations."

An earlier attack exceeded a modest 2-4 Gbps, but a Tuesday attack was even more potent, reaching a mean 10 Gbps.

About the only way to get to Wikileaks these days is via a Google search, which comes up with its direct IP address, which is occasionally reachable, depending on the current volume of fake service requests.

Facing the possibility of his masterwork being taken offline and complete loss of funding,
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange surrendered to authorities in Britain on Swedish rape charges unrelated to the recent leaks.  He has warned his followers that if anything happens to him while he is imprisoned, that a secret key will be released which will unlock a distributed archived file containing all the site's unreleased secrets.

One of Mr. Assange's accusers in the Swedish sex crimes trial coincidentally has ties to the CIA.  Mr. Assange was denied bail, as he is to be extradited to Sweden for questioning on outstanding allegations of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion.  When asked if he understood the ruling, he commented, "I understand that and I do not consent."

Apparently the matter was not left up to his determination.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:22:10 AM , Rating: 5
I'm a patriot. I love my country. I love this wonderful Constitution and Bill of Rights my founding fathers put in place and most importantly, I honor, respect and cherish the sacrifice my citizens have made at the helm of arms in defense of our way of life.

I also cherish our right to free speech. I certainly recognize it applies to all of our citizens. I feel it is utmostly important to preserve this right as it gives us a tremendous advantage that people all around the world die for daily--die because they spoke out about something that some dictator, despot or communist leader deemed they did not like, so they make those people "dissapear." That can't and should not happen here in America, as it was designed when our parent documents were ratified.

I also recognize the sheer amount of disinformation we put up with as the American public that comes out of Corporate America and more importantly our own politicians and Government. As a wise citizen, it is our duty to recognize this dissonance and strive to find the real truth in things and not simply accept them as they are told to us.

With the internet, this has become easier as it provides us a forum to discuss items and issues and, due to our great Bill of Rights, not fear imprisonment or worse. Wikileaks originally started out as a good idea. It was a place to release information that people potentially wanted to know. I think forums like it are a good place that need to exist and shudder at the idea of them all going away.

This would leave us all in the dark again and that certainly is not a friendly place when you think about it.

However, I think there is a line--yes a line that separates where we are free to speak our minds (well, we are always free to speak our minds) and a point where it could cost people their individual lives or worse, groups of people their lives. I think Wikileaks has crossed this line. The release of potential targets, while not directly damaging, was more a flag in our faces that, "hey, we can help guide those who really want to hurt you in how to hurt you." This I think, was going to far. Shame on Julian and shame on Wikileaks for doing this. There comes a time when we have to protect our citizens and that time is now.

Anytime you possess knowledge that can potentially change the course of the world, it needs to be used responsibly. It can not just be shoveled out freely without any fear of it being used in the wrong way. Thinking like this also borders on that very same "Freedom of Speech" that our fathers wanted to preserve.

What I fear most due to all of this outcry against Wikileaks is not what will happen to Julian or what will happen to his website--it is what will happen to our Freedom of Speech. I wish not to have it poached from our arms and sent into the nethers of yonderyear--I wish it to be protected and preserved. I also don't want it tarnished but instead, would love for society to take this as a time for discussion as to the pro's and con's of it all and not let it be taken lightly one bit.

We are treading upon a dangerous precident here and it is not a light matter one bit. Right, wrong or neutral, I think every stance has a point in this matter and regardless of my stance on Wikileaks and Julian himself, what is more important is how this might effect our future rights as citizens of this country--and the message heard around the world.




RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:27:31 AM , Rating: 4
As a side note, I realize Julian is not a US Citizen nor is Wikileaks US property. Our rights bestowed upon our citizens do not apply to him. However, the concepts of our rights are what potentially is at stake based on the mentality of our populace on this issue. It is simply grounds for deeper reflection on the full gravity of what may or may not happen.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 11:34:11 AM , Rating: 5
It's basically what James Madison said in circa 1811.
quote;

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 11:53:09 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not showing him love at all; Please re-read what I wrote.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By ClownPuncher on 12/7/2010 2:08:32 PM , Rating: 5
Face it, a rational response doesn't pander to the mob mentality of either side. Being a moderate fucks you.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 2:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
That is so true. :) Well said.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By dsumanik on 12/11/2010 5:25:13 AM , Rating: 3
Our nation needs drastic change, and mr assange is ushering the public to think beyond what is fed to them on the television by corrupt politicians and biased media.

All of you would be singing a completely different tune if these leaks pertained to chinese military/diplomatic secrets. Youd be loving this guy.

Well guess what, this dirty laundry is all American this time around.....and it all happened because the citizens of this country fell asleep at the wheel eating mcdonalds and paying for it with maxed out credit cards.

Wake up folks, our great country the USA is not a darling angel anymore and in the last 2 decades we have caused more harm than any other country on the planet from both a military and economic standpoint....why do you think out of all the places that could have been targeted in the world, it was new york on sept 11 2001? Just bad luck?

We pissed alot of people off, they retaliated...it is that simple.

Leaking these "sensitive targets" is nothing that terrorists dont already know.

WHY THEY ARE STILL LEFT UNGUARDED WHILE THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY AWARE OF THEM IS THE REAL QUESTION I WANT ANSWERED.

BRING OUR BOYS HOME TO DEFEND OUR OWN BORDERS. GET THE FUQQ OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST AND NONE OF THIS WILL HAPPEN ANYMORE.

MR ASSANGE IS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE, BUT HE HAS SHOWN US ALL THAT OUR OWN GOVERNMENT IS JUST AS DANGEROUS, AND HAS LIED AND DESTROYED IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By iiiears on 12/12/2010 2:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Remember the Maine!"


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 12:54:06 PM , Rating: 4
I totally disagree, I think the Wikileaks cables reveal the crux of our problems and struggles. It's absolutely necessary for Public to know this; clandestine actions and obscured policies that endanger everyone. This one for example:

WikiLeaked Cable Confirms U.S.’ Secret Somalia Op

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/wikileaked...

"Three years later, it’s clear the Ethiopian invasion was a bad idea. The attack rallied Somalis of all stripes and politics against the invaders, ultimately boosting support for fringe Islamic groups that now had a clear enemy in the Ethiopians and their suspected American puppet-masters. Violence mounted as the Ethiopians settled in for a bloody, two-year occupation.

When the Ethiopians withdrew in 2009, the Islamists rushed to fill the vacuum. A year later, the Al Shabab Islamic group, successor to the Islamic Courts, conducted its first international terror attack. Last month, a Somali-born American teen plotted to explode a bomb in Portland. Today, U.S. Special Forces continue to target terrorists in Somalia. There are arguably more of them than ever, thanks in part to the botched Ethiopian invasion. “We’ve made a lot of mistakes and Ethiopia’s entry in 2006 was not a really good idea,” U.S. diplomat Donald Yamamoto said in March."


RE: I'm conflicted...
By ValorMorghulis on 12/7/2010 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 3
Vitaly, I agree with you on that specific example. There are things that we as the public need to see. However, once it becomes clear that actions you are making are hurting SPECIFIC individuals, you have an obligation to stop. When terrorist organizations are thanking you for what you've done you've crossed the line.

Even though we as a country believe in free speech, there still are types of speech that are prohibited. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. Why? Because it leads to imminent physical harm to other people. Thats exactly Assaunge is doing. His actions are putting people in IMMEDIATE physical danger. This isn't an abstract situation of "oh he's hurting our credibility". There are immediate direct and often fatal consequences of his actions. That is not acceptable and shouldn't be.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 3:31:36 PM , Rating: 5
I was going to write a more extensive reply, but my friends just informed me that Julian Assange has published his new article,
"Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths", this article essentially reflects my position om this controversy in more coherent style.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks...


RE: I'm conflicted...
By xkrakenx on 12/7/10, Rating: 0
RE: I'm conflicted...
By Suntan on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By Samus on 12/7/2010 4:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the things leaked, the cables are of the least concern. Those don't neccessarily endanger lives. Releasing classified mainland terrorist targets...do. The nail in the coffin, if you will.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Luticus on 12/7/2010 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is a difference between free speech/press and releasing information that could hurt a lot of people. They aren't giving their opinion on something, they aren't calling the president a jerk, they are releasing ideas on how to best hurt an entire group (country) of people. I don't think our rights are at stake on this one. I think this goes far above and beyond any right someone has. This is akin to someone going into your house and grabbing all your financial records and releasing them online, then trying to hide behind free speech. We wouldn't stand for that would we?

I'm ok with them exposing wrong doing, war crimes, and other dumb stuff like that, but what they are doing now is just hurtful and doesn't help anyone but those who would do wrong. This is a great example of "good concept, bad execution". The idea of a site where you can go to report wrong doing and blow whistles and such is great but when it become a medium to hurt people then it becomes something that i feel needs to be shut down.

Now as for Julian not being a citizen of the USA, I believe that everyone regardless of what nation they belong to or what part of this rock they were born on, deserves all the rights we enjoy here. People are no less human because they were born in a different hemisphere. It's not so much that i believe that our (America's) way is perfect or somehow better than that of other countries, i just simply believe that as someone who values and holds the right of free speech i should impart onto other people of the world the same respect and courtesy that i am given as a citizen of the US. The declaration of independence reads that "all men are created equal", not "all citizens of the United States". But that's just my take on it.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By MozeeToby on 12/7/2010 12:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
No one has ever been successfully prosecuted in the US for publishing leaked documents. Lots and lots of people have been convicted for performing the actual leak, but there has never been a case in which a journalist was convicted for publishing material he received from a source. The handful of cases where it went to trial, the case was quickly thrown out of court. Throwing journalists in jail for publishing information that they receive is a very slippery slope to start down. The courts have always realized this in the past, and it's quite likely that they would do the same in this case.

As for the 'rape' accusations, it is not any definition of rape that you would be familiar with, the sexual assault laws in Sweden are, shall we say, rather liberal in their interpretations; and even then there are conflicting reports even of what the women said. For one thing, one of them has openly stated to the media that she was not raped, that Assange is not violent, and that she never wanted to press charges. The other woman cooked him breakfast the next morning and left him alone in her apartment. Both women had friendly, public contact with him after the alleged rape occurred. Neither women reported anything until they found out about each other. That makes the man an asshole, no doubt, but it hardly makes him a rapist.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By BZDTemp on 12/8/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By foolsgambit11 on 12/7/2010 4:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans. This is best stated in Jefferson's immortal words from the Declaration of Independence:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
So while the US Government may not have an obligation to ensure these rights for non-Americans, it would be against its founding principles to actively infringe on anyone's fundamental human rights.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By jonmcc33 on 12/7/2010 6:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans.


Wrong. If you want American rights then you become American. They clearly do not apply to any other country in the world.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Starcub on 12/8/2010 11:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong. If you want American rights then you become American.

Whoosh!


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 8:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He may not be a US Citizen, but the principles on which the United States was founded are inherently the rights of all, not just Americans.


Be careful, some would say that smacks of Imperialism. Forcing our Constitution and way of life on everyone regardless of weather they agree or want it.

A fair bit of the Constitution and Amendments deals with citizenship. So you aren't even close, no offense.

Our rights are indeed for all. All who wish to come here and become a citizen.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Targon on 12/8/2010 3:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
There is a key concept that many people just don't seem to grasp. Just because the IDEALS should promote these concepts does not mean that the entire world is PROTECTED by these concepts. This means that a non-citizen is NOT protected by our laws, but US citizens are still required to follow them.

In short, those from other countries do not have the rights of citizens, but they can report illegal activities and expect illegal activities(under US law) by US citizens to be punished. This means that in theory, non-citizens do not have the right to start lawsuits under US law for a "crime", but they can expect any wrongdoing to be punished.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Lugaidster on 12/8/2010 9:52:15 AM , Rating: 1
According to your logic then if a tourist kills another tourist while being in the United States, it won't matter?


RE: I'm conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 12:16:43 PM , Rating: 1
Knowingly and intentionally releasing information that is classified and potentially aids our enemies is not covered under the freedom of speech.

Is he even a US citizen either? If not, he isn't covered under our right to free speech.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/7/2010 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, he's not a citizen. He's Australian, actually. I'm quite sure that if he released Australian information, their oppressive parliament would have him thrown in jail indefinitely. Freedom of Speech as far as I'm concerned is dead there. It died when they started censoring their pipe to the internet for the whole country.

But yes, I'm with you and it falls under "being used responsibly." The information he released was classified and aids our enemies in routing out the guys in their countries who are aiding us. People have died as a result of these postings.

At some point, Julian should have asked himself, "Gee, is this information I'm about to release going to cause someone to die as a result--someone who is tertiary to the information but as a indirect result, I've jeopoardized their position?" He then should have followed up that question with: "Am I willing to die as a result of releasing this information in place of others who might die because of it?"

If his answer to the question was: "No," then he should have not released it. If his answer was "Yes," then he should now be willing to stand up in front of a firing line and take a bullet for his cause.

I really, honestly, think Julian has gone about this in an incredibly wreckless manner. I don't want to see the freedom for information exchange to die also, though.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By kerpwnt on 12/7/2010 1:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
I feel like wikileaks walks a fine line with horrible balance. On one hand, they expose war crimes and shady operations that destabilize countries and further anti-American sentiment in hostile regions. On the other hand they publish internal U.S. investigations, exposing potential 'weak spots' for terrorist attacks.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By thurston on 12/7/2010 7:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
No he is not a US citizen. Can you not find this out on your own? Why are you commenting when you don't even know the basic facts?


RE: I'm conflicted...
By rdawise on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By chick0n on 12/7/10, Rating: -1
RE: I'm conflicted...
By rdawise on 12/8/2010 7:27:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
So it is ok to hurt other people to protect US Citizens


You do realize that is the definition of war correct? But, where did you see me endorse that?

quote:
I'm dare to say 99% of the DT readers never actually read the docs on Wiki leaks. Most of u got the ideas of "hurting US Citizens" from Fox or some other US biased media group.


Yes, i did see some (not all of the documents) and they are hurtful because they contained intel (though some of it already know) that put our allies in danger. A better question would be did you read it? Please don't lump me in with people who watch Fox, I like to think for myself...

quote:
Try to read some of them first b4 u talk again


Try taking your own advice...


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Hieyeck on 12/7/2010 1:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
This summarizes what the average person is feeling, but with these feelings, there shouldn't be conflict.

------

Let's think back to WW2. France just got rolled over by the German machine. Its people suppressed. But there were those who refused to be supressed and their Resistance helped rebuild thier nation. The nation survived.

China, early 1900s. Opium arrives, government eager to please everyone else, gives up its Confucian ideals. Falls into civil unrest leading to Boxer Rebellion and eventually civil war. The China then has never existed since.

------

A nation is an ideal and the community that strives to reach that ideal. A nation exists in the hearts of its people. Give up the nationalism and the nation still lives. Give up the ideals - and especially the will to speak those ideals, and the 'nation' just becomes a shell.

I am not American, but I would still call myself a patriot to your nation - to the ideals of America. The ideals dictated by your founding fathers: life; liberty; and the pursuit of happiness.
</idealistic rant>

<personal opinion>
I think wikileaks is a good thing. There's too much fake in this world. The airbrushed magazine covers, the knockoff baby formula - it's all too much. So much that nations that are supposed to be more than allies can't be honest with each other. Worst of all, nations can't even be honest with themselves. The US government isn't even actually 'The US' anymore, or Jon Stewart's march wouldn't have gained any traction. World needs some more honesty.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Solandri on 12/7/2010 2:37:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think wikileaks is a good thing. There's too much fake in this world. The airbrushed magazine covers, the knockoff baby formula - it's all too much. So much that nations that are supposed to be more than allies can't be honest with each other. Worst of all, nations can't even be honest with themselves. The US government isn't even actually 'The US' anymore, or Jon Stewart's march wouldn't have gained any traction. World needs some more honesty.

This, of course, assumes that everything published on Wikileaks is honest truth (including no deception by omissions).

Spotting fakes and deception is a difficult skill all of us have to learn as we go through life. There's just no easy way to do it, no magic website which shovels out pure, unfiltered truth. I'm very careful about my personal info, but even I get taken in by the occasional fraud (got an eBay phishing scam email coincidentally just after I won the bid on an eBay item).

I think a site like Wikileaks can be useful to have in the grand scheme of things. But only as a potential threat to those who would improperly hide secrets. Something to make them think there's less chance that they could get away with it. Not as a reliable source of leaked information. I'm under no illusion that Wikileaks is somehow immune to the same forces of corruption which make us question the honesty of governments and other organizations.

For one, I'd like to see them apply their principles to themselves. Make available who their members are, how they operate, how they decide what to release and what not to release, the number of leaks they get by industry/government/country and how many of them they publish or decide not to publish, where their funding comes from (hey, everyone complains about researchers getting funding from corporations causing bias, what's good for the goose is good for the gander), etc.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By FITCamaro on 12/7/2010 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The idea of a group in the world that brings out corruption is one thing. One who's mission it is to expose national secrets is another.

There are definitely things in the world that it's better if the public doesn't know. One good example I heard was fighting terrorism in Pakistan. Pakistan might want to go after a certain group but be unable to. So they might want the US to go do it for them but still take credit. This was the kind of thing released in the leaked cables. It makes Pakistan look bad as well as shows our covert actions.

The fact that the world isn't perfect and involves a lot of backroom dealing on the international scene should be no surprise to anyone. And by and large the world doesn't need to know about it. The only dealings I want to know about are things like talks between the US and the UN to essentially undermine US sovereignty. Or talks withing my own government on domestic issues that affect what products I can buy, how much I'll be taxed, etc. What deal we make with another country to do something or buy something is none of my business. I can see the result in the end and if I don't like it I can vote my opinion to try and change who's doing that negotiating or dealing.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By gorehound on 12/7/2010 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
I for one am glad to read the information which shows the other side of things.
1. you got the news media
2.you got the real government files.

now you can see for yourself if you have a decent government or is it a big lie.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 6:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I for one am glad to read the information which shows the other side of things.
1. you got the news media
2.you got the real government files.

now you can see for yourself if you have a decent government or is it a big lie.


At the expense of undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts (the other half of foreign relations, the not-war half) and compromising the safety of various intelligence assets and other high value targets/lives important to American interests.

Get your head out of your ass. I'd love to know all about the government too, but if that stuff gets declassified, then EVERYONE knows, not just me.

It's completely hypocritical to expect the United States government to be completely transparent but not holding the governments of other nations to the same standard (China, Russia, North Korea and the two hundred or so other countries?). How can you possibly have a workable diplomatic relationship if only one country is transparent?


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Shadowmaster625 on 12/7/2010 4:24:27 PM , Rating: 1
Wow you just wasted 3000 characters worshipping your beloved cancerous tumor known as The State. If you are a patriot, you dont rationalize with it. You dont compromise with it. It is diseased and the disease must be cut from it before it consumes us all. If the disease cannot be cut without killing it, then it must be killed. If you arent willing to take that stand then you have no business calling yourself a patriot.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Mudhen6 on 12/7/2010 6:41:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wow you just wasted 3000 characters worshipping your beloved cancerous tumor known as The State. If you are a patriot, you dont rationalize with it. You dont compromise with it. It is diseased and the disease must be cut from it before it consumes us all. If the disease cannot be cut without killing it, then it must be killed. If you arent willing to take that stand then you have no business calling yourself a patriot.


Rhetoric is the best you got? Hey guess who else spoke in rhetoric to garner support by spreading FUD?

BTW, Hitler called, and he wants his speech back.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Dug on 12/7/2010 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with releasing stolen documents. That is aiding and abetting a criminal. (To assist and/or incite another to commit a crime)

To tell us he will release all documents if he goes to jail which will probably harm others is blackmail, a threat, and terrorism all in one.

"Don't shoot the messenger"
He was never elected the messenger. He made himself a messenger, therefore he should take the consequences of his own election.

He is not reporting, or relaying information. He has become the worst tattle tale in the world. Around here, if you are a tattle tale that causes harm to others, you get a blanket party. And believe me, you won't do it again.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 7:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are WAY overblowning this issue. Precedent? No "dangerous precedent" is being set here. And our Freedom of Speech is NOT in jeopardy at all. This is just a website being shut down. That happens all the time, honestly, and nobody cries about fascism and our freedom of speech then. Why is this different?

Assange isn't even a citizen. Technically our "freedom of speech" doesn't apply to him. And it sure as hell doesn't cover a "freedom" to upload stolen documents of a sensitive and potentially dangerous nature.

quote:
I think every stance has a point in this matter and regardless of my stance on Wikileaks and Julian himself, what is more important is how this might effect our future rights as citizens of this country


Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this. And again, he's not a citizen. How are OUR future rights being threatened here?


RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 8:38:28 PM , Rating: 2
"Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this."

You will get it, just wait for a couple more months for this to happen.

Here are the first signs of the true demon.

December 07, 2010
The US government is clamping down on scientists’ ability to discuss and surf freely as part of its response to the release of classified cables by Wikileaks.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/1...

Steven Aftergood of the Federation for American Scientists says the actions appear intended to respond to an Office of Management and Budget memo that reminds agencies that bringing classified information onto a non-classified system may breach agency regulations. But, he adds, many agencies are going further than they have to by blocking sites entirely. He says that doesn’t make sense when much of the information is already freely available from newspapers such as The New York TImes and The Guardian. “The government has locked itself into a contradictory position that threatens mission performance,” – the idea that government employees should do the best job they can with the information they can obtain, he says.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/7/2010 8:49:02 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but please take off the tinfoil hat. That is just detailing a procedural change of how the Government will internally handle things now due to a MASSIVE security leak scandal. Things like this happen all the time. And honestly, changes obviously DO need to be made if someone can steal so many documents so easily.

This is just the old Potomac two step man. Someone screwed up or a screw up happened under someones watch. Heads roll, changes get made, political grandstanding and so on and so forth.

To say this is sign of impending legislation threatening our rights is fearmongering.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/7/2010 9:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you are right who knows, maybe you're not, but to keep freedom we must always be on guard. What I know for certain is that lack of interest or concern is not a solution.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By tmouse on 12/8/2010 8:43:30 AM , Rating: 3
Please, you keep using Steve Aftergood as some sort of godlike bastion of moral superiority. He is not nor does he speak for anyone other than himself and SOME of the people of the federation. The OMB memo is not the start of some “slippery slope” it simply states it is a violation of contractual obligations for any government contractor to post or host classified documents on their servers. Whether the information is available elsewhere is totally irrelevant. Classified information is not automatically declassified by its release. It certainly loses its value but it still is classified and as such releasing it still has ramifications (whether it’s worth it to follow through or not is up to the government). Whether they do or not also does not grant automatic rights to break contractual regulations. Just because nature prints a commentary letter does not mean it should have any more weight than a letter to Playboy, Ladies home journal or any other magazine. We are not talking about science here; discussion of wikileaks does NOT in ANY way shape or form limit scientific discussion. For your information there are MANY regulations in government labs that can lead to immediate dismissal for actions many would consider trivial. These rules are in place to protect the mission of the labs and often touch on issues of security, physical safety and integrity of data. You might like to know that viewing porn can even bust tenure in most universities, same for using your affiliation in a way that implies the view could be the universities. Now; no one is stopping them from using their home accounts (on their own time) to view, discuss or post on ANY site. Do it from work and you could download harmful viruses, expose your institute to DOS attacks due to your post ect. Given the trust relationships many terminals have within and without the lab these actions could be very damaging indeed. Again the OMB does not give any specific instructions, this is up to the labs administration and it should stand to reason when at work you may bring your own pail and shovel but you are playing in their sandbox.

NO ONE is stifling ANYONE in the mission of their duties.
SCIENTIFIC discourse is NOT being clamped down on.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By MrBlastman on 12/8/2010 12:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, how? No new government legislation is being proposed that will change our freedoms due to this. And again, he's not a citizen. How are OUR future rights being threatened here?


No new legislation right now... Yet. You forget who we have running our country right now and the agenda they have? Things like this give them further reason to limit our rights and freedoms.

What I'm more concerned about is the mentality of our people. Just thinking: "Throw them all in jail, how dare they release any secret information," as a blanket statement is as bad as the zero tolerance laws that plague our system. It isn't as black and white. Not everything Wikileaks has done has been wrong. They just so happened here to finally cross the line.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By BZDTemp on 12/8/2010 4:02:28 AM , Rating: 1
I think it's wrong to think Wikileaks is just releasing anything. They are working with journalists all over the globe to ensure they are not being used to carry misinformation and there is also steps to ensure info which may put individuals in risk being handled.

From what I understand the stories about people in Afghanistan mentioned on Wikileaks being targeted are simply a fabrication. Essentially stories to try and stop Wikileaks.


RE: I'm conflicted...
By Argon18 on 12/8/2010 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why the conflict? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This has to do with stolen documents, and classified material. How is "leaking" a document that points out national security flaws and vulnerable locations of benefit to anyone? The only people that benefits are those who would want to harm the country and its citizens. Shall I steal all of your personal emails, income tax records, etc. and "leak" them on the internet in the name of transparency? That isn't a leak - that is a theft.


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki