backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by michael67.. on Feb 6 at 8:47 AM


In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes", Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said he loved watching banks "squirm" about rumors of his latest upcoming leak.  (Source: CBS)

Questions about Mr. Assange's motives (he has called himself an anarchist in the past) went unasked, as did the question of whether Wikileaks might be profiting off the stock shifts its leaks cause.  (Source: CBS)
Assange claims U.S. is utterly incapable of removing his site from the web

In an interview [video] with the CBS show 60 Minutes, the founder-and-chief of the controversial secrets site Wikileaks discusses the recent backlash against his site, following the release of U.S. Military and State Department secrets.  He states, "The U.S. does not have the technology to take the site down . ... Just the way our technology is constructed, the way the Internet is constructed."

He adds, "We've had attacks on particular domain names. Little pieces of infrastructure knocked out. But we now have some 2,000 fully independent in every way websites, where we're publishing around the world. It is -- I mean, it's not possible to do."

Assange is referring to the fact that his site lost its central domain name, most of its official hosting, and its donations accounts.  Volunteers, who host mirrors of the webpage, now sustain the site.  Attempting to access Wikileaks or searching for it in Google results in visitors being redirected to one of these mirrored sites.

While the issue of what Wikileaks has done is hot in the minds of many, much of the 60 Minutes interview focuses on the site's threats that it will release damning information implicating a major U.S. bank in wrongdoing.

In an October 2009 interview with the International Data Group's publication ComputerWorld, Mr. Assange claimed to possess a hard drive with a wealth of information from the Bank of America.  

In an interview with top business periodical Forbes, which took place in late November, Wikileaks' Assange claimed to be preparing a "megaleak", which would likely lead to a major U.S. financial institution (presumably Bank of America) being investigated and potentially charged by international authorities.

During the 60 Minutes special, interest was high on the topic, but the interviewer's attempt to extract more info from Mr. Assange was largely rebuffed.  He states, "I won't make any comment in relation to that upcoming publication."

But he did express that he gains pleasure from the ill effects on the financial world his news is causing.  He states, "I think it's great. We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe it's them."

The interview did not touch on a significant point in that regard -- the question of whether any Wikileaks members -- including Mr. Assange -- had profited off the stock shifts triggered by the organization's new releases.

Some have suggested that Mr. Assange and Wikileaks may be using its new releases to profit on the stock market.  Using certain mechanisms the site could selectively release news, dropping a commercial entity's stock price, making money off the drop.  Indeed, the Bank of America's share price dropped 3 percent in late 2010 on speculation that it was in Wikileaks crosshairs.  The actual release could drop stock further.  It would be relatively easy for someone affiliated with the site or its members to exploit the financial repercussions of the site's actions.

Wikileaks is a relatively loosely organized and regulated operation, with less than a dozen full time staff members, by almost all accounts.  The site publishes no details of its operating procedures or finances.

Unfortunately, that question, like many others (Mr. Assange's self-labeling as an "anarchist" in the 1990s) went unasked in the 60 Minutes interview.

Update: Tuesday, Feb. 1, 2011:

Some seemed to imply that we were making up allegations that Wikileaks was manipulating the stock market to profit itself or its financiers.  This is absolutely not the case.  Those capable of a quick Google search should be able to find a number of stories on this topic, such as:
"Wikileaks is harmful now, but could become even more destructive" -- Kansas City Star

Which writes:

Shares in Bank of America dropped 3 percent Tuesday. Although they recovered Wednesday, banking analyst Dick Bove said on CNBC that this may represent a new means of stock-market manipulation, by which the unknown funders of Wikileaks could profit by cratering shares in targeted companies.

Also some challenged whether Assange was ever really an anarchist.  Well he said he was, at least at one time, back in the 90s.  In the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier by Suelette Dreyfus, which Mr. Assange edited, researched, and contributed text to, an autobiographical passage by Assange describes:

As he quietly backed out of the system, wiping away his footprints as he tip-toed away, Mendax [Assange] thought about what he had seen. He was deeply disturbed that any hacker would work for the US military.

Hackers, he thought, should be anarchists, not hawks. 

He may well have changed his views since his teenage years in Australia in the 1980s, but it is well documented that at least at one time he expressed anarchistic views.


Comments     Threshold


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

It's all about him, at this point
By nafhan on 1/31/2011 2:06:26 PM , Rating: 5
Assange really comes across as a self-righteous, self-promoting d-bag. Whether or not it's on purpose, WL's appears to have become more about Assange than "leaks". Getting rid of him or lowering his profile in the organization would really help their credibility, IMO.
Again, this is my opinion on Assange's image , how he comes across to the media, and how that affects WL's image as a neutral whistle blower.




RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Klinky1984 on 1/31/2011 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Assange proves he can get the face time to get the leaks out. He has been in the news constantly reminding people of the information leaked. This is vital in a society & media afflicted with attention deficit disorder. He also seems to have a big "fuck you" type of attitude that probably would make more people trust that he is doing this for the fun of reducing the chances that he'll crumple if pressured for sources.

Getting people to give a fuck about the information you're releasing is half the battle.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By nafhan on 1/31/2011 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 3
Getting people to care about important info is a good thing, not arguing you there. However, if that's what he wants to do, he should publicly disassociate himself from WL's. For a project like WL's to be most effective, it needs to be or at least appear to be neutral . I think Assange doesn't appear neutral at all, and that reduces the credibility of WL's as a whole.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/2011 1:56:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Getting people to care about important info is a good thing, not arguing you there. However, if that's what he wants to do, he should publicly disassociate himself from WL's. For a project like WL's to be most effective, it needs to be or at least appear to be neutral . I think Assange doesn't appear neutral at all, and that reduces the credibility of WL's as a whole.

Of course he looks untrustworthy, look at the media attacking him (including Jason Mick, he could go strait on TV whit the other lynching Assange mob type of commentators), just watch the (specially FOX) commentators, there is a host whit his guest's, and they all saying he is a traitor and should be hanged, and one falling of the other trying to make Assange look as bad as possible.

And no one say wait a minute....... But what about the lies our government bin telling us about the Afghanistan war, that there are way more victims then the army is telling us, and all those other tings they lied about should we not know about that, is that not covert under the first amendment?

So now a days its unpatriotic to expose the government lies and you should hang for it, ware on the other hand your so well respected founding fathers ware saying "Government should fear the people not the other way around", I don't fear any government more then the US Government, ware I grow up whit my parents respecting the US for the help of liberating us, all that respect has bin lost of the years by US government and close tied companies lies to the rest of the world.

And to all that saying "he put lives at risk by revealing all those documents" dident all those lies in those documents got you in the first place in that place.

Then what people should also think about is, what if i would go out on the street and would call out for the Assassination of a KKK member, i would be arrested for encouraging a crime.
Now all sorts of journalist and political leaders can just get a way whit it, wonder what would happen if Assange gets murdered by a misguided "patriot", by the letter of the law they are all accomplices to that murder.

ps. English is not my main so forgive some of the bad spelling ;-)


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Targon on 2/1/2011 9:43:57 AM , Rating: 1
Do you REALLY want to go into the whole war in Afghanistan? The US was fully justified in going in over there, which is why there was so much support around the world. Many can question why the US forces are still there, but the initial war over there after 9/11 WAS justified.

Now, there will ALWAYS be a difference between what is announced about events in a combat zone and what is really going on, for a very good reason. There will ALWAYS be mistakes made by individuals, and if those mistakes were not sanctioned by a government, what SHOULD be said in public?

There is also a difference between collateral damage(civilians killed when targeting an enemy), and terrorists who intentionally target civilians. Collateral damage is not something you want to announce to the world, but it IS expected in combat. The problem is that when civilians are killed, it tends to bring more people into the fighting, so it is best to keep that sort of thing quiet since killing the people over there is NOT the goal.

Remember, encouraging more people to enter the fighting who would normally stay out of it will only act to keep the violence going. The sooner things calm down, the easier it will be to get out of there. Making information public without considering what will happen if/when you do it is what makes WL wrong in how it is dealing with the situation.

On a related topic, if you hear about what crimes the police is investigating and you publish it in public, the criminals will know they are being investigated, and it makes it much more difficult for the police to do their jobs. If a police officer does something wrong, even if it is minor, it can hurt the case against the criminals, and if that police officer is properly punished for it, that is not the sort of thing that needs to be made public. If a police officer does something SERIOUSLY wrong and is not punished, then making that information public may be called for. It may make sense to wait before making the information public if it would harm the public though.

The problem with Assange is that he is not thinking about if the release of ANY information is a good or bad thing, and that is why he is seen as the bad guy by many people. So, he gets information, puts it out there, as if it is appropriate for the public to know EVERYTHING. The governments SHOULD not tell the public everything, but that is not the same thing as the government telling lies. There are also times when things should be kept quiet while discussions about an incident are discussed behind closed doors.

You can also think about it like kids in grade school. There are times when it is good for two kids to work out their differences on their own rather than having the parents step in and only cause different sorts of problems. As long as a fight is FAIR, it can help resolve things in the long run, where a simmering situation can lead to even greater violence.

There is also another issue here that you should be aware of, and that is the difference between the leaders/government of a country and the people of that country. In any situation that involves fighting, you want to REDUCE tensions so that the fighting can end. You do NOT want to stir up the general populace and bring them into a fight, and that applies to many situations, not just wars. Releasing information AFTER fighting has stopped and troops have been removed is much better than releasing that information when it will only make things worse. If there is a riot, let's say over a lack of food, you may not want to make an announcement that some people have hidden food away because they were prepared, and then make the list of people public!

Encouraging violence is wrong, and that is what Assange has been doing. The public does not and should not know EVERYTHING about everyone. You wouldn't want your entire personal history to be put on display, including all your bank account information, how many times you have bounced a check, etc, so why should the government want all that information put out there unless it is to show how someone was doing something wrong, and even then, it might not be appropriate to make it available to EVERYONE!


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Targon on 2/1/2011 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
Afghanistan is fairly useless outside of it's proximity to the Middle East, so really, there is no reason why the USA would want to be there. Iraq is a war that was started by obviously false information given by George W. Bush. No matter if a war was warranted for OTHER reasons, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and since going into Iraq was set up as if there WAS a connection to 9/11, that is why so many are against it(now that people know the facts).

If there were documents that showed that George W. was using bad or obviously falsified information to justify invading Iraq and THOSE were leaked, THEN I can clearly see a lot of support, because it would help get US forces out of there. In this example, leaked information would help reduce violence.

One thing that you do not seem to have noticed is that the USA has not gotten ANY oil out of any of the countries in the Middle East over the past several wars, including Kuwait. There may be people making money off these wars, but the USA is not taking any oil, and that is another reason why all of these wars do NOTHING positive for the USA. Going to war to grab oil at least makes SOME logical sense, even if it isn't a proper way to do things. Going to war just so a certain Vice President could get more profits for his friends is clearly wrong, and is something that should have been punished by now.

On a final note(for this post at least), attacking the White House, Pentagon, or other military/government targets can be seen as a "valid" attack by those at war with the USA. The World Trade Center/Twin Towers on the other hand is a clearly civilian building. A terrorist attack, by definition, is one where CIVILIANS are the target. Collateral damage, as I said, is a part of war, but when you intentionally target civilians, that is what makes someone a terrorist, and once someone is a terrorist, they deserve to lose all protections of all kinds, including those under the Geneva Conventions. Basically, I endorse a slow and painful death for anyone terrorist, and feel that cruel and unusual punishments are DESERVED for those who target civilians.

Again, those who are trying to push out an occupying force, insurgents and such have at least a valid claim, but if they are targeting civilians who just happen to be in the region and who are not a part of what is going on over there, that is when they enter that realm of being terrorists. Also, the crap where people are kidnapped and then decapitated, since it goes against the Geneva Conventions is also not acceptable, so harsh treatment for THOSE types is called for as well.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
By pakigang on 2/2/2011 1:15:00 AM , Rating: 2
Before taliban got hold of afgan, the afgan produced 60% of the drug, but as soon as taliban contrlled in almost 86% of afganistan that production was reduced to 2-3%. This was unbearable to the "BID POWERS" & the drama of 9/11 happens. This is just one of the reason why Afganistan was attacked & taliban discredited.


By michael67 on 2/6/2011 8:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
And as usually you cant say anything bad about the USA because you step on those bleeding patriotic hart's.

Instead of going in to a discussion, they do the thing they are best at, put fingers in ears, close eyes, and hum load!


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By michael67 on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
By michael67 on 2/1/2011 12:20:16 PM , Rating: 1
Love the edit button!

Used wrong link at (6) should be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDp1izlMQT0


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By ninjaquick on 2/1/2011 6:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, you can't argue the side of butchers and murderers. So give it up. Killing 3000 innocent civilians in one terrorist attack is not justifiable, ever. I scoff at you saying the BBC is neutral. BBC is as biased as the rest of them. The BBC owns broadcast media in the UK, they are just as biased as the rest of them.
If Saudi troops were stationed in the Vatican we would probably pray and hope the occupiers leave before shedding more blood. The Pope would ask that noone do anything of violence. that is the difference man, an extremist christian will give up their life to let an infidel live...


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 12:42:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Killing 3000 innocent civilians in one terrorist attack is not justifiable, ever.

How many civilians has GWB killed?


By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 11:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
It seems you need some help.

How about more than 3000?


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By nafhan on 2/1/2011 10:21:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about what would be best for WL's going forward. You're talking about the conspiracy between the US government and Fox news to hide information and make Assange look like a bad guy. That's a related, but different subject. :)
I still think if Assange wants to maintain WL's credibility, he needs to pick between being an activist and being a neutral presenter of data - he can do one well or both poorly.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By homebredcorgi on 1/31/2011 2:43:43 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. What little bit of "journalism" he claimed to be espousing has quickly shifted to zealotry and vendetta with the US Government.

Enough with the talk already. Release the info on the bank. For his sake, lets hope it's a bit more significant than the pointless diplomatic cables. As if knowing that some diplomat thinks Sarkozy is rude actually matters.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By dgingeri on 1/31/2011 3:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
He's an anarchist, plain and simple. He does his best to push over governments.

Funny thing about anarchy, is that it is just a rule of strong over the week, bullies rule, which this guy would never survive. He's too puny to be an effective bully.

In any case, I like the idea of exposing governments' wrongdoing, but from the leaks he's run, I haven't seen any such thing. All his leaks have produced is a little embarrassment and a lot of work for our diplomats.

He's an ineffective punk, and an internet troll, that's all.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Aloonatic on 1/31/2011 3:57:08 PM , Rating: 4
lol, you guys. Exaggerate much?

You are all so easily lead. Have they started putting rings in the noses of people now?

This guy's doing far more to expose what many of you constantly rant on about here, but don't have the balls to do anything about yourselves. You seem to think that whining and whinging about Obama and the stimulus etc on a message board will achieve something? Yet call this guy a punk and a bully?

Yes, this man and his relatively far smaller organisation taking on governments and large corporate institutions, releasing information that they would rather keep secret etc and you call him a bully?

Do you even think about what you are writing?

Still, good to know that you are nice little sheep. Oh wait, only people who buy Apple products are sheep...


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By Spuke on 2/1/2011 9:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
lol, you guys. Exaggerate much? You are all so easily lead. Have they started putting rings in the noses of people now?
So, unless you're questioning government wrongdoing, you're not allowed to question? Ever heard of the phrase, "many mean well as they're sending you to hell"? I'm skeptical of everything! And the previous posters simply sound cautious to me. That's not the attitude of a sheep IMO. I am a big proponent of whistleblowing and was happy to hear of a website that gives whistleblowers a place to go (although the media has been in their corner for decades). Assange brings negative press to a good website and may end up destroying a very good thing with his antics. Let the site speak for itself.


By Aloonatic on 2/1/2011 6:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
Saying that the guy is "an anarchist, pure and simple" (to my mind) is not just being a little "cautious".

That guy's comment was perhaps the one that looked as silly as any that I have seen, mostly the calling Asange a "bully", which was just ridiculous.

My comment however, was aimed just as much at many people here, who just go along with the herd, and do as they are told.

Anyway, I don't know why you are saying that I have said "unless you're questioning government wrongdoing, you're not allowed to question?". I never said anything like that.

In fact, I think quite the opposite, and maybe (pom pom poooooommmmm) I think that morons writing gibberish and nonsensical shite (as I feel the person that I replied to was) about Assange being a "bully" (as if he or anyone persona can "bully" the US governments and large multinational corporations and banks) actually weakens reasonable questioning of what is going on.

Simply ranting about Assange being an anarchist and bully is silly, and pointless. Let's keep it reasonable, and not just swallow anything dished out from "news" streams that might well not reflect exactly what Assange might have intended his comments to say, and take them as gospel, dismissing him and judging him out of hand willy nilly. To do so, makes you look like a bit of a simpleton, and a sheep, IMHO.


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By homebredcorgi on 2/1/2011 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
How in the hell does this type of comment get a 5 rating? Being led much? I have actually payed close attention to what has been leaked, none of it matters at all. While I admire and support exposing government wrongdoing by the press, he long ago abandoned that when this shifted to him and not the actually information. The David vs. Goliath "little guy" mold is easy enough to rally behind, but Assange is shooting blanks.

Please tell me what information that has been leaked to-date is of any consequence to the world. You know, something we didn't already know that has completely changed our understanding of events.

Out of his supposedly hundreds of thousands of documents, we have inconsequential diplomatic reports that read like high school gossip and low-level military intelligence on the Iraq/Afgan wars. Not exactly the Pentagon Papers or Watergate as some would have us believe.

He's playing a dangerous game toying with the US government and large corporations. As I already said, for his sake, lets hope he actually has something of significance otherwise someone will eventually call his bluff.

If he's so incredibly noble, where are the bank leaks he was going to release in January that would "bring fraud charges against a major US bank"? Rather than release the data, we get to hear about how self-righteous and wonderful he is....


By Aloonatic on 2/1/2011 6:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
I love how you have taken my comment and how you seem to think that I have said somewhere that he is "incredibly noble"? I'm just saying that the names that the person that that I replied to was calling Assange were a bit silly, verging on the dangerously stupid.

Anyway, if the information isn't that interesting, then why the embarrassment? Sure, a lot of stuff was what people thought they knew, or suspected, but it's nice to have a little meat on them there bones, is it not?

Yep, a lot of it is tittle tattle, but a lot isn't, and only a fraction has been released.

I'm sorry to have to break it to you... Yes, we've been raised on highly dramatic political films and Grisham books about some amazing document that will bring down governments, but that's not how the world works.

Also, who's to say what's significant? It's all a matter of perspective, and what matters to You. I can't help but feel that you wont be happy until a photo of George Bush shagging his secretary is released, or am invoice is leaked regarding an underwater team of saboteurs that were commissioned by Obama to do something to an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, to help boost his ratings...

Some of those little, insignificant leaks don;t mean squat to you, but to others might be far more important.

But hay, this is DT, so only you can matter right? Why think about anyone else :o)

The guys just a self promoting anarchist out to make a name for himself, in one of the most convoluted and dangerous way possible.

I'm guess that the TV show Big Brother has been cancelled wherever he lives, as going on that would be a much easier and safer way to get lots of attention, bully people more his own size, and maybe even make a little money at the end of it, surely?!


By michael67 on 2/2/2011 1:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have actually payed close attention to what has been leaked, none of it matters at all.

Please tell me what information that has been leaked to-date is of any consequence to the world. You know, something we didn't already know that has completely changed our understanding of events.

Wonder if the leaders of Egypt and Tunisia would agree whit you on that one ;-)

quote:
Out of his supposedly hundreds of thousands of documents, we have inconsequential diplomatic reports that read like high school gossip and low-level military intelligence on the Iraq/Afgan wars. Not exactly the Pentagon Papers or Watergate as some would have us believe.

The Swedish found out that there government had given in to bulling of the US government and ordered Swedish police to prepare a case against TPB, something that is forbidden by Swedish law, as politics and justice are to separate ententes.

There are more of these examples but i picked a well know one.
quote:
As I already said, for his sake, lets hope he actually has something of significance otherwise someone will eventually call his bluff.

So the military reports, showing a mouths more grim situation then what the public is told of the Afghan war, did not change anyone's mind over the need to stay there ore how to handle the situation?
quote:
If he's so incredibly noble, where are the bank leaks he was going to release in January that would "bring fraud charges against a major US bank"? Rather than release the data, we get to hear about how self-righteous and wonderful he is....

So first he gets accused for being reckless whit the date he got and now you are accusing him of stalling, because he is checking the data better. Hmmmm


RE: It's all about him, at this point
By PrinceGaz on 1/31/2011 4:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Julian is an anarchist at all; he just wants the truth to be told, and a lot of people in authority who have been hiding the truth are very unhappy about this.

Julian has many online as well as real local supporters (like the guy here in Britain who is letting him live in his country estate as part of his bail agreement) and in this day and age, that makes him very strong. The ridiculous sexual assault charges to get him extradited to Sweden are clearly politically motivated from certain foreign governments.

Long may wikileaks continue exposing the truth, and long may Julian be the hero of freedom of information which I see him.


By Alexvrb on 1/31/2011 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Hey put down Mr. Assange's pecker and type with two hands, damnit.


By Spuke on 2/1/2011 9:50:16 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't think Julian is an anarchist at all
Who cares if he is or isn't? It's irrelevant. We all have our reasons for whatever we do, why would he be any different?

quote:
Long may wikileaks continue exposing the truth, and long may Julian be the hero of freedom of information which I see him.
Hero? LOL, ok. Hopefully Wikileaks doesn't suffer from Assange's antics. I think the site would have a better chance of survival without him.

PS - F$%k Julian Assange.


By bah12 on 2/1/2011 10:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think Julian is an anarchist at all; he just wants the truth to be told, and a lot of people in authority who have been hiding the truth are very unhappy about this.
Then release the damn BofA data if he is so unbiased, and just wants the truth. Fact is he just likes getting his c*ck stroked in the media. Like your high school girlfriend teasing you along because she really wants to but is just not ready yet (what she really wants is attention).

If you want to enable an open whistle blowing site, I am ALL FOR THAT. But that is not what he does, he cherry picks things to suit his perverse desires. Give me a break this guy is just an egomaniac, pure and simple. It really is all about him, god I hate pricks like that and I hate him worse for taking a good idea and ruining it with his draconinan rule.


By dgingeri on 2/1/2011 11:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
You just don't realize how useless the information he released really is, do you? So many people scream on and on about government conspiracies, and yet what this guy is revealing just shows that no such conspiracies exist, and all that goes on behind closed doors is a bunch of rubbish gossip, just like any company.

People are people. they'll gossip, complain about others, and generally make asses of themselves in what they think is privacy.

This guy has been totally ineffective at revealing the real thievery in the world's governments. Where's the transcripts of the discussions by democrats behind closed doors on the health care bill? Where's the discussions of the UN food program bringing Saddam his 40th Ferrari? Where's the proof German companies knowingly sent Saddam ingredients for chemical weapons during the trade embargos? (That last one was found by US troops when they took over Iraq, but they couldn't find documentation on who sold it to him and why.) When I see that, then I'll applaud him. For now, he's still just an ineffective troll, and I believe that's all he'll ever be.


By wired00 on 1/31/2011 7:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think the media likes to focus on him more than anything too though.


By WinstonSmith on 2/1/2011 10:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
"Assange really comes across as a self-righteous, self-promoting d-bag."

I think people's impression of him in that interview are most likely tainted by their preconceived opinions about what he is doing. In my opinion, he's doing what our "self-righteous, self-promoting d-bag" mainstream media talking heads _should be_ doing as members of the supposed forth estate - exposing government lies! Instead, they act as sycophantic government press release stenographers because their owners look at them only as profit centers and because of that, don't want to rock the boat or ruffle any powerful feathers while feeding their viewers only what they want to hear along with various other unimportant garbage in order to capture a greater market share.


By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 12:47:11 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Assange really comes across as a self-righteous, self-promoting d-bag.

I trust him more than any slithering Wall St scum banker.

The more they slither simply means more truth about them is public.


Anyone else notice something odd...
By SSDMaster on 2/1/2011 9:26:15 AM , Rating: 1
How a few comments accusing Jason of jumping to conclusions were deleted..

quote:
Some seemed to imply that we were making up allegations that Wikileaks was manipulating the stock market to profit itself or its financiers. This is absolutely not the case.


It's not the case anymore, after you deleted the comments. I guess you're "pro censorship" eh?




RE: Anyone else notice something odd...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/1/2011 9:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not the case anymore, after you deleted the comments. I guess you're "pro censorship" eh?


I'm sorry you are offended.

Most news websites would moderate comments, in which people call someone a pedophile or use other offensive language.

The comment was removed due to the offensive language.

This is a private business, so that was within our rights.

And yes, any major news site will "censor" comments with offensive language. Otherwise, good luck getting advertisers or a large readership. Most people don't appreciate reading a load of offensive garbage.

That said, the comment's arguments are now a moot point given that I saved the op the time of doing a Google search and they now at least have (one) source of this info. My point in the article was that accusations of Wikileaks manipulating stocks have been made on major news networks. And I was right.

Now if you want to start a thread questioning the validity of these claims made by other news outlets, feel free.


RE: Anyone else notice something odd...
By SSDMaster on 2/1/2011 10:32:19 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think you can apologize to someone and then try justify your actions. Your not sorry, and I'm not offended.

You criticize every word from Julian Assange, but in this "open" forum you destroy the negative comments regarding your own critic. Justify it away, but it is what it is.


RE: Anyone else notice something odd...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/1/2011 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 3
I removed a single comment making offensive remarks about me.

As for what you consider its "criticism", the comment also claimed that I invented the accusation that Wikileaks might be engaging in stock manipulation.

That claim was shown to be patently false (see update).

The comment I removed was NOT criticism, it was misinformation and an obscene personal attack, plain and simple.

I'm not criticizing Assange at all, I'm just laying out the facts for readers to make up their own opinions.

I'm sorry if you don't like the facts, but I can't help you in that department.


By ClownPuncher on 2/1/2011 2:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
You have to admit, even if it was ridiculous, it WAS funny.


By SSDMaster on 2/1/2011 4:58:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The comment I removed was NOT criticism, it was misinformation and an obscene personal attack, plain and simple.


If you say so, I can't really reference it at this point, and I don't have a photographic memory.

quote:
I'm not criticizing Assange at all, I'm just laying out the facts for readers to make up their own opinions.


You honestly believe you do not hold a bias opinion towards Julian? You've even stated that you believe some information needs to be kept from the public. Obviously that conflicts with Julian's whole "mission". This is your blog and I recognize your going to voice your own opinions, but to state that your simply voicing facts and "it seems" you believe to be doing so without bias. That's just silly.. I'm not sure anyone who reads these articles about Julian could say they honestly agree with you.


By michael67 on 2/2/2011 10:57:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not criticizing Assange at all, I'm just laying out the facts for readers to make up their own opinions.

Are you really saying you are not criticizing Assange? 0_o

Every article you posted here on DT had at least a mild negative undertone, up to some of them ware you almost could rub shoulders whit some of the necon nuts of FOXnews.

I am not going to say here that Assange deserves the Nobel peace prize, and I do have problems whit the way he do some of the tings he dose, as i am not a big fan of full disclosure to the public the way he done it, but overall I think till now, most consequentses have bin more positive then negative.

quote:
But he did express that he gains pleasure from the ill effects on the financial world his news is causing. He states, "I think it's great. We have all these banks squirming, thinking maybe it's them."

You always accuse the creationist of cherry picking and quote digging, but apparently your not bad at it your self to :-(

As you did not put that sentence in to context of the rest what he was saying!
quote:
When you see abusive organizations suffer the consequences of there abuse, and you see victims elevated, then yes that is a very pleasure activity to be involved in

Sound suddenly totally different dose it not?

quote:
had profited off the stock shifts triggered by the organization's new releases.

Man if this is not a classic case of FUD i don't know what is, and you just copied it. (that's just sad)

quote:
Mr. Assange's self-labeling as an "anarchist" in the 1990s

Seriously A 18 year old boy said it would be better to be a anarchist then a hawk.
Keep repeating that in every article as maybe some people have missed it on FOX ore even don't watch FOX, tho I have to give you credit by saying that he sad it in the 90s.
That would mean if some one dose drugs when he/she is 18 he/she is still a junky 20 years later.


By YashBudini on 2/5/2011 12:51:06 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I removed a single comment making offensive remarks about me.


Gag, cough, spit. OMG, now that's irony.

I suppose there's a first for everything.


RE: Anyone else notice something odd...
By Parhel on 2/1/2011 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Most news websites would moderate comments, in which people call someone a pedophile or use other offensive language.


It wasn't that long ago that you guys allowed this site to be used by a pedophile. Christopher1 or something like that? I forget, but every comment he made was either a justification of pedophilia or a thinly veiled attempt to troll for children. He was called out by the community on many occassions, but never moderated.


By SSDMaster on 2/1/2011 11:05:18 AM , Rating: 1
He must not have disagreed with the viewpoints of the article.


By JasonMick (blog) on 2/1/2011 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I do recall that and I believe his comments were very borderline. I wasn't an editor at the time, I believe, but I believed our editorial staff WAS monitoring that situation to make sure it didn't escalate. We do reserve the right to remove obscene comments and or obscenities.

Now, this was a bit of a different situation, because it was not someone expressing their OWN personal inappropriate views, it was someone attacking one of our DT community (myself) with obscenities and accusations of illegality. That is utterly inappropriate. If someone typed something like that about you or SSDMaster and I saw it, I would most certainly moderate that comment as well. That kind of talk has no place on this site.

From our site's FAQ:
quote:
How do I get banned from DailyTech?
Occasionally we will completely ban a user or IP block from DailyTech. You can assure yourself a ban by:
* Harassing other users or employees
* Excessive use of derogatory language


I could have banned the user involved, but I'd prefer to think that they were just struck by a juvenile outburst, so I simply moderated a comment.

If you walk into a restaurant and start loudly swearing and disrupting the customers or harassing the employees you may be asked to leave. This is no different.


and?
By omnicronx on 1/31/2011 3:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some have suggested that Mr. Assange and Wikileaks may be using its new releases to profit on the stock market. Using certain mechanisms the site could selectively release news, dropping a commercial entity's stock price, making money off the drop.
And? They still have to wait for the stock to bottom out after they release the information, just like everyone else.. The only advantage they will have is they will know the exact day in which it will happen..

That said, considering that wikileaks has released the fact that they will be releasing said damning information, I don't see how its really a huge advantage. Everyone and their dog could do exactly the same thing the day they release that information.

Now of course if it were the opposite, and they had damning information on a number of banks, but invested in a bank they knew were in the clear. (knowing the stock price could go up).. then there would be a clear problem..




RE: and?
By invidious on 1/31/2011 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
RE: and?
By omnicronx on 1/31/2011 4:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
And as your nice article states, you can't do that unless the market is willing. And considering Wikilinks already claimed that they had dirt on Bank of American, and now they are claiming they have damning information on them, do you really think you are going to be able buy put options in mass? (and what broker in their right mind would be willing to do this when they know what is around the corner, they might aswell just hand you their money)

What you are claiming only makes sense if they don't inform the public beforehand.


RE: and?
By cerx on 1/31/2011 4:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
Or they bought their stocks/options before they made the news public. Or they bought options to sell at the current price, knowing their information would drop it.


RE: and?
By omnicronx on 1/31/2011 5:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
But its still hardly a sure thing.. What happens if the stock goes up after you bought your options? Considering this info was released some time ago, that would be a hefty gamble. I.e you could also lose money.

Options also do expire..


RE: and?
By Venatici on 1/31/2011 7:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's called securities fraud and people go to prison for committing it.


If he's so intent on being "open"
By fictisiousname on 2/1/2011 8:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
Why won't he face the rape charges?

Could it be hypocrisy?




RE: If he's so intent on being "open"
By superstition on 2/1/2011 2:38:11 PM , Rating: 3
It's not even clear Sweden's threshold (rape definition) meets Britain's standards (extradition) -- regardless of whether or not "rape" occurred.

If first-world countries can't even agree on what rape is, perhaps there could be some sort of problem when it comes to assigning guilt, eh? There could also be a sort of problem when the law is abused to entrap someone.

But, by all means, I agree with the Red Queen. Sentence first, verdict after!

Are you concerned at all about the ongoing torture of Bradley Manning? Somehow, I think those ladies in Sweden are a bit better off at the moment.


By fictisiousname on 2/2/2011 8:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Bradley Manning has nothing to do with the ALLEGED rape, so other than you using fallacious argument tactics to answer the question, why not stick to the subject?

A charge has been made in the rape case. Even in third world nations they allow one to defend themselves against such charges, and running from the courts is perceived by many as an admission of guilt.


We can take bets...
By Beenthere on 1/31/2011 3:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
...on who will off Assange and when.




RE: We can take bets...
By cmdrdredd on 1/31/2011 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Russians already told him that he will be dead within 24hours if he releases anything incriminating about them. Guess why there is no leaks from the Kremlin?


RE: We can take bets...
By roykahn on 2/1/2011 6:24:59 AM , Rating: 2
I sincerely hope you didn't accidentally leave out the word 'jack' in your comment.


By Gingivitis on 2/1/2011 2:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
If your government didn't do shady things behind closed doors and your banks weren't making up fake investments etc causing markets to collapse and ruin your country this wouldn't be a problem. Can't wait to see if wikileaks actually posts some stuff that could destroy american government and your corrupt financial sector. I do support wikileaks because the crooked american system has to change.




By ShaolinSoccer on 2/1/2011 4:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that the USA isn't perfect but for you to say that you'd like it to be destroyed is just foolish. Look what happened to the rest of the planet after USA took a major hit financially. Now imagine what would happen if the USA ceased to exist. It would throw the world into absolute chaos...

Believe it or not, the USA's government, people and corporations help bring some sort of stability to the world. Let's hope the USA can pick itself back up...


By Gingivitis on 2/1/2011 5:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
in the last 10 years the US has done nothing but dug their own grave. You invaded a country because your government said they had WMD's it was just bush jr's war to finish what daddy started we're not dumb. Some stability those places have now. Your corrupt wall street bankers and their corporate greed single handedly brought down a world wide recession.

Now your country faces a large unemployment line, which wouldn't be so bad had your government put a stop to letting big business get away with exploiting other countries cheap labor. since 2000 over half million jobs have been sent over seas that to me says there is now half a million americans who can't buy houses, food, cars, anything to support the economy. But its okay that they can't eat have homes or any of that because 2% of the population is so ridiculously wealthy as long as government sides with them they have political funding.

I forget when america was founded on corporate greed but its about time someone put your gov't and their shady bankers back in line. Thats all I mean by lettings america be destroyed.


Speculation
By Drexial on 2/1/2011 1:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe someone argued tthat you made it up, but most people seemed to state that it was pure speculation. Which it is even acording to your "supporting" article.

may represent a new means of stock-market manipulation, by which the unknown funders of Wikileaks could profit by cratering shares in targeted companies.




RE: Speculation
By superstition on 2/1/2011 2:33:36 PM , Rating: 3
I may or may not be a unicorn.

It could or could not be true.

If I am indeed a unicorn, I could right now be sawing the head off the Statue of Liberty. I could be peeing in Simon Cowell's cornflakes. I could be doing PR for Lamo.

Now that would be pretty nasty, wouldn't it?

Not nearly as nasty as threatening to expose corruption. Imagine the horrors of such an action. Only a unicorn, indeed, would be capable of such things.


Project Mayhem
By Jexel17 on 1/31/2011 3:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
He skipped the step where you create fight clubs and went right into Project Mayhem.

Everybody goes back to zero!




RE: Project Mayhem
By FaceMaster on 1/31/2011 6:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
Has he only just started acting in this arrogant way? Since he's really got up some powerful peoples' noses, it seems strange that he's suddenly become so cocky. If I didn't know better I'd say that it's all a conspiracy and he's held at gunpoint to say these things, to try and get people to hate him. Or something like that. I simply can't find any explanation as to why he's acting the way he is. Am I the only one who finds his behaviour and its timing odd? Could somebody please explain?


Stock market manipulation
By Kiffberet on 2/1/2011 9:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know for sure if profiting off this is illegal?

The article doesn't go into any detail about that.




RE: Stock market manipulation
By bankerdude on 2/1/2011 10:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Any time you profit off of insider information it is illegal.
It's why Martha Stewart went to jail.


Honesty is always the best policy
By DoeBoy on 1/31/2011 7:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think this all proves that honesty is always the best policy. There wouldn't be any bad exposure if these people getting leaked on were open and honest about what they do. I find the Wikileaks a great way to force people to be honest with those they represent. Of all the people we need to keep honest its our politicians since they are supposed to be representing the peoples interests and not their own or a company that has been feeding their war chest.




I was impresed
By roykahn on 2/1/2011 6:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
I expected a much worse report from 60 Minutes, but this turned out very well. The interviewer asked the questions you'd expect and Julian answered them quite well and honestly.

I was impressed that they mentioned Bradley Manning and that he is imprisoned in solitary confinement, although it would've been nice for them to mention a bit more about his awful treatment (basically torture).

Some people are still focusing on Julian himself instead of 1) the content of the leaks 2) what the leaks reveal about authority figures 3) the despicable efforts by government officials to minimize the impact of these leaks.

Let's also not forget what these leaks have shown about the role mass media has played during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. They basically repeated government lies and engaged in a kind of self-censorship.

Part of the reason the media attacks Wikileaks is because it has embarrassed them as mentioned briefly by Julian. The media have to play by "rules" as mentioned in the interview, but only a very savvy viewer would fully appreciate what this meant. The "rules" include not reporting in a way that would harm the relationship with the sources of news. This includes certain government officials, the pentagon, intelligence agencies, military, police, etc. As long as you keep them happy, then the news sources keep coming and both parties are happy. The media also has loyalty to its advertisers and must present news within certain boundaries that would not upset a major source funds. A perfect example of this is when a group was trying to buy advertising space on various major media organisations for a "Buy Nothing Day" and none of their efforts were successful because it would upset advertisers. Don't upset your source of news, your source of funds, and to a lesser extent, don't upset the ruling class.

I recommend people watch the 60 Minutes report as it was quite well done. They obviously couldn't get into much detail on certain points due to time constraints, but it touched on enough topics that should inform viewers about what Wikileaks has done and some of its significance. Do a search for "60.minutes.us.2011.01.30.hdtv.xvid-yt" if you're interested in this episode.




LOL
By Touche on 2/1/2011 12:01:32 PM , Rating: 2
"He may well have changed his views since his teenage years in Australia in the 1980s, but it is well documented that at least at one time he expressed anarchistic views."

OMG, Jason, really?! You're getting funnier by the article.




at least at one time
By Strunf on 2/2/2011 7:45:33 AM , Rating: 2
"it is well documented that at least at one time he expressed anarchistic views."

Well I think I said at least one time that we should put a bomb somewhere, kill someone, beat someone, rob a bank, rob a vending machine, rob a ATM, burn something and so on... if I didn't then I'm saying it now!

But seriously what the problem of being anarchist? I see plenty of people supporting royalty, heck some countries still have kings, I don't agree with it but that doesn't make it wrong!




I'm all for Transparency
By lemonadesoda on 2/5/2011 5:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure many of you know of Transparency International. If you don't, look it up.

quote:
Transparency International receives a large proportion of its funding from governments, embassies and government-funded organisations that have an interest in promoting a neoliberal agenda.
The US organisation, National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which has a dubious record of interfering in foreign elections and attempting to destabilise legitimate governments, is also a big donor to Transparency International. "A lot of what TI does today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA"


I await news to hear that TI has also contributed to funding Wikileaks. Full circle. LOL

Funny how demands for transparency is so one-sided.




By Marlin1975 on 2/1/2011 10:02:36 AM , Rating: 1
Some have suggested that Jason Mick is a hack and deletes topics that show him in a bad light. Some have also suggested that he does not post truthful or honest articles and slants them in a way they fits his agenda.

Now if you want to start a thread questioning the validity of these claims please go ahead.




Some have suggested
By Marlin1975 on 1/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Some have suggested
By spread on 1/31/2011 1:49:42 PM , Rating: 1
I have also heard those accusations and have seen evidence. I will not make a formal accusation though and I can't talk about the evidence. I can say that in most cases evidence is usually supports facts and figures (which I have also seen but can't mention).

I wonder how many animals Jason Mick has molested this month? Again, not a formal accusation. This is just me thinking out loud.


RE: Some have suggested
By wushuktl on 1/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Some have suggested
By quiksilvr on 1/31/2011 2:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Some also have suggested that there are less insulting and childlike ways to get a point across but I have no proof in this.


RE: Some have suggested
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2011 2:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
We have no proof of the casualties from the damn flooding but we are reporting it to be in the hundreds of billions.

I broke the damn.


RE: Some have suggested
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2011 2:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
/facepalm

*dam


RE: Some have suggested
By WayneG on 1/31/2011 4:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
No. Don't you see what this child is saying? We can't spend all our energy placing blame when something bad happens. He's saying...we all broke the dam.
I broke the dam.


RE: Some have suggested
By invidious on 1/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Some have suggested
By SSDMaster on 1/31/2011 3:50:26 PM , Rating: 3
If your so worried about your time then don't waste it replying.


RE: Some have suggested
By Suntan on 1/31/2011 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 5
On the contrary, the breadth of *topics* that are reported here is usually quite eclectic and interesting. I don’t have the time to trawl around multiple websites looking for these, but it would seem the writers here do.

Most every “article” posted here usually has a link directly to the real article that the DT writer shamelessly plagiarizes, or twists out of context(in addition to the endless links to old DT articles that have a tenuous connection to the story at best) so it is easy to link to the real information if the subject is of sufficient interest and a person wants to get a real reporting of the topic.

Throwing a little mud in the “comments” section is just icing on the cake. ;)

-Suntan


RE: Some have suggested
By BugblatterIII on 1/31/2011 7:26:57 PM , Rating: 4
The last four paragraphs weren't information; they were pure conjecture.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














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