Wikileaks Competitor In the Works 333
airfoobar writes "From TFA: 'A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
Broader approach (Score:4, Funny)
The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.'"
More broads? Sounds good to me...
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
More leaking and less bragging about what they are sitting on and are going to release in a few weeks.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care about the bragging. I do think, though, that the more leaking the better.
Most of the really foul stuff that the public has ever discovered about their government has been via leaks. There used to be investigative journalists that would try to make those leaks happen. But eventually most news organizations realized that they depended on easy access to insider sources, and the way to keep that access was to cover things the way those insider sources wanted them covered, so as a result instead of meeting Deep Throat in a parking garage we have reporters lining up to deep throat Scooter Libbey in exchange for the latest scoop on Joe Wilson's wife (for example). So now we need citizen efforts to make those leaks happen, and I view Wikileaks as a proof of concept as well as a source of specific leaks.
Although I should mention that the bragging probably is one of the things that keeps Wikileaks' personnel alive right now. If Assange is killed, then Wikileaks can respond by releasing the key to the Insurance file, or by releasing any of the numerous things it's sitting on.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind the leaking as much if it weren't for the bragging and self promotion. If the leaks were to actually expose wrongs by the government and non governmental organizations, then it's acceptable as the motives are genuine. But when it's primarily to promote your agenda or further your own fame or something in between, then it's little more then breaking the law for your own interest and it's no better then being a common criminal.
And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yes, I don't care if the thief has been breaking into homes for years
In order to be a thief you have to steal and in order to steal you have to deprive someone of something. For someone who has demonstrated an ability to utilize web forms by posting to slashdot you seem to be blissfully unaware of the plethora of online dictionaries.
If a copy artist has been sneaking into homes for years and copying stuff he would never have bought for his own use until he finally broke into one and found a nine year old girl tied up and reported it to the police at risk to himself for being
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.
Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets. Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks, and leaking military data in general is an act of actively fighting for one side in a war. I like the attitude of these new guys, who are trying to focus more on exposing corruption, and less on helping particular sides in ongoing conflicts. (Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't Slashdotters ever shut up about this? We've had this discussion 1 million times now. Copying != stealing, but not paying someone == stealing. No one needs to hear the argument again, especially when it's very offtopic to drag it in. Sheesh, the guy's metaphor had nothing to do with copyright violation.
He was making precisely the same kind of mistake, so the comparison was directly applicable. Nobody said anything about not paying someone (theft of services) at all, so I'm not sure where you think that comes in.
Real harm can be done by leaking government secrets.
Real harm can be done by not leaking them, too. Which is greater in this case?
Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks,
[citation needed]
(Plus, a rape analogy is always an amusing choice when discussing Wikileaks, but that's a different story.)
A rape analogy when discussing Wikileaks is nothing less than an attack on Julian Assange, and I treated it accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
Many Afghanis working with US troops died as a result of the previous set of leaks
Please, really, I'm not being sarcastic, but I'd like some citations here. Links preferable.
Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Insightful)
It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner, and the world would have received the information but never heard the name "Julian Assange" or ever heard of anything called "Wikileaks".
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's a good point. Forbidden docs floating around in a darknet doesn't constitute "public dissemination".
OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:5, Funny)
OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.
I agree. It should be "Assange, Bernstein, Woodward." Alphabetical order is much better.
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH, I find the sequence "Woodward, Bernstein, Assange" distasteful.
Right. Because Woodward has spent the last 30-plus years as a sycophant to power and Assange has never done anything as reprehensible as writing Bush at War [powells.com] .
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:5, Insightful)
That difference is credibility.
If these diplomatic cables simply showed up Usenet one day, lets face it, the world would outright ignore them. Same goes for them being published by an anonymous site somewhere. Wikileaks on the other hand now has a name behind it; it's a brand for whistleblower information, and has significant credibility.
If you look at the sites publication record, the idea of an anti-US stance does not stand up to scrutiny. Wikileaks published a significant amount of material relating to corporate and political misdeeds--Scientology documents, an Icelandic bank, internet censorship--in the years prior to the current cache it obtain from its US sources. Their next target is reputed to be a major bank (an organisation I think Wikileaks are underestimating).
The forces Wikileaks have incensed and the backlash that has been created--ideologically--among a supposedly sophisticated public, reveal just how corrupt, complacent and regressive modern society has become. Gone are the days when the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal were lauded as heroes. We live in an age where ever more radicalised people eagerly swallow all propaganda tossed at them, from online sources in particular. Most of the public vehemence to Wikileaks and Assange that I have seen comes from younger, more tech saavy people. The older generation affords the site and its work far more respect.
These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.
Re: (Score:3)
These are the times; pervasive corruption and public complicity. Wikileaks is a response to them.
Why? Is that something new? History is less corrupt? I think Wkileaks is a response to technology, not corruption. The need has always been there, the real difference here is there is a more efficient platform that is harder to control. Also I think your assessment of the which generation appreciates Wikileaks is anecdotal and inaccurate. I'm actually surprised that so many people have been undecided on the issue instead of picking whatever side they typically identify with.
Re: (Score:3)
What I'd like to know is whether you're being deliberately obtuse or are just trying to tow the line that Wikileaks is bad
Re: (Score:2)
Assange wasn't a public figure until all those Iraq/Afghanistan papers were released. He stated his reason for coming out in public was b/c Wikileaks had created a shitstorm and someone had to be their public voice. Assange doesn't seem like the type of person who is enamored with celebrity. He's putting his life at risk doing all of this, it's hard to believe that becoming a celebrity is what motivates him.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Informative)
There are some things diplomats are not allowed to do. This includes stealing people's encryption keys.
If you do that, you're not a diplomat, you're a spy.
Hillary Clinton broke international law when she put her name on that paper (even if it was as she argues "just a wish list" from the CIA). Get it? It's illegal. It's in violation of the 1961 Vienna convention, and the UN convention itself.
There are rules even among thieves: You may be fine, as long as you aren't caught. Hillary Clinton, and by extension the CIA and the US government, was caught. If you think "everybody does it", and this means it doesn't matter, think again [xinhuanet.com]. The other permanent members of the security council in particular can make hell over this, and they probably are unless they are bribed with political concessions.
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:5, Interesting)
It was possible, via myriad methods, to release the same information in a widely distributed, completely anonymous manner
On the other hand, most people were unaware of this. What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life. Wikileaks has done more by being on TV constantly than by the service they offer imo.
My opinion as to whether this is a good thing or not is still un-decided.
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Insightful)
That wasn't the method he used to leak the data..
It was how he _got_ the data.. and bragging about it probably didn't help much either.
Key word in my post was "necessarily". Obviously you can get hosed at any step in the process.. but before wikileaks I think most geeks assumed there really was no safe way to upload something to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
* most non geeks .. sigh
That was his own fault (Score:3)
While it is certainly possible he would have been tracked down, classified information is access controlled and they may have been about to narrow down who had access to it, they caught him because he bragged about it. He was not driven to do what he did for moral reasons, he did it for ego reasons. Well, something you find about people who do things for egotistical reasons is they usually feel the need to run their mouths about it. After all, hard for the world to know how awesome you (think) you are if yo
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Have you spoken with Bradly Manning lately?
You do know how and why he was caught, right? Because if you did, you'd know that it was through no fault of Wikileaks, but through him being burned by a reporter that he trusted [salon.com].
Trust can be misplaced...
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Interesting)
In general, whistleblowers are important -- and indeed there are lots of laws specifically to protect whistleblowers.
Every soldier has a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to disobey unjust orders, and we should feel sorry when the soldier is punished for disobeying orders.
So yes in general there are many circumstances when we should feel sorry for someone being punished when he breaks an agreements.
Does the specific case of Bradley Manning fall into one of this circumstances? I don't know. I think his leak of the helicopter attack in Iraq counts heavily in his favour.
Re: (Score:3)
What wikileaks has really done is shown that you can leak something to the internet without necessarily destroying your life.
That assumes there will be no leaks from within Wikileaks itself.
It also assumes that internal investigations are not on-going and that high-profile civil and criminal cases are launched without weeks, months or even years of preparation.
Re: (Score:3)
The original idea of Wikileaks was for whistleblowers to submit their scoops to them. Without the brand, there are no leaks, as whistleblowers don't know how to contact in the first place. Sure, the leak might get out, but Wikileaks provided a well known, secure platform.
These cables also came from somewhere and someone, and they approached Wikileaks with their information. Without Wikileaks, this wouldn't have happened.
I would agree that Wikileaks and Assange inject their bias a little heavier than what I
Re:Anonymous releases are possible (Score:4, Insightful)
The collateral Murder video was the first time I realized julian was a media whore.
That movie was edited to only show the parts that were bad, when the full clip was shown it shows just how hard troops try to miss civilians.
Once you start lying you can't stop. Julian started to cover up the truth with 10 seconds slides that only show his side.
Re: (Score:3)
It looked no more innocent than the edited version.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.
Re: (Score:3)
I think this type of criticism is entirely unfounded. In order to get this leaked information out into the world, you need press coverage. Julian Assange has done America and the world a HUGE favor by exposing the crooks and liars in our government. This government is hurting America and the world. We can't even begin to start turning things around unless their secret dealings are made public in the widest possible manner.
I really have to agree with this. You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest. It took the GOP deciding to push that narrative to suddenly put them on the front page.
If wikileaks did not make itself a big deal, the story would have languished. How many stories out there were you thinking "Oh my god, why is this not HUGH!!!1 and driving the media cycle?" Just didn't spark the right level of i
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get media attention to make a splash. The wingers who did the whole ground zero mosque thing had their material out for months with no media interest.
You nailed the heart of a large part of the problem... A lot of scandals are just ignored by all but some obscure media outlets. Just look at some of the stories on Project Censored [projectcensored.org] (and the fact that they even exist). It really does show information does not have to be hidden to be unknown to the world... And some of the regular media can continue to ignore or distort the truth indefinitely, research like this well known 2003 report showing Fox information distortion [archive.org] was a real eye opener to me...
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I think one must always consider the potential harm every leak could cause. For example, if you had a video of General McChrystal burning a Koran and laughing about it, you prob
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, Glenn Greenwald absolutely nailed it here.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01/wikileaks/index.html [salon.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have more respect for the former than the latter.
Maybe you should focus more on the info than either... The propaganda machine has done an excellent job of diverting attention to the messenger. The reaction has been far more educational than the info itself. Though it is an intriguing glance into how power works. And that makes it all okay.
Re: (Score:3)
No interviews, no discussions, nobody to defend the organization in public makes it too easy to morally justify any measures deemed necessary against it. IMHO
Wikileaks was probably the first platform of its kind that people heard of (e.g. cryptome doesn't ring a bell for most people).
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I have more respect for someone who isn't a coward. If it weren't for cowards we'd have no DHS or TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if Assange wasn't so high profile he'd be enjoying bed and breakfast in a CIA operated secret prison by now instead of just being character assasinated by their black ops.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another.
Why, that's almost like real journalists operate, always wanting to get the scoop first is one of their motivations... *This is a good thing*.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, anonymous, quiet leaks tend to fly under the radar.
In fact, what happened with WikiLeaks is exactly what WikiLeaks wants to happen. The absolute worst possible outcome for a leak is to have it published but no one notices. With WikiLeaks making a big stink about stuff, it forces reactions from those involved.
Those leaked cables? They didn't carry anything new or surprising, but the way the government reacted though, gives it an element of truth. Make a big stink, and they suddenly gained popular
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the original leakers could have released the information anonymously? If there was no well know wikileaks, then the leakers wouldn't have sent them the information. The site depends on being well known enough to attract leakers, and leakers depend on the site being well known to ensure that people notice the information they leak.
Just imagine trying to release the same documents on twitter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information. Wanting to get the truth out is one thing, but wanting to make sure that the truth gets out *under your brand name* is another. I have more respect for the former than the latter.
You should respect more the latter than the former when we consider a game-changing medium and the pioneers that, if not started, placed it in the spotlight.
The thing is, systematic information "leaking", in it's inception, desperately needs a brand name. More to the point, anonymous whistle-blowing desperately needs a spokesperson who is able to both direct public attention to the information and raise awareness to the importance of being able to do just that in a healthy democratic and free society. It
Re: (Score:3)
He wrote that he tried one way -- just releasing large quantities of data and expecting the blogs and independent people to mine through it.
And it didn't work. The "many eyeballs" model of software development didn't work on politics for whatever reason.
So he switched to the next way, with a high-profile "news story" that professional journalists pour over. And this has been working.
I suspect that having a personally identified person is part and parcel of making it a "news story".
Re: (Score:3)
But Assange didn't choose to go that route. He definitely wanted his name and trademark on this information.
Without the buildup of publicity, Assange would have simply disappeared and any leak would have gone unnoticed, buried in bullshit newsday chaff. With it, the world will be eagerly waiting to see what he was killed for if he should disappear, and the release of his doomsday files will be broadly publicized by everyone.
Publicity has uses, and you simply don't understand them. That, or you find them distasteful, and are willing to be deliberately obtuse in order to miss the point.
Assange would have been throu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Strange how many comments on this post are by anonymous cowards.
I think you just made my head explode whilst pondering the recursion potential.
Re: (Score:2)
We should treat Wikileaks with suspicion by default as well. Same goes for the media.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't be as popular (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?
Re:Won't be as popular (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but if they released confidential documents about the EU, Russia Federation, or Chinese National Socialist Government, I'd certainly read it.
Unfortunately wikileaks hasn't been doing that.
Re:Won't be as popular (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you know that any factual & juicy information on those countries has been submitted to Wikileaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Won't be as popular (Score:5, Informative)
Their early leaks [wikipedia.org] contained things about Somalia, Cayman Islands, Great Britain, etc. Surely you remember the "climategate" emails ? Those were from a UK university. Sure their latest leaks have been US centric but they're just releasing the most high profile, inflammatory, stuff they have. Oh, and as a EU citizen I would also like to read more of "our" leaked documents. Get to it ,whistle blowers !
Re:Won't be as popular (Score:4, Insightful)
Anti-Americanism.. sigh. I don't think most people in the world hates America, but certainly a percentage do, and some of those I've met go on like nut-jobs. I think most of the criticism America gets is unfair, undue, and way out of proportion especially compared to other countries ... the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc. ... frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites. However, like Jews, people also hate Americans partly because American is successful, and there seems to a stupid success-hating gene in our gene pool (probably it's the same social hierarchy resentment when you're not the alpha dog). Then America is also a lot more "in our faces" than other countries, which is in fact due to its success ... people don't care about North Korea because it doesn't enter the average person's life in any way on a daily basis. Then there is also an element of America's negatives being amplified by the perception of hypocrisy relative to the hype: America "markets itself" as "great", so naturally people will look for reasons to say it's not, kind of like Google and their 'do no evil', they draw attention and analysis to their behavior. Finally, we've all been brainwashed by anti-Westernism, and finally finally, the critics are cowards, they criticize America because nobody will kill them for doing so, they don't criticize Islamic countries because they'd get a fatwa and get killed.
Re: (Score:3)
the type of person who is anti-American tends to be rabidly so, and will go on and on while totally ignoring truly egregious cases like China, North Korea etc.
The type of person who would defend immoral behaviour by saying "but we are not as bad as China, North Korea etc." is just as bad as the kind of person you are complaining about. How many times have we heard the phrase "we may do bad things, but we're not as bad as Al-Qaeda"? Too many to be worth crediting, unfortunately...
frankly I suspect in some cases it may be a kind of mental illness, as that's the same symptom you see with rabid anti-Semites.
Yes, people who are against American foreign policy are mentally ill, and probably racist and Nazis, too... or maybe not? Maybe there are legitimate criticisms to be made of U.S. foreign
Re: (Score:3)
Add to this that, usually, who is the first country in a troubled area with actual aid (food, money, resources)? Who provides most of these resources at the end of the day?
Not to belittle the contribution the US makes to the world, or the generosity of individual US citizens (which I'm sure is pretty similar to the generosity of individuals everywhere), but I think you'd be surprised how little the US gives, as a proportion of it's overall economy, compared to the rest of the developed world.
Have a look at the following link:
http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/best.html#Aid [vexen.co.uk]
As you can see, as a proportion of GDP, the US gives less aid than Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, The
Re: (Score:2)
1. Strictly practical. There is a sense in which America is so arrogant that leaks are more likely to happen when some disillusioned individual who has been permitted access to the data decides to cash his chips. Government employees in Iran are much more likely to feel like they are part of a valiant and worthy battle against fore
Iceland (Score:2)
Do you think the media will care if they leak the displomatic wires of the government of some tiny country nobody really cares about?
If by "media" you mean "US media", then no. Otherwise: the banking scandal in Iceland!
If Americans wouldn't take Wikileaks as an attack on their national ego but as an opportunity to hold their beloved leaders accountable, much could be accomplished.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Chicago, which is leagues above the rest of us.
Ken Livingston would beg to differ.
Not rivals (Score:4, Insightful)
There are enough secret documents and nefarious backroom deals to go around. If Wikileaks has put a stop on submissions because it has too much, then there's clearly room for more, and Wikileaks should welcome them as such. It appears there is at least some indication WL feels that way, but while the people may not be the best of friends their organizations will at least be allies.
Unrelated - Why does TFS refer to TFA as such?
Re:Not rivals (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of non-profit organizations "competing" is strange. It's kind of like how, with tech products, journalists always want to say "product X is winning" even though product Y is profitable, just not as profitable as product X. I think it's a part of sensationalist journalism that's become the norm: everything is a conflict or it's not worth reporting.
Don't mess with the bad governments. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they understand the risks.
US is still relatively civilised (althought I know there have been cases of torture etc), but I'm pretty sure once they start messing with China the response will be far more radical than rape charge.
Re:Don't mess with the bad governments. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or Russia... Litvinenko released data about FSB staging false-flag bombings, and see how ended up. And instead of a plausible accident, Russians went a long way to leave their signature on his assassination.
Work with what you've got (Score:2)
If 75% of the leaked material you have is dealing with or from the US, 75% of your publishing is likely going to be leaks about or from the US.
I mean, Wikileaks primary target and sources are all English speaking western European and North American countries. His sources are entirely self selecting. I would love to see more information from around the globe, but lets face it, Assange isn't a spy. He's not breaking into secured American communications and harvesting this stuff. Americans are going to him wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Work with what you've got (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think that anybody here is really suggesting that wikileaks shouldn't have published all of that stuff.
What annoys me with the site is that they UNPUBLISHED a bunch of stuff when they relased the Iraq war documents, and they remain offline to this day. It seems almost like a marketing decision (no need to distract the public with more than one scandal at a time).
It seems like the organization is more about marketing than getting info out.
Wtf title? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA: "The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote."
Title on Slashdot: "Wikileaks competitor in the works".
The only part in TFA that mentions the word "competitor" is the sentence stating what this new site won't be.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the media for you nowadays. OT: this is obviously tapping in on some of the public responses that WikiLeaks focusses too much on America. What are they going to do, ignore leaks they receive that are related to America? It just happens to be so that the biggest leaks they received, or rather, the biggest media spectacles around leaks, were related to the American gov.
If you take a look at their past leaks it also includes a lot of other leaks related to Scientology, the Bildenberg Group and Australia
Re:Wtf title? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only are they "not rivals", but anybody who supports what Wikileaks does should be relieved that a new group is springing up. Assange can be locked up, Wikileaks can be taken down; we need two, three, many Wikileaks's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There will be never be a shortage of corruption to expose, so "competitor" is simply the wrong word in this context. The more information outlets, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it most amusing that these people don't seem to realize that all this dissension in the ranks is no doubt being encouraged by the CIA and others who would discredit and silence Wikileaks. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to find that most of this competitor's funding is coming from U.S. government coffers (whether the forkers realize it or not).
Just another front of the smear campaign to try to discredit Assange and Wikileaks. Next they'll be trying to frame him for links to terrorists, or painting him
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptome (Score:5, Informative)
Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem with Wikileaks is that rather than being a neutral publisher of leaked documents, that have editorialized what they publish (for example, leaked footage of combat in Iraq that leaves out context and is labeled as "murder by US troops" or similar prejudice terms) and are, largely through the words and actions of Julian Assange, pushed their own agenda. I don't think that's what a lot of people thought Wikileaks would be. I can understand why some members might want to distance themselves from Assange and Wikileaks.
A Wikileaks that just makes available the documents they have without the need to try all tell people what they should think about those documents might have some value. Of course, it might also be impossible since somebody has to make the decision whether or not to release a document (for example, if they believe release might endanger lives) and that can be seen as a form of editorial control.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just making stuff up now. The airstrike video was labeled exactly that: "Baghdad airstrike video" pre-release and later "Collateral Murder" (which is exactly what it was). And then there's the "Iraq War Logs". The media gave it titles as "murder by us troops" not WikiLeaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so and I do not applaud this behaviour but please don't generalize the entire organisation for a slip-up in a TITLE. The OP is assuming they do this with all their releases creating a wrong picture of the organisation. Also he is misquoting the title as "murder by US troops". People don't realize that misquote after misquote end up being entirely different quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
Please see my previous reply. I agree with the title but I see how it makes assumptions and I do not applaud it. WikiLeaks should only summarize the information that it is leaking without bias.
I'm wondering though. If WikiLeaks did a leak on some mass murder of dealers/whatever in Mexico by armed forces and named it "Mass murder by armed forces in Mexico" would anyone give a shit about the title? Sometimes things that happened are pretty damn obvious, especially when you have the act itself on tape from the
Re:Murder (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe you're talking about a different clip. I'm talking about the one Assange talked about on Colbert which Colbert ripped him a new one about. IIRC (I can't check YouTube from work) it was from a helicopter gunship camera which Wikileaks had edited down to remove all the real combat just prior to the incident. But either way, you can judge it any way you want. It's not, or should not be, Wikileaks job to tell you want to think about it.
I'm not spinning anything anyway, but you seem to think Wikileaks should spin it for you and that's somehow better than anybody else spinning it. I disagree and that was my point. Wikileaks shouldn't spin at all.
Whistle blowing? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a big difference between "whistleblowing" to uncover domestic corruption and leaking state secrets of multiple nations.
Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.
I would like to keep a sense of privacy myself as an individual so I think that even the 5th estate of our society needs to be held to a certain level of accountability. That is why I do not consider most bloggers "journalists" because they are not held accountable to anyone. Wikileaks is even a blogger but just some asswipe who is looking for money and attention and does not give a damn if the information he stole damages lives, reputations or brings us closer to a war.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's our right to know that potentially harmful or embarassing information can so easily pass out into the public domain.
No, it's not. The government should be able to do whatever they want, and everyone knows the government has absolutely nothing to do with the people!
Re: (Score:3)
Do we have a right to know this stuff? No. It is nothing more than titillating information like what you would find in tabloids concerning celebrities. It is not our right to know private information about either celebrities or diplomats. What is said behind closed doors off the record is supposed to stay private.
Yeah except when a country like Saudi Arabia with close ties to US elites, like the bush family for example, urge the US to attack Iran [guardian.co.uk] then the population has a right to know that. They have a right to know that the reasons they are being given by their politicians might not be the whole story, for better or worse. Remember that $60 billion US-Saudi arms deal [wsj.com], the larget ever ? How's that looking in light of this information ?
Suicide pact (Score:2)
no, you want to mess with the usa (Score:2)
because if you mess with china or russia, you'll be drinking polonium or have a "driving accident"
you don't have to like the usa if you don't want to, but the usa is not an enemy of the free exchange of information. no, the usa is not exactly a friend of the free exchange of information either, and the usa can be quite brutal if it wants to. for one, stay off of battlefields in afghanistan. and don't try to download taylor swift or harry potter. then the usa won't mess with you. in a way, american media is
Re:no, you want to mess with the usa (Score:4, Informative)
No if you cross the US they just kidnap you and send you to some shithole to be tortured. Then, if it turns out you're not the one they're looking for, they'll dump you out in the middle of nowhere and pressure your government to forget the whole thing ever happened. This is what happened [boingboing.net] to a German of Lebanese descent and that's a case we know of, god knows what else the CIA is up to where nobody's looking.
Re:no, you want to mess with the usa (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh well, they though he was a terrorist. I guess that's alright then. Your argument boils down to the fact that the US is the best of a bad lot, morality on a sliding scale. I don't accept that. You either stand for liberty and don't do this kind of thing or you wade in the shit with the rest of the totalitarians.
There are already Wikileaks competitors (Score:3, Interesting)
There are already Wikileaks competitors. The differ from Wikileaks in that they actually concentrate on publishing leaking information, rather than self-promotion. That's also why many apparently haven't heard of them. To make a political analogy, Wikileaks is the Sarah Palin of the leak sites--not well respected by those in the know in the leaks community, but has been marketed in such a way as to become the darling of many.
Re: (Score:2)
Which news channel shows films at 11?
Re:Wikileaks World! (Score:5, Informative)
Which news channel shows films at 11?
I'm either going to explain a cultural reference to non-Americans, or I'm going to overexplain a joke and get "Whoooshed". (Both, probably, now that I've mentioned it).
On network TV, during commercial breaks in prime time (8pm-11pm), the evening news, which comes on at 11, will "tease" a story that they're reporting on with a short summary and the promise of some exciting video in order to keep you watching after your show is over. "Fire guts popular downtown restaurant. Film at 11." Taking that common phrase out of context, the meme has become "[Obvious statement]. Film at 11."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's an antiquated reference from the days when videotape was not yet available or not in widespread use. News agencies relied on film. Film actually required hours, at best, to make available for broadcast. When a piece of breaking news arrived, it arrived via telephone, in-person reports, teletype (the original internet!), etc. Still photos were often available, because there were instant films and relatively rapid processing (10 minutes to load and develop, 1 minute to stop and fix, 15 minutes to dry
Re: (Score:3)
You were born.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia don't make you a rockstar.
If you wanna be a rockstar you have to use the US.
The others will probably make you briefly famous and then dead or perhaps the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are you assuming he gathers his own intel? First of all, it's an organisation consisting of multiple people. Secondly, they have to work with what is leaked to them. They are not people who infiltrate governments or hack databases.
Your examples are laughable to say the least. Do you think they can pull such documents out of their ass or something? They need to be LEAKED to them.
Perfect! (Score:2)
Good volunteering; I wish you luck with gathering and publishing that info.
It is great how a small start (WikiLeaks) is spurning people on to break this information hegemony.
Now we have 'xscess' here offering to take another angle. Make sure to get some help, that is a lot of territory for you to cover.
Re: (Score:3)