WikiLeaks Published Rape Victims' Names, Credit Cards, Medical Data (arstechnica.com) 306
Joe Mullin, writing for ArsTechnica: Even as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange sits trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, the WikiLeaks website continues to publish the secrets of various governments worldwide. But that's not all it's publishing. A report today by the Associated Press highlights citizens who had "sensitive family, financial or identity records" published by the site. "They published everything: my phone, address, name, details," said one Saudi man whose paternity dispute was revealed in documents published by the site. "If the family of my wife saw this... Publishing personal stuff like that could destroy people." One document dump, from Saudi diplomatic cables, held at least 124 medical files. The files named sick children, refugees, and patients with psychiatric conditions. In one case, the cables included the name of a Saudi who was arrested for being gay. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. In two other cases, WikiLeaks published the names of teenage rape victims. "This has nothing to do with politics or corruption," said Dr. Nayef al-Fayez, who had a patient with brain cancer whose personal details were published.
The end justifies the means (Score:2, Insightful)
Publish away! All the things!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You utter, fucking cockwomble! Peoples private/personal lives and political allegiances are none of your business unless they betray, contradict and therefore hypocritize a public stance. A politician who attacks homosexuals and is homosexual is news. Conversely, a politician who presents no public position on sexuality and is homosexual is not. Wikileaks lost me when they published the names of BNP members and undermined the political agency of private individuals. It matt
Re:The end justifies the means (Score:5, Insightful)
Somewhere around 20-40% of the info in these documents will turn out to be wrong or misleading in some critical way.
I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the alleged witches as they drown.
Also, just because some personal data is correct, that doesn't mean the entire world has any right or need to know. People suffer unfair discrimination or worse because of perfectly legitimate personal matters all the time, which is the most compelling argument for the importance of privacy.
Criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks has devolved into pretty much just Julian and a disciple or two. He doesn't have the bandwidth to do vetting, he's just burning the Earth now.
Re:Criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod +1. Assange is now purely in the vengeance game, so far as I can tell, though to be honest, at least as far as burning Clinton's career prospects to the ground, the term "damp squib" comes to mind. If there's one thing the DNC document dump proved, he's sitting on top of a big pile of nothing, and soon enough I think the press will just move on.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the press HAS moved on. Instead of hearing about new DNC dumps (which were presented on the standard political "Friday afternoon dump*" which already say
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't stuck anywhere - he can walk out anytime.
Re: (Score:2)
And immediately be arrested. Not only is he still due to answer for criminal allegations in Sweden, the fact that he ran from British justice means he'll have to answer for that to. He's sort of a low-budget Roman Polanski.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Roman Polanski is free to return to the US at any time. And I think he should, he deserves to answer for the crimes since even famous auteurs aren't allowed to be pedophiles. Similarly, Assange should face the music as well. Hiding away from the law has never inspired the masses to one's cause. If he has to spend some jail time then so be it, he'll eventually get out. There's no chance whatsoever he'll be executed, though that's his paranoid belief.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facing justice in a European country or in the US is far from suicide. That you think otherwise speaks more for your mental condition than the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
And also notice how Snowden still retains much respect around the world, whereas Assange is more of a joke with only a core set of true believers in his cult. Even many of the original Wikileaks founders have departed or been kicked out.
Re: (Score:3)
But, proclaiming "meh, there all the same" is just intellectual laziness pretending to be jaded, streetwise cynicism.
The democrats support gay marriage, the republicans do not
The Democrats acknowledge man made climate change exists, and is a significant problem. The republicans maintain, its a myth, a conspiracy cooked up in the scientific community to damage capitalism
The democrats maintain that the government has some responsib
Re: Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
How delightfully backwards!
The first step in addressing a problem, is acceptance that there is in fact a problem to address.
Rightly pointing out that all current choices are shit, is therefore the correct and proper direction toward addressing that problem, eg, by not voting for more political choices that are shit.
Hilariously, your rebuttle is whimsically absurd! Denial of the problem, will somehow result in correction of the problem-- and drawing attention to the fact that there is in fact a problem purpetuates the problem.
What really needs to happen is for the US to grow a pair and demand no confidence vote powers. That way when presented with the choice of 70 year old rancid tuna and 50+ year old trolls with verbal diarrhea, we can return the offered plate to the kitchen and demand they do it right this time.
Arguing bitterly over the pros and cons of rancid tuna over shitspeaking oompahloompahs does nothing to chastise the kitchen. Next time they wI'll serve you a festering blue waffle with whipped cream and shriveled oil baron salomi with a side of polluted tap water.
Unless you want to keep getting served shit, I suggest you address the problem of being served shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Politics, even at the ballot box, is the art of compromise. The perfect candidate will never exist, and even when you think you've found them, all you've found is a time bomb that will go off eventually.
The American system effectively offers you two choices; Trump or Clinton. You can vote third party, but that's just another way of voting for one of them, or you can stay home, which is still just a way of voting for one of them. The universe does not owe you easy answers, so you'll have to just resign yours
Re: Criminal (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't work.
The system is designed to provide stability, because unstable governments that can be toppled by trashy tabloid scandals or are sandbagged by and endless barrage of no confidence motions are undesirable and cause people to lose faith in that country's economy.
Mixing it up sounds like fun, but actually direct democracy is vastly over-rated. Look at Brexit. People are fucking idiots. They can't tell obvious fiction from fact, and they ignore overwhelming expert advice despite knowing that they are extremely ignorant and constantly requesting more information because when the information comes it contradicts their established view. They vote based on their won stupid issues that they know next to nothing about, and based on bigotry, fear and xenophobia.
The only solution to this, which is far from perfect, is to adjust your system so that it has to be governed by coalition. Force the asshats to work together. It's moderately successful in parts of Europe, and it's the best system anyone has ever come up with. It's a fine balancing act though, not easy to get right.
Re:Criminal (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikileaks started as a good idea, and promoted itself with open ideals. Since then it's been clear that Assange is the sole dictator of Wikileaks and he has kicked out earlly members who have wanted more security, more transparency, and more structure. Assange was unhappy that Domsheitt-Berg "leaked" details of unhappiness of Wikileaks management. Ever since the Afghan leaks it's been on a rapid decline in quality, relevance, and importance. Nothing in the leaks of private details of ordinary citizens have anything to do with documents of "political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest", the original Wikileaks mission.
Re:Criminal (Score:5, Informative)
"No, WikiLeaks did not disclose "gays" to the Saudi govt. Data is from govt & not leaked by us. Story from 2015. Re-run now due to election."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was
Of course they do vetting... They ask two questions... 1. Is it a good story (not true, just plausible is all that's required)? You can make it up as a total work of fiction, but if SOMEBODY might think it's true you meet this requirement. 2. Will it draw attention to us? It doesn't matter if it's good or bad attention.
Unless your story meets these standards, forget it.... Well, unless you are willing to pay something for it. Websites and press releases cost money you know.
Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was
Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" and "curation". They will edit things to remove facts contrary to the narrative they wish to promote. For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
Re: (Score:3)
They also did not mention the journalists had just been dragged out of their hotel by armed militants so they could film and document the attack going on a few blocks over.
Re:Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" ... (Score:5, Informative)
For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter. Shit happens in war, and it's difficult to tell from the photos. No, it's the helicopter crew lying to their chain of command to receive permission to fire on the van, in clear violation of both international law and the US own rules of engagement at the time that we think is beyond the pale.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh? They didn't edit that out. The every last detail of the van is there from beginning to end. The whole film is also much longer than what is commonly shown, if that's the "edit" you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yea well the US and the world has a big problem.
All 4 of the major candidates should not be elected as president.
Trump is a fat cat crack pot. I could list things like the way he talks about women, the crazy wall plan, or his wanting to ban people from coming to the US based on religion but the list is just too long. He is so bad that he makes Clinton look like a not that bad choice.
Clinton just can not be trusted. She still does not admit that she did anything wrong with her email server even after classif
Pile it on.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet another Wikileaks hit-piece. Are there any legitimate editors on this site or do they just unquestioningly regurgitate the party line?
it is ars(e) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot isn't sending us their best people, folks. We're going to build Heidi Wall and make CmdrTaco pay for it!
Re: (Score:2)
So Wikileaks didn't leak personal information of rape victims? I'm just trying to sort out what you're objecting to, the truthfulness of the story, or whether you just don't think the press should report negative things about Wikileaks.
Re:Pile it on.. (Score:4)
Stay classy
Re:Pile it on.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's look at this without passion for a moment. If it's true that they released this information on people who were not involved in any variation of corruption, and did so (even without malice) without checking the data for such information, this comes up to gross negligence. Whether we like it or not, some data should remain private. I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible, but crime or persecution victims need to be protected.
When we allow "all of the data" to be public, it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse. People become afraid to report crimes against their persons. Victimization thrives on access to personal details of private citizens. Let's just call this what it is: A bad idea either way. Real lives can be shattered by this type of thing. Innocent lives. I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse
What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you considered the possibility that racism, bigotry, and sexism are not really "dissent"?
Re:Pile it on.. (Score:4, Funny)
While you are correct, that those things exist, so does the wolf the boy cried over in that parable.
I realize that it works, which is why it is such a popular technique. Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist". To which I usually respond ... "I didn't know saggy pants was genetic". If Saggy pants was genetic, I would assume it would apply more to the flat assed white people (and some Asians), but they seem to be able to keep their pants on.
But I understand why you wouldn't want to admit the Boy Who Cried Wolf applies here.
Re:Pile it on.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Mentioning Saggy pants and how stupid they are, gets me labeled "racist".
Come to Australia, where it is much more socially acceptable to mock saggy pants, or made-up baby names, because most of the offenders are white.
You might be just as much an arse/ass for mocking lower-class people, but the class-ism is more acceptable when not associated with race.
Re:Pile it on.. (Score:4, Informative)
Saggy pants is still not racist, per se.
It is related to prison culture, and ghetto culture. The association with a specific racial group is a consequence of over expression of incidence in criminality and poverty in that racial group. Jumping straight to the racecard is itself racist; it defacto implies that the saggy pants, and the culture behind it, are intrinsically linked to that racial group. It is equally as onerous as saying "all black people are criminally minded."
Instead, saggy pants is just saggy pants. Complaints about the glorification of prominent displays of saggy pants is not racist, per the above reasoning. Counter-claims that such complaints are racism are themselves what is racist.
You were born with a powerful organ, refined through millions of years of evolution, for the primary functions of advanced abstract and critical thinking. Please use it responsibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered the possibility that racism, bigotry, and sexism are not really "dissent"?
Humanity is absolutely lousy at knowing the difference, often intentionally. If you start censoring one, you will end up censoring the other.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is actually worse than this. It is like when Hillary said that all rape victims deserve to be believed, and then was asked about Bill's Alleged Victims ....
The hypocrisy is astounding. There is clear pandering to black people in the DNC, and it is revealed repeatedly in their email scandal. Things everyone already knows, but nobody really cares about. BLM protests in Milwaukee prove that it isn't about "white cops shooting unarmed black men" because the victim was a criminal, with a stolen gun, shot by a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being called a dick for saying dickish things does not chill discourse. Your speech has social consequences and if you believe that those social consequences are a problem than you are frankly not in tune with reality. There is no belief in free speech that includes a right not to be offended and there is also no right to not be criticized.
People like you will in one breath disclaim the right to be offended and attempt to defend the right to say offending things without the social consequences those stateme
Re: (Score:3)
And the big boys that scream 'racist' to everything they don't like can deal with the consequences of their words...nobody pays any attention to them.
Re: (Score:3)
it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse
What creates chilling effect on dissent and discourse is tyranny and political correctness. When Dissent is chanted down by the Mob crying "racism" or "Bigotry" or "sexist" or any number of other terms that are designed for ONE thing, to quell the voices of those opposed to the march towards tyranny. ONLY Approved voices need to speak, all others will be punished mercilessly.
Agreed. However, posting PII/PHI of private citizens should be illegal. Just as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is illegal. Because the social and personal cost is greater than any conceivable benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a word for having no inclination to respect the rights of others. It's called sociopathy. Psychologists coined that term because they needed something that sounds more scientific than "evil".
Re: (Score:2)
I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause
Discretion? Okay, but who gets to decide what should be kept private and what should be made public? Julian Assange? You give him that power?
That's the problem with sites like Wikileaks and Gawker. Whether the information they publish is about a government or an individual, they can't be trusted to use any discretion.
All the data means all the data (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All the data means all the data (Score:4, Insightful)
You're a fool. A criminal with an agenda is no different than a capitalist with an agenda. Assange is no more or less evil than Fox news or any other media organization.
Re: (Score:2)
The media in the US actually skews to the Right.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/... [thefederalist.com]
Re:All the data means all the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Your evidence is as strong as the evidence that "the jews control the media" because some CEO of a public company has a jewish last name. Someone jumping between government appointments and the press is NOT new, what do you think political consultants are? I personally think they should change their title to out of work politician. Do you expect presidents to hire non journalists for a press secretary position?
Seriously you act like you expect people to have a special job called presidential press secretary, even though there is only one of them and they change with every president and that after they leave they should never ever work again and certainly not in the press. After all they are just robots with no independent thought and are just arms of some giant presidential monster. In other words your argument is childish and devoid of reality.
Re: (Score:3)
Bunch of relatives and reporters linked to Obama eh? How about head of fox news, probably the single most influential news network in the US, getting ousted and immediately "advising" trump? Or the freaking active CEO of breitbart working directly for trump? Don't worry, this bickering won't convince anyone to change ideologies. Everyone with more than a passing interest is firmly dug in no matter what "shocking new development" you may think you have.
Re:All the data means all the data (Score:5, Insightful)
Publishing someone's medical records without their consent is against the law in practically every country in the world. Leaking medical records of ordinary citizens has nothing to do with transparency. It's against the law, period.
Re: (Score:3)
I keep wondering when Assange will finally cross the line enough that Ecuador finally tells its embassy staff to evict him.
Re:All the data means all the data (Score:5, Interesting)
Years of attacks from various security services and law enforcement agencies has made it hard for wikileaks to process these leaks. Attacks on sources of funding, payment processing, communications, anyone who with for/with them...
So now they have to pick between not releasing and dumping everything unedited. There is no good option.
Re: (Score:2)
"We're not dumb..."
No, arguably, a lot of folks here aren't dumb, but a lot of folks in general are dumb. This is due to their lack of attention and/or connecting the dots. Connecting dots is very important. Those that run the news agencies know and depend on this fact, yet most of the people seem to incapable of caring less. It's actually become more fun to make fun of the situation that we're all in than it is to do something about it, and that's the real tragedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But just because something is in a diplomatic cable doesn't mean it is in the public interest or that someone's privacy has no value.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, the wonderful conclusions the false dichotomy fallacy can take you. You can't trust the AP, therefore you CAN trust Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.
In situations like this (what looks like a mindless data dump), trust in WikiLeaks is meaningless, and expression of such trust reveals a certain level of, potentially willful, ignorance. It's not trust in WikiLeaks you need here; it's trust in every person that now has access to the personal, potentially private information of otherwise innocent individuals.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust Wikileaks a whole lot more than the average Associated Press news story full of random bullshit attributed to "sources speaking anonymously because they were not authorized." We're not dumb, we don't want a filter and "think of the children" is how dictators often climb to power.
I fail to see how this justifies releasing the name of someone accused of being gay in a country where homosexuality is punishable by death.
It is very easy to be a fucking asshole that spouts dogmatic slogans (and putting inocent people at risk) when they have nothing to lose. That's not love of freedom or speech or transparency. That's just good old fucking moral hazard.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the whole blantly edited video that started the whole thing. That was far from accurate, more like open propaganda.
Think it through. (Score:4, Insightful)
As the person was already arrested, I assume the govt already knows their name and their punishment is already lined up. Making this info widely public is probably the only way anyone else will ever know what happened to this person.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, this really seems like they're stretching for something to criticize Wikileaks over.
The only "stretching" going on here is the vast stretch trying to remove the label "evil" from Wikileaks.
It's ok to release the information about a gay Saudi because the government has already arrested him. It doesn't matter if the government might have shown some leniency, but now cannot do so because the info is public, or that this guy's neighbors might beat him to a pulp were the government to let him go. No, Wikileaks is right to publish this information.
And it's ok to publish the names of rape vict
Re:Think it through. (Score:4, Insightful)
You idiot, they didn't "release information about a gay Saudi", they published more than half a million Saudi diplomatic cables which contained, among many many other things, the fact that this one guy had been arrested for homosexuality. Wikileaks is not a revenge site, where people like you go to post the private information of a girlfriend who dumped you when she found you had skidmarks larger than your dick. Wikileaks is a place where whistle blowers go to publish some of the secrets that very large organizations, mainly governments, hide from those people whom these secrets effect.
It is true that smarter people than you have criticized this approach to journalism, and those people may have a point: huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release. Even if they could be, Wikileaks might not be willing to do so - they have built their reputation on total transparency, with the understanding that only when you receive a whole document, without redaction, can you be certain of its contents. Much as Hillary Clinton has received a lot of criticism for self-censoring emails from her server, so does Wikileaks avoid that criticism by censoring nothing.
(Now would be a good time to pause for a moment and make sure that your drool is not getting on your keyboard while you read this. Consider a bib.)
But, as I said, there are people who are not idiots who have pointed out problems with this approach. Most of those criticisms have taken the form of the TFA: when the US diplomatic cables were released there was much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen [bbc.com], but it was the same argument then as now: such a huge number of documents are bound to include a few embarrassing or possibly even dangerous tidbits about individuals. Some of those people went on to make the same implied argument as in TFA, "If we don't keep secrets, someone might get hurt." though previously they were less stupid about it than trying to suggest that if someone found out that a man had been arrested for homosexuality he might be... arrested for homosexuality. I don't know about Saudi Arabia specifically, but in most places arrest records are public information. (Was this written by someone you know? They seem to be writing at your level.)
Regarding my opinion about all of this: I'm uncertain about what's best for the public good, but if Wikileaks maintains an unflinching absolutism it's bound to get them in trouble eventually. I don't think that the TFA's method of cherry-picking a tiny tidbit out of a huge stack of information and shouting, "Look how much damage Wikileaks is doing!" is acting in the public's favor though. In fact, I think that sort of misinformation is very much against the best interests of the public.
I might further make a distinction between private information, personal records, and secrets, but any kind of subtlety like that would be lost on you, I'm sure. So I'm going to stop there.
Re: (Score:3)
much hand-wringing about all the lives that they would cost when sources were revealed. That didn't happen [bbc.com]
My credit card info was released during the Target hack; since none of it was used, that makes it okay and I should congratulate the ones responsible? In the name of what exactly?
huge amounts of documents like this can not be censored for potentially harmful or embarrassing personal information prior to their release
This is patently false. Snowden seemed to do a pretty good job of it.
Fluffy hit piece (Score:2, Informative)
Feels to me like a hit piece put out there to discredit the massive drops Wikileaks has be releasing lately. Rumor is they're sitting on the really good stuff until we're closer to the election.
This article is little more than fluff
Re: (Score:2)
Rumor? Yea, call me back in November. They have zero credibility and I doubt they have anything truly earth shaking that's provable.
Not that being true is a prerequisite to do political damage to somebody...I'm sure they will drop something, but it's likely to just be some useless junk they try to spin into the news cycle at the appropriate time. It won't turn out to be anything.
Deny Distract Discredit (Score:2)
I had no idea Wikileaks supported ****TEEN RAPE****. Well that settles it,who cares what information is released in the coming months pertaining to immoral and illegal actions committed at the highest levels of government. How can one ever believe an outlet that is associated with****TEEN RAPE****.
Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry at (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?
Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe we should be angry that this type of sensitive information is in diplomatic cables. Why are medical records, credit card info and other stuff being stored and transmitted by government agents in the first place?
Most likely they are assisting people who became sick way from their home country. Are you bothered by the government helping people?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. That is, after all, a very large part of an embassy's job, to assist citizens of that country when in a foreign country, and to communicate any needs or concerns back to their Government.
Re: (Score:3)
The details were secure, until Chelsea manning gave them to an egomaniac sociopath that posted them on the internet without a second thought. Before that incident all these details were protected secrets and divulging of details would result in a prison sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Those particular details were secure until the Guardian decided to print the password to the encrypted files along with a handy link to download them...
Re:Maybe Wikileaks is the wrong entity to be angry (Score:5, Informative)
I dont know the circumstances of all the cases described in these cases, but there are plenty of reasonable and legal reasons for a government body to have that information that does not involve Big Brother spying.
Re: (Score:2)
In many foreign countries your best bet is just dust yourself off and go on with your life.
The shit with the swimmers in Brazil is par. First you get robbed, then you have to pay off the cops to not charge you with inconveniencing the robbers (off duty cops). Best just to avoid the second bunch of thieves (cops) entirely.
Trapped? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trapped? (Score:4, Informative)
This again? You haven't been paying attention. Sweden did illegally rendition two Egyptians [newsjunkiepost.com] to the United States. Also, the Swedish government admitted as much that its previous government had authorized a US black plane to pick up Julian Assange once he'd get extradited back to Sweden.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, we renditioned the Egyptians, and there was a huge stink, with a clear change in policy afterwards. Much more would have been made of it, but as the foreign secretary was murdered shortly after, and the prime minister stepped down due to losing the election for other reasons, there wasn't the political pressure. Even though we were asked to rendition more, not a single one was. To think that you could do the same to Julian Assange with no-one batting an eyelid is naive in the extreme.
And there has bee
Re: (Score:2)
Assange's problems are a lot bigger than Sweden. He is willfully evading British courts, which means before he ever answers for the Swedish charges, he's going to have to answer the Brits for why he evaded extradition. Even if he is ultimately found not guilty of committing any crimes in Sweden, he most certainly committed an offence in Britain.
Then there's the Russians (Score:2)
Stupid Chump. (Score:2)
Any actual evidence the Ruskies are involved in any way?
Public Relations (Score:3, Interesting)
Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks.
Time to get out the popcorn, this should get interesting.
Re:Public Relations (Score:4, Insightful)
Hillary Clinton's PR firm must be in overdrive trying to discredit Wikileaks
Looks to me like Wikileaks is doing a fine job of discrediting itself without any help.
Re: (Score:3)
Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it.
They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks, and at least "complicate" the value of transparency.
Re: (Score:3)
Certainly looks like its Clinton backers behind it.
Yes, it is certainly clear that Clinton backers published the secret information about rape victims and medical records and stuff. Oh, that's not what you meant?
They are trying to highlight the "bad" information on wikileaks, they want people to stop looking at wikileaks,
It's called the Streisand Effect, and no, it doesn't stop people from looking, it only encourages them to see what kind of other juicy private information they might be able to find if they look.
Still Innocent Until Proven Guilty (Score:2)
I am not convinced it was not a setup. Under the circumstances, you cannot count on governments acting legally and justly.
Wikileaks published the Sony hack data (Score:2)
I know a couple of ground level employees whose information was in that hack. Medical information, social security numbers. To what end?
Assange must have something good on Hillary... (Score:2)
...considering the way the establishment is suddenly working overtime to discredit them.
commentsubjectsaredumb (Score:2)
But. What I'm seeing seeing is far too gasp-and-shock, far too cracked monocle, for shit that is OUT. It's out. Found. Busted. Whatever. Point is, it's going to get leaked somewhere. It's not like BAN WIKILEAKS! or whatever we're after here would do anything about that, before or after.
Don't we already have elegant ways to make this frequent incongruity plain? "Shutting down
AP has been caught lying (Score:5, Informative)
Here [ap.org] is a story AP published that turned out to be fiction. It originated with Jon Ralston and was quickly picked up by AP and then other major media outlets. No corroboration ever materialized for the story, despite there being 3000 cameras in the room, and those that streamed live told a different story. The only media outlet to retract the story was NPR, and PBS fired Ralston [counterpunch.org].
Note also that this is the story that the DNC leadership instructed its members to pass around "without attribution" [wikileaks.org], i.e. covertly smear Sanders with it. It's also the email that Assange has singled out as the most damming.
And also remember that much of the brouhaha over the leaked DNC emails was over collusion with the media.
In short, if you aren't yet skeptical of mainstream media this year, you need to start paying closer attention.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure if you were a rape victim who had her details just mindlessly thrown on to the web, you would totally understand that your revictimization was totally necessary to this "war".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you had read TFA, you'd know both victims who were named were teenage boys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it should be up to victims of such crimes to decide whether they want to have their names broadcast around the world, and not up to some guy who is hanging out in an Ecuadorian embassy to evade arrest by British police.
Re: (Score:2)
Her name and his "crime" is public knowledge at this point. I think both of them (the victims) have been on TV and everything. They don't seem to be hiding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right. He should have a trial. What's that? He is hiding in an embassy to avoid having to go to trial. That seems a little strange.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you also believe that Hillary too is innocent until proven guilty and are actively denouncing all the GOPers with their "Lock her up" chants, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And the lock her up chants, based on conspiracy theories, innuendo, and lies should be shouted down.
Unproven accusations against Mr. Trump fall into this same category.
All are deserving of the requirement to have their guilt proven, irregardless of if they are murderers, rapists or politicians.
Innocence is supposed to be automatically assumed. Anything less is unacceptable