| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
Then, in the spring of 2011, Assange's external contact made public the password that he had received from Assange without realizing that this would allow access to the unredacted US cables. Epic. Fail. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783084,00.html On much more trivial news, related to Senator McCain... http://wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09TRIPOLI677.html | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On August 25 2011 01:04 Grovbolle wrote: That is fawking retarded, living in a european country really opens your eye up to how crappy the US system is crappy... or insanely profitable? perspective i suppose | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32153 Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/assange-autobiography-hit-shelves-despite-row-015542106.html "This book was meant to be about my life's struggle for justice through access to knowledge. It has turned into something else," said the 40-year-old former computer hacker. "The events surrounding its unauthorised publication by Canongate are not about freedom of information. They are about old-fashioned opportunism and duplicity -- screwing people over to make a buck." I don't think hypocritical even begins to describe this one! | ||
|
Ju!cy
Austria82 Posts
| ||
|
Yttrasil
Sweden651 Posts
To my issue, I'm writing a small report on political risk for my university master studies in business and economics. The report is to state and measure the risks of doing business in a certain country on a political level, such as risk of war, political conflict, terrorism etc etc. I was thinking that using wikileaks is actually the best and also most reliable source for information on different issues which are apparent in a country, what issues the politicians see and fear but cannot relay publically in the media etc because of risks of political pressure from whatever country they will be talking about. My reasoning is that this information instead is readily available from a very credible, to a much larger extent less biased than newspapers, in many cases experts etc because the people writing these reports actually are the real experts on the issues at hand and whatever information other experts actually get is second hand on not first hand. I know there are other sources to get information as well and I will use them too but shouldn't wikileaks actually be the best and most reliable source for this kind of data? I'm thinking that if I'm a company that want to invest somewhere I want to know the real underlying risks, not only what is said in daily media and different reports but actually a source that reveals the whole picture. Does anyone have an opinion on this I would love to hear it as it is a bit problematic at the moment. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On October 07 2011 03:50 Yttrasil wrote: Sorry to bring this topic back up again but I couldn't find any other place to use instead. To my issue, I'm writing a small report on political risk for my university master studies in business and economics. The report is to state and measure the risks of doing business in a certain country on a political level, such as risk of war, political conflict, terrorism etc etc. I was thinking that using wikileaks is actually the best and also most reliable source for information on different issues which are apparent in a country, what issues the politicians see and fear but cannot relay publically in the media etc because of risks of political pressure from whatever country they will be talking about. My reasoning is that this information instead is readily available from a very credible, to a much larger extent less biased than newspapers, in many cases experts etc because the people writing these reports actually are the real experts on the issues at hand and whatever information other experts actually get is second hand on not first hand. I know there are other sources to get information as well and I will use them too but shouldn't wikileaks actually be the best and most reliable source for this kind of data? I'm thinking that if I'm a company that want to invest somewhere I want to know the real underlying risks, not only what is said in daily media and different reports but actually a source that reveals the whole picture. Does anyone have an opinion on this I would love to hear it as it is a bit problematic at the moment. High i think you should use wiki-leaks but do not base this as you most important information, because even wiki-leaks has a narrative, which you of course don't know, so you can look up information which contradicts that which you think is reliable. And asses for yourself if this contradiction is true if you look at the your topic objectively (that is looking at something without your own judgement) and reflect the information gathered to how the world works, not according to your opinion but how you have observed it has worked. One last piece of advice i can give you is the following: Information is knowledge and knowledge is always based on the past this is a fact. And because it is always based on the past it is per definition always limited. | ||
|
GeyzeR
250 Posts
| ||
|
Shelke14
Canada6655 Posts
On October 07 2011 16:59 GeyzeR wrote: I would not trust Wikileaks. It's too obvious that it is a project with aim to give disinformation. Proof, sources? That's a very bold statement to make without actually adding any content too it.. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On August 25 2011 00:53 JustPassingBy wrote: Anyways, regarding Wikileaks, I am sad that the German guy who left Wikileaks decided to erase a ton of stuff regarding the German neonazi-scene. I would've been very interested to see some of that stuff and the people saying that stuff go to jail (depending on what nazi-stuff you say, you might commit a crime just by saying it, the freedom of speech does not reach that far as in the u.s.). You could say, in Germany the freedom of speech does not reach that far... right. I'll go away now. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27089 Posts
On October 07 2011 04:16 Saji wrote: High i think you should use wiki-leaks but do not base this as you most important information, because even wiki-leaks has a narrative, which you of course don't know, so you can look up information which contradicts that which you think is reliable. And asses for yourself if this contradiction is true if you look at the your topic objectively (that is looking at something without your own judgement) and reflect the information gathered to how the world works, not according to your opinion but how you have observed it has worked. One last piece of advice i can give you is the following: Information is knowledge and knowledge is always based on the past this is a fact. And because it is always based on the past it is per definition always limited. Yeah pretty much what he said, I mean you explain your rationale for utilising this data but do explain the potential for pitfalls (i.e some they choose what documents to actually release) etc. I'd also try and find very specific case studies mentioned in the wiki transcripts and compare them to the information given by a publicly available source at the time. Would be interesting for your study if the two turned out to be radically different | ||
|
zeOllie
Australia486 Posts
On July 26 2010 08:41 k!llua wrote: why can't i view wikileaks from australia? so aggravating. ikr. its actually really ironic because julian assange is australian lol. anyways, time to fire up the good ol' hotspotshield | ||
|
-Cyrus-
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
Electric.Jesus
Germany755 Posts
On October 07 2011 18:00 -Trippin- wrote: None of this would even be on the web if the US government didn't want it to be. They want it there. If you actually read this stuff, none of it is really that big anyway. It's all stuff everyone already knew about anyway. Stop being so naive. Yeah, and because they want it on the web so badly, they awarded the highest possible honors to the guy who gave the information wo wikileaks...oh, wait. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On October 07 2011 18:00 -Trippin- wrote: None of this would even be on the web if the US government didn't want it to be. They want it there. If you actually read this stuff, none of it is really that big anyway. It's all stuff everyone already knew about anyway. Stop being so naive. There is a lot of stuff on the interwebz that I'm pretty sure the government don't want on the web. Once something has spread it would be very fulite to do something else than punish the people putting it up there. You are the one being ignorant if you think the Us goverment are controlling the internet. At least at this moment in time.  | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On October 07 2011 18:00 -Trippin- wrote: None of this would even be on the web if the US government didn't want it to be. They want it there. If you actually read this stuff, none of it is really that big anyway. It's all stuff everyone already knew about anyway. Stop being so naive. The beauty of the internet is that once something is out there, its out there. No matter how big or powerful you are, you can't undo that. You are naive if you think the US government has that level of control. | ||
|
-Cyrus-
United States318 Posts
| ||
|
Lassepetri
Denmark112 Posts
On October 07 2011 18:34 -Trippin- wrote: The US Government could easily block http://wikileaks.org/ if they wanted to. If it was that big of a deal, they would. Doesn't take supreme control of the Internet to block one fucking website in your country. The collateral damage of such an action would not be advicable. | ||
|
-Cyrus-
United States318 Posts
On October 07 2011 18:36 Lassepetri wrote: The collateral damage of such an action would not be advicable. There is nothing on any of those documents that everyone doesn't already know anyway. Only good came out of those supposed "secret" documents being released, because now people don't assume worse. | ||
|
Yttrasil
Sweden651 Posts
On October 07 2011 17:35 Ubertron wrote: Yeah pretty much what he said, I mean you explain your rationale for utilising this data but do explain the potential for pitfalls (i.e some they choose what documents to actually release) etc. I'd also try and find very specific case studies mentioned in the wiki transcripts and compare them to the information given by a publicly available source at the time. Would be interesting for your study if the two turned out to be radically different Thanks for the input, it helps give a view on matters. Yeah, I used it as a basis for what actually are the issues on a geo-political level as that one is very difficult to grasp by just newspaper sources or different reports. Again this is a very short report and I wanted to use Wikileaks to see how it actually would attribute to a more accurate picture instead of the good old conventional sources. Here is a good example I will be using to enhance an argument, we chose Singapore as the country btw. "As noted above, Singapore officials constantly say that U.S. strategic engagement in East Asia is of critical importance to the region's peace and stability. They continue to express concern that the United States is preoccupied elsewhere and not paying sufficient attention to Asia. And they worry that rising protectionism in the West could cause China to turn inward, with unpredictable consequences. While Singapore officials have not expressed it openly, it is likely they would see a U.S. withdrawal as potentially an existential threat to Singapore, given its tiny size and potentially hostile neighborhood." I mean isn't this information perfect to establish that there is a risk, which relates to this issue and whether the US is present or not might be crucial if the situation were to worsen. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
HomeStory Cup
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
