Wikileaks - Page 65

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.

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

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.

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.

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.).

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.

On July 26 2010 08:41 k!llua wrote:
why can't i view wikileaks from australia? so aggravating.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On October 07 2011 18:36 Lassepetri wrote:


The collateral damage of such an action would not be advicable.

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