On December 09 2010 08:08 ayababa wrote: edit: im not the guy hes talking about re his q.
On December 09 2010 00:13 Aim Here wrote: Aim Here, I'd love if you responded to my post quoting yours, on page 2. Imagine some property (say, a small office building, or a company car) that is worth less to MasterCard than a few hours of uptime on mastercard.com. Would you also be in favor of 4chan blowing up that building, or torching that car?
(Note that the car/building hypo is favorable to you, because destruction of the car or office building wouldn't be as much harm to MC's customers as taking down mastercard.com)
AIM i think you are taking this WAAAAAAY out of context... like your needing to prove your point by exaggerating things here. Just because someone supports the fact the MC website went down doesn't mean they would want a building blown up? Stop assuming things.
He is trying to show that the people who do not support both may not be consistent in their beliefs and therefore should probably re-evaluate them.
Well it depends, I think you can agree with the belief but not with the means or context of action as long as you understand that they're two different things and are not mutually exclusive. Belief facilitates action, but action is never fully merited by the belief alone
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me. This whole meta-leak will expose all the dirty little secrets that are kept secret due to conflict of interest with the public and that is a very good thing in my opinion.
NICE, GOOD JOB HACKERS/4CHAN/INTERNET/VIGILANTE GROUP ANONYMOUS XD
Lol at the "vigilante group Anonymous". They talk about 4chan as if it's a terrorist website. Wait. Wait... that reminds me of something!
Check out Fox report's on 4chan/anonymous
Which is hilarious xD hilariously wrong, that is.
Fuck you America, let Wikileaks founder go.
Both Mastercard and Visa are getting sued for pulling support illegally: The company that enables Wikileaks to accept credit and debit card donations says it will take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard.
o.o whoa, thanks for the link! xD And hi again, VIB ^_^
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
This has been brought up time and again: who are you to decide what is "irrelevant"? And how do you propose Wikileaks objectively measure this relevance and thus only leak materials more to your personal liking?
Well what is the purpose of Wikileaks? Is it to try to publish all of these only Facebook and blog worthy documents to the world because apparently reading about our friends taking a jog is no longer enough, or is it to act as a whistleblower site? I always thought it was hailed as secure website that someone could dump information to in order to do just that: be a whistleblower.
You might have a different definition or belief than me, and that is fine, but I just do not see the relevance in knowing what a foreign minister had to drink at a party last night.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
Wikileaks is NOT beholden to the United States of America. What's distasteful or trivial for us might be incredibly valued somewhere else. It's incredibly difficult to make moral judgments on which cables are "right" or "wrong" to release.
Like, for instance, the cables showing that the Swedish government might have been complicit in US Espionage against Sweden's own citizens. Or that the United States pressured the German government into dropping charges involving German citizens, in Gitmo. Or even showing UK pressure against Scotland in the Lockerbie Bomber case.
The British had a kick at one of their princes for being...well, unprincely in character in a leak. To Guardian readers, this was fairly important, they have mixed feelings about the monarchy. To an US observer, this would have been pure gossip.
And so forth. Very hard to determine, even from the "trivial" cables, what is actually trivial.
So they leave it up to the newspapers in question to do so. Wikileaks seldom publishes cables on its own; they wait for the newspapers to pick, choose, and censor them.
Both Mastercard and Visa are getting sued for pulling support illegally: The company that enables Wikileaks to accept credit and debit card donations says it will take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard.
o.o whoa, thanks for the link! xD And hi again, VIB ^_^
The best part is when the guy goes: "... and she bought a dog *WOOOF* @ 3:51" lol pretty funny
Why everyone is quoting the same thing from BF over and over again? He said that in the XVIII-th century, things have changed since then. And essential liberty refers to the Bill of Rights in the US (the second amendment specifically), other countries have their own you know, and this quote can mean a lot of different things to different people.
Edit: And how about giving up essential liberty for permanent safety? This seems fine with the quote.
How the fuck does one attain permanent safety? Forever is a long time.
Actually this is serious and I feel bad for MasterCard. I Really do not like WikiLeaks,specially after releasing those documents. It is seriously textbook espionage what the people working for that site are doing. Hope every single one of them pays the price for their errors.
Learn to read then.
Espionage or spying involves an individual obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, lest the legitimate holder of the information change plans or take other countermeasures once it is known that the information is in unauthorized hands.
Wikileaks was given information by someone who committed espionage. If you just suddenly told me a bunch of state secrets, I have not committed espionage...you have.
They're feeling the backlash of some angry anarchists, people with anti-American sentiment, and hackers/wannabe hackers (I will leave that fight to people who know more about that subject than me.) I think that most people on this site forget that this site is a specialized group, and their opinion does not necessarily represent the opinion of the majority.
Judging by news comments, they do, coming from the most moderate of America's news channels.
On December 09 2010 08:48 Saryph wrote:Of course sometimes things are labeled classified or secret that might not deserve such a distinction, but that does not mean that it is necessarily the best idea to publish hundreds of thousands of documents that are of a sensitive nature. If there are gross violations of rules of engagement or law, such as abuses committed by soldiers, of course that should be dealt with, but of what relevance is a diplomat's opinion on another diplomat other than to satisfy our desire to feel like we're in the loop of something that has little relevance to us?
Point is that it's not just "x diplomat says something embarassing about y leader". For instance, this is just in:
The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
Pretty gross corporate violation of Nigerian sovereignty if you ask me.
Like I said in the part of my post you quoted, if there are gross violations of law or RoE or something comparable, then of course bringing it to light is acceptable, I have no problem with the idea of whistleblowers. However, publishing irrelevant wires and documents that just damage relations between two countries or diplomats (an example I remember is someone complaining about the poor quality of the kitchen/dining staff of some foreign leader/diplomat) does not serve any purpose, it is just glorified gossip, and is not necessary.
This has been brought up time and again: who are you to decide what is "irrelevant"? And how do you propose Wikileaks objectively measure this relevance and thus only leak materials more to your personal liking?
It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote: To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information. As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing?+ Show Spoiler +
How is it ridiculous to filter information? How do you know the point of wikileaks? This kind of absolutism is too boring for words. You can release information that is important in any manner you want to. Who are you to say Julian's direct mission is to destroy countries?
Paypal has partially relented about their boycott of Wikileaks. Whether this was because they were caught lying about a letter from the US State Department to Wikileaks, or because of the political pressure/boycotting/DoS attempts from Wikileaks supporters is anyone's guess.
They've still frozen the Wikileaks account, but they have decided to stop holding on to Wikileaks' money. Nice to know the corporate world can be persuaded to stop stealing other people's money outright, eventually.
Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
How is it ridiculous to filter information? How do you know the point of wikileaks? This kind of absolutism is too boring for words. You can release information that is important in any manner you want to. Who are you to say Julian's direct mission is to destroy countries?[/QUOTE]
You apparently didn't comprehend what I was trying to say, I never even came close to implying his mission was to destroy countries. What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some. I'm sensing some sort of language barrier or something, because you completely went off into left field from what I was saying.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
It's easy to say that from your armchair, but the hypocrisy these cables have brung up is unbelievable. What if you weren't so lucky and were born into an poor Saudi Arabian family, let's say you made a big mistake and commited adultery, you would then be charged with the death penalty. It sucks huh?
But guess what, a wikileaks cable just released has found that the "rich kids" in your new country have in fact been consuming alcohol and having mass orgies, both of which are strictly prohibited in Saudi Arabian law, in fact, some of the party goers have even been linked to the Saudi royal family.
The difference between you, this possible dead you and the party goers?
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious
How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit?
One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless.
Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not.
Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote: Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero.
yea, because all the wikileaks guys are clearly criminals, that's why the lost in courts....
... oh wait!
You guys still have to show some evidence that those leaks really hurt any innocent people at all.
EPT
