On December 09 2010 16:50 NoobieOne wrote: "This is a liberal blogger, and i love his take on all this: "
Thats a good point. A I can't agree with his conspiracy theory about the sex charges but I think other than that he conveys my ideas right.
You think it's a coincidence? Not only talking about the coincidences he points in the video. But the coincidences of the timing the charges are brought up. And all the many many inconsistence in it, since it was first brought up. Remember that he is the first guy in the history of humanity to be hunt by interpol under accusations of "sex without a condom". And that's just one of the many absurd coincidences and inconsistencies.
It would be like winning a lottery 10 times in a row for the sex charges to be serious and not at all political motivated.
About the German (Angela Merkel) discussion: I (and all people I know) dont really care what American diplomats think about her. I think it's normal, that each government has a file/opinion about person X. What we do care about is the "additional" information - like Westerwelle (our foreign minister) saying "I will tell everything from my meetings with diplomats form Iran/China to the USA". But this has nothing to do with the USA - but with the credibility of our minister. And those actions (giving away diplomatic information to the USA) are really really troubling.
On December 09 2010 23:33 braammbolius wrote: TurpinOS, why don't you try reading before writing. Jebus.
On December 09 2010 17:49 Kirameki wrote:
We are probably better off without a proper financial system. And now we have a corrupt and failing one, who also control the politicians, and who deliberately start economic booms and busts. They turned the whole society into a big lottery. And there's nothing we can do about it. Voting, demonstrating, all doesn't work. But one has one v very powerful tool; pulling your savings. The financial sector is extremely weak against that. Once a bank run starts, the bank will fall. .
Ive read this.
Youre basically just stating a fact everyone knows (the financial sector has big issues), and your answer to that solution is some extremely utopic and impossible solution, does that really help the situation ?
(If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
On December 10 2010 01:07 TurpinOS wrote: (If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
How will they be penalized? The banks won't pay them the .1% interest rate on cash in demand accounts? That's a penalty?
Speaking of which, that is exactly the reason why I personally have thousands of dollars in cash on hand. The banks don't give you anything.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: 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....
You think the assessment on Angela Merkel is irrelevant. Some Germans might disagree. Why is your opinion of the cable more valuable than that of those Germans? I mean, besides the fact that they apparently have not been equipped with a brain, according to you. Please just answer me this. I hear these same points made over and over here but I have yet to have any of the internet morals police honestly answer me why they feel they are a good enough authority to decide what's relevant for 6 billion people.
It's very interesting that there are so many people who think they have the right idea on how Wikileaks should be run. Here's an idea: start your own whistleblowing platform, then you get the final say on which stuff should be released. Wikileaks is not beholden to you. Wikileaks is not some kind of organization that survives based on your opinion. The only people that decide what Wikileaks should release are the people who make up Wikileaks.
Also, very cute there on the "it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks", I got a good laugh out of that. Thanks for defining my morals for me, very gracious of you.
The reason why it is not relevant (or more correctly, shouldn't be released) is that the cable didn't hold anything illegal. It held a statement about what sort of person the diplomat percieved Angela Merkel to be. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but diplomatic post is actually protected by certain laws - as in it shouldn't be made public.
Whilst the germans might find it interesting what a diplomat wrote about Angela Merkel, the cable was a diplomatic one, protected by the same (and more) laws as any private letter. Or are you actually saying that opening your neighbours letters are okay because you would like to know what he thinks of you? Do you think it is okay for a doctor to go to the media when any (famous) person consults him/her? Are you against privacy - and by that I mean the one mentioned in pretty much every single constitution ever made by any democratic country? Because when releasing cables like the one about Angela Merkel, which contains a personal assesment and 0 proof of anything illegal, that is essentially what you are pissing on; peoples privacy. Unless you are willing to answer yes to all of the above questions then you've not only found out why some cables shouldn't be released, you've also found out why I wrote it would be impossible to support Wikileaks morally since you wouldn't be consistent!
Privacy and confidentialty is a privilege that everyone enjoys. This should only be violated in the most extreme cases, not because it contains something interesting!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
Secondly, I would disagree with your presumption that diplomats, or more accurately, the governments they represent, should have the same rights to privacy as private citizenry. I wouldn't spy on my neighbor's mail ordinarily, but if my neighbor was an ambassador partly appointed because of officials that I voted into power and that mail was materials relevant to his job that I care a certain amount about, I should have the rights to view that mail if I so wished, and that shouldn't be considered spying on his privacy. Governments are beholden to us, the people, we are the sovereign. Public servants are just that - they are servants of the public. I am of the public, I deserve to know what's going on with my government. If most of this stuff is just pointless fluff as you put it anyways, there shouldn't be a problem - who would care enough to go sifting through all of it?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
On December 08 2010 23:19 JWD wrote: Maybe 4chan should have taken some hostages from MasterCard management instead? Or at the very least, destroyed some of MasterCard's physical property, like by blowing up an empty office building or something (might well cause MC less losses than having its website down for hours)? Then all of you supporters of this attack would really get excited?
I am opposed to violent retaliation against a private business for its lawful business decisions. And a bit disgusted that so many TLers aren't.
Violent retaliation? are you serious?, what's "so violent" in all of this? and then you say "against Private Business for it's Lawful business decisions". "LAWFUL"? are you serious, AGAIN?.
What's lawful in this?, the pressure the government is putting on these "private" business to cut services from Wikileaks (who represents a customer like any other). So, to you, like say, Paypal, Amazon, MasterCard and Visa, can cut your credit, take away your money and so on, not process payments to you among others, just because some "bigger man" is putting pressure on them?
I used the word violent because a DDoS attack is violent: it's 4chan trying to hurt MC by destroying something of MC's. That's violence. But I mean, violence is often justified. So I don't see your objection to that word, really. Edit: upon further consideration of analogy to picketing or some similar "denial of service" protest I think "violent" was too colorful a word. Edited original post accordingly. Thanks for provoking the thought, Bartuc.
Of course MasterCard's decision to pull support for WikiLeaks was lawful. It is only illegal for a private business to deny service to a customer for a few very specific reasons, for example sex or race discrimination. I highly doubt that MC pulled support for WikiLeaks for one of those reasons. It's much more plausible that MC made its decision weighing the costs (in government pressure, perhaps, or lost business from people who don't like WikiLeaks) of maintaining WikiLeaks as a customer against the benefits (not many? WikiLeaks is not a major business). Or maybe MC just decided that it didn't want to serve WikiLeaks because MC is an American business and it supports the US government. Either way, WikiLeaks has no legal recourse against MC, and MC's action was lawful — in general MasterCard's service is not a public right, but a privilege bestowed by MC.
If they 'weighed the costs' I don't see how you can argue against 4chan. This is the real world, when you do something that's very obviously ethically fucked according to most of the population (and especially when it's the part that cares enough to do something about it), you should "weigh in" the capability of retaliation against your bullshit. Something being legal does not mean all people will morally agree with it, and something being illegal does not mean it's morally wrong to everyone.
This is awesome. It shows companies like Mastercard they can't do whatever they want just because it's "legal." You should fear the people, even as a private company, because that is who you will answer to in the end.
On December 10 2010 01:07 TurpinOS wrote: (If only a few people pull out their savings, nothing will happen to the system, only them will be penalized, the fact of the matter is its never going to happen for everyone to take out their savings, so its pointless).
How will they be penalized? The banks won't pay them the .1% interest rate on cash in demand accounts? That's a penalty?
Speaking of which, that is exactly the reason why I personally have thousands of dollars in cash on hand. The banks don't give you anything.
Interest and credit are the too biggest reasons to use banks, not because you can safe your cash up. Have fun buying a home if you dont use the banks.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: 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....
You think the assessment on Angela Merkel is irrelevant. Some Germans might disagree. Why is your opinion of the cable more valuable than that of those Germans? I mean, besides the fact that they apparently have not been equipped with a brain, according to you. Please just answer me this. I hear these same points made over and over here but I have yet to have any of the internet morals police honestly answer me why they feel they are a good enough authority to decide what's relevant for 6 billion people.
It's very interesting that there are so many people who think they have the right idea on how Wikileaks should be run. Here's an idea: start your own whistleblowing platform, then you get the final say on which stuff should be released. Wikileaks is not beholden to you. Wikileaks is not some kind of organization that survives based on your opinion. The only people that decide what Wikileaks should release are the people who make up Wikileaks.
Also, very cute there on the "it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks", I got a good laugh out of that. Thanks for defining my morals for me, very gracious of you.
The reason why it is not relevant (or more correctly, shouldn't be released) is that the cable didn't hold anything illegal. It held a statement about what sort of person the diplomat percieved Angela Merkel to be. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but diplomatic post is actually protected by certain laws - as in it shouldn't be made public.
Whilst the germans might find it interesting what a diplomat wrote about Angela Merkel, the cable was a diplomatic one, protected by the same (and more) laws as any private letter. Or are you actually saying that opening your neighbours letters are okay because you would like to know what he thinks of you? Do you think it is okay for a doctor to go to the media when any (famous) person consults him/her? Are you against privacy - and by that I mean the one mentioned in pretty much every single constitution ever made by any democratic country? Because when releasing cables like the one about Angela Merkel, which contains a personal assesment and 0 proof of anything illegal, that is essentially what you are pissing on; peoples privacy. Unless you are willing to answer yes to all of the above questions then you've not only found out why some cables shouldn't be released, you've also found out why I wrote it would be impossible to support Wikileaks morally since you wouldn't be consistent!
Privacy and confidentialty is a privilege that everyone enjoys. This should only be violated in the most extreme cases, not because it contains something interesting!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
Secondly, I would disagree with your presumption that diplomats, or more accurately, the governments they represent, should have the same rights to privacy as private citizenry. I wouldn't spy on my neighbor's mail ordinarily, but if my neighbor was an ambassador partly appointed because of officials that I voted into power and that mail was materials relevant to his job that I care a certain amount about, I should have the rights to view that mail if I so wished, and that shouldn't be considered spying on his privacy. Governments are beholden to us, the people, we are the sovereign. Public servants are just that - they are servants of the public. I am of the public, I deserve to know what's going on with my government. If most of this stuff is just pointless fluff as you put it anyways, there shouldn't be a problem - who would care enough to go sifting through all of it?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
i do so love reading your posts..pwnage every time
On December 09 2010 23:25 TurpinOS wrote: You are joking here right ?
Nothing you just said makes sens.
Technically, yes, if everyone would not use the financial system anymore, it would collapse. There are two big issues here though.
Why? You basically say it makes sense but won't work in the second part of your post.
1. Even if the WHOLE system would collapse, the only direct repercussions would be that eventually it would get built back into what is it, like it or not, you need a form of currency to do trades, and once you have that people start wanting more then the others.
You missed the point. We are talking about the financialization of the economy that happened the last 20 years. Not about currency and trades. It's not an utopia. We used to have a normal economy.
People always are going to be greedy, want more, and want more than other people. You just have to make a fool-proof system. A system that isn't designed to destroy itself like the current one. The financial crisis is a direct result of the system we have now. The booms and busts we have are a direct result of the system we have right now. If we don't replace it with a new system, we will probably get a bigger crisis down the road.
Also, once all the big banks are gone they no longer have the power to influence politics and the people can elect politicians who then can put laws in place to prevent it from happening again.
I would also like you to imagine what it would be like in the meantime, before the system gets back on its feet, I really dont see how people would benefit from it. The current system has its major major flaws, but going back to a basic form of trading between people would definately have its bigger problems.
No one will know what the exact result will be. When just one bank collapsed the entire system almost went crashing down. But that doesn't mean we will go back to bartering at all. If countries don't bail out banks, countries won't go broke and currency will probably be harder and more stable then it is right now. I am not an economic expert and I don't know if this will actually be a good thing to do. I don't say we should do it. I am just pointing out that right now it's the only power the people still have. People are breaking the law DoS'ing mastercard and all those other sites. But instead they could go and collect their savings, over which they barely receive interests anyway and are often used to invest in things you would disapprove off, like cluster weapons, drilling oil, destroying the rainforest, etc.
2. Do you really think it would be feasible to ask the whole world to stop using banks ?
That's not it at all. Banks are good. I am just saying people actually have the power to let the current financial sector crash. This would mean many banks right now would go broke. But these banks are the cause of our problems. They aren't merely banks. They have financialized and corrupted society. I don't think there are many 'good banks' left and if that is the case I don't know if the people can deliberately protect them. We will have to start up normal banks once the current ones are gone. Then we can have democratic oversight in those banks.
I mean, its a cool theory, but I can list you millions of nice theories in practice that would never be appliable in this society. Once you come to that conclusion, I fail to see how they help with the discussion.
You realize this has happened, right? You realize this is actually what the financial crisis was, right?
You only need person in the media to call for a bank run and it may every well happen. If someone like Glenn Beck or Bono or whoever tomorrow calls for people to collect all their savings, that may already result in banks crashing. Especially when people know people are pulling their savings and they will lose theirs as well if the bank indeed crashes.
And it may very well happen. The tea party people in the US are quite crazy already. But they are extremely deluded. Once they realize those fueling the tea party will lead them to even more tyranny they will get even more angry, spiteful and cynical. When people get mad enough and feel they are powerless they will have to power to let the whole system crash.
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote: 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....
You think the assessment on Angela Merkel is irrelevant. Some Germans might disagree. Why is your opinion of the cable more valuable than that of those Germans? I mean, besides the fact that they apparently have not been equipped with a brain, according to you. Please just answer me this. I hear these same points made over and over here but I have yet to have any of the internet morals police honestly answer me why they feel they are a good enough authority to decide what's relevant for 6 billion people.
It's very interesting that there are so many people who think they have the right idea on how Wikileaks should be run. Here's an idea: start your own whistleblowing platform, then you get the final say on which stuff should be released. Wikileaks is not beholden to you. Wikileaks is not some kind of organization that survives based on your opinion. The only people that decide what Wikileaks should release are the people who make up Wikileaks.
Also, very cute there on the "it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks", I got a good laugh out of that. Thanks for defining my morals for me, very gracious of you.
The reason why it is not relevant (or more correctly, shouldn't be released) is that the cable didn't hold anything illegal. It held a statement about what sort of person the diplomat percieved Angela Merkel to be. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but diplomatic post is actually protected by certain laws - as in it shouldn't be made public.
Whilst the germans might find it interesting what a diplomat wrote about Angela Merkel, the cable was a diplomatic one, protected by the same (and more) laws as any private letter. Or are you actually saying that opening your neighbours letters are okay because you would like to know what he thinks of you? Do you think it is okay for a doctor to go to the media when any (famous) person consults him/her? Are you against privacy - and by that I mean the one mentioned in pretty much every single constitution ever made by any democratic country? Because when releasing cables like the one about Angela Merkel, which contains a personal assesment and 0 proof of anything illegal, that is essentially what you are pissing on; peoples privacy. Unless you are willing to answer yes to all of the above questions then you've not only found out why some cables shouldn't be released, you've also found out why I wrote it would be impossible to support Wikileaks morally since you wouldn't be consistent!
Privacy and confidentialty is a privilege that everyone enjoys. This should only be violated in the most extreme cases, not because it contains something interesting!
I would first disagree with your presumption that Wikileaks should only release materials that reveal implication in some crime. Two reasons: Wikileaks releases information to a global audience and therefore what may be a crime by European standards may not be a crime somewhere else, and whatnot, and secondly, Wikileaks may have access to materials that reveal implication in highly unethical acts that might not be illegal (for example, US diplomats bribing South American countries to accept Guantanamo prisoners in exchange for meetings with Obama).
Secondly, I would disagree with your presumption that diplomats, or more accurately, the governments they represent, should have the same rights to privacy as private citizenry. I wouldn't spy on my neighbor's mail ordinarily, but if my neighbor was an ambassador partly appointed because of officials that I voted into power and that mail was materials relevant to his job that I care a certain amount about, I should have the rights to view that mail if I so wished, and that shouldn't be considered spying on his privacy. Governments are beholden to us, the people, we are the sovereign. Public servants are just that - they are servants of the public. I am of the public, I deserve to know what's going on with my government. If most of this stuff is just pointless fluff as you put it anyways, there shouldn't be a problem - who would care enough to go sifting through all of it?
There are tons of other reasons Wikileaks should not censor themselves unduly (it would go against being anti-censorship, there's no way to objectively measure "relevance", Wikileaks would then be accused of selective editing, et cetera), but these are the two principal flaws in your reasoning.
1) If it isn't considered a crime in the country of the diplomat who performs the act, then (unless it violates a greater law than the countries, i.e. Geneva convention, human rights or a parallel) it isn't illegal. That is a pretty central point of the western diplomatic system - i.e. diplomats don't even have to pay parking tickets (most do anyhow as a courtesey); they act as an extended part of a sovereign country. You can disagree with that, but that is what todays international standards are.
2) When you argue that you should have full disclosure it's hard to disagree with you, as long as you talk about to your own countrys files - you haven't got any right to other countries files. And that is the problem with Wikileaks is that EVERYONE in the world get's full disclosure. But even if we stick with the thought that every citizen should have full disclosure to everything the government does, some information is simply too risky to be made public for safety reasons (i.e. location of military bases, schematics of governmental complexes etc.) Whilst the regular chit-chat that I've criticized Wikileaks for releasing doesn't fall in this category, this category is merely an extension of it and would have to be considered if you are to judge Wikileaks morally (consistency of morals is what I'm going at here). And if international diplomacy are to function (without which international cooperation is made almost impossible) confidentialty is needed.
3) I wouldn't mind a change of the diplomatic system to a more open one as the one you describe where every citizen has full disclosure, but one must keep in mind that if one such existed, a lot of these cables would never have been written - there is a pretty big difference between wording something when in confidentiality and when everyone has acces. I know that I for one have changed my wording of the medical journals I dictate quite a bit after the patients got easier acces (and that is actually a very good change!).
4) There is a way to measure "relevance" (or well, I still think relevance is the wrong word - I would much rather use something like "worth making public") - it is the one used by doctors when they are asked to disclose what a patient has told them (there might be other ways, but this system is pretty well proven). There is actually at pretty famous, at least here in DK, case where a demonstration evolves violently, several gets wounded (shot) and are patched up at the major hospital in Copenhagen. The police afterwards demands disclosure of the journals so they can arrest the misdemeanors. All the doctors refused to do so, a ruling of the court supported them afterwards. Point is confidentialty is a pretty major thing which shouldn't just be broken unless there is something seriously sinister amiss - i.e. a crime of war or against humanity (and the case of bribing South American countries would imo fall under the last - just like everything else in connection with Guantanamo).
The new project, “Openleaks,” has been under way for some time and will be launched Monday.
This new website is being made by some former Wikileaks members. It will run similarly to wikileaks. But with one important difference. Openleaks will not publish the leaks themselves on their websites. Instead, they will hand out the leaks to media partners and leave it up to them to decide what to do with it.
Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye. Instead, other organizations will access the Openleaks system and in turn, present their audience with the material. Documents will be processed and published by various collaborating organizations.
“We intend to split the work in a way where we handle only the anonymity and receiving end of the information,” says another colleague.
On December 11 2010 11:12 Sir.Kimmel wrote: committing a denial of service is exactly the same thing as terrorism....
I honestly hope these script kiddies are happy
You're joking, right?
Anyways, the Anonymous people seem to have changed tack, since that DOS was on a highway to nothing, and they realise that as much as anybody. The latest idea is called 'Operation Leakspin', which involves surreptitiously inserting audio of people reading out portions of the cables into various bits of film footage and uploading the videos to Youtube under misleading titles. Think of it as mass geopolitical rickrolling!
Much more constructive than the DDOS, whilst at the same time giving 4channers an outlet for their innate urge to troll.
As much as I disagree with Anons raiding various websites, I do very much enjoy the general consensus that people are willing to act with their own "power" - their computer.
I hope to see this "eVigilance" evolve into something doing actual good, instead of causing bad publicity to the flagships such as Wikileaks. Already many alternative measures has been suggested, and perhaps it is only a matter of time, before someone finds a method that has a "real" use, _and_ the Anons can and will commit too.
EPT
