3 ms·

"Douchey" or not is for you to decide, but you're right that Assange's philosophy to release untampered documents causes collateral damage. It's a tough call, h

"Douchey" or not is for you to decide, but you're right that Assange's philosophy to release untampered documents causes collateral damage. It's a tough call, honestly: would you have your leaked documents' contents nullified in court due to censorship or risk collateral damage (identity theft) and maintain your leaked documents' impact as evidence in a court of law (which could potentially lead to the prosecution of a criminal)?

rodovich 10y ago
If leaked-but-redacted documents were of interest for a prosecution, couldn’t the originals be obtained by subpoena, either to WikiLeaks or (preferably) their original source?
extra88 10y ago
The idea that releasing documents uncensored has anything to do with courts is nonsense. Assange claims to be doing journalism. You know what a court can do when a real journalist publishes redacted materials? Ask for unredacted copies. Publishing unredacted documents does help sell their authenticity to the general public but I think too often the harm is too great, especially to innocent parties.
- mattlevan 10y ago
  Honestly, I don't know why I hadn't thought of this. Good point!
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    It's like a receipt for a vote. It seems reasonable in the beginning... But what if Wikileaks waited to be asked... Who do they give the docs to? Just courts, or interested civilians? If the former, how does that help citizens know what's going on, and if the later, what's the difference between just releasing it and selectively releasing it? This also requires people risk their freedom to request the full version. And more critically, that means to prevent the publishing of full documents you simply need to kill the messenger. Running Wikileaks the other way wouldn't be useful and still wouldn't appease the wrong-doers.
Jtsummers 10y ago
The uncensored documents could be provided to courts and legal agents (civilian and government) if requested, while leaving the censored ones available to the public and media. Censorship is not, itself, a destructive act with respect to the original material.

rodovich 10y ago

If leaked-but-redacted documents were of interest for a prosecution, couldn’t the originals be obtained by subpoena, either to WikiLeaks or (preferably) their original source?

extra88 10y ago

The idea that releasing documents uncensored has anything to do with courts is nonsense. Assange claims to be doing journalism. You know what a court can do when a real journalist publishes redacted materials? Ask for unredacted copies. Publishing unredacted documents does help sell their authenticity to the general public but I think too often the harm is too great, especially to innocent parties.

mattlevan 10y ago
Honestly, I don't know why I hadn't thought of this. Good point!
- EdHominem 10y ago
  It's like a receipt for a vote. It seems reasonable in the beginning... But what if Wikileaks waited to be asked... Who do they give the docs to? Just courts, or interested civilians? If the former, how does that help citizens know what's going on, and if the later, what's the difference between just releasing it and selectively releasing it? This also requires people risk their freedom to request the full version. And more critically, that means to prevent the publishing of full documents you simply need to kill the messenger. Running Wikileaks the other way wouldn't be useful and still wouldn't appease the wrong-doers.

Jtsummers 10y ago

The uncensored documents could be provided to courts and legal agents (civilian and government) if requested, while leaving the censored ones available to the public and media. Censorship is not, itself, a destructive act with respect to the original material.