9 ms·

On the wikileak-ed emails from Tanden on Lessig

80 points by dankohn1 10y ago

IIAOPSW 10y ago
I used to respect what Assanage is doing. But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. If that were the point then he would leak whatever he has whenever he gets it instead of trying to time it to affect the election. If he really believed in the causes he claims to believe in then he wouldn't be trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. I guess in light of new evidence I changed my opinion. Why can't other people be rational like me.
- oh_sigh 10y ago
  Are you sure it's not just the fact that you didn't like the groups he was dumping information on in the past, but now you do like the group he is dumping information on?
- ftrflyr 10y ago
  I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that he is "trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. What you describe is what MSM is doing for Hillary. Perhaps you are a Hillary Troll. Maybe you are not. Based on this comment alone, I will make an assumption that you are in fact a troll and thus, should be discredited and removed from HN. Also, you changed your opinion because why exactly? Let's not forget...he is still fighting allegations that would result in his extradition to the U.S. Perhaps he is releasing the docs as is because it provides leverage or at least a faint possibility that the charges could be dropped? Until you are in his situation, you cannot possible attempt to understand his state of mind.
- cjdkcnsnd 10y ago
  Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.
    - myrion 10y ago
      Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!
  - IIAOPSW 10y ago
    That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?
  - byuu 10y ago
    While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
- abgawrv 10y ago
  > Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.
  - IIAOPSW 10y ago
    I didn't say anything about dismissing evidence. I simply said I've lost respect for Julian Assanage. The entire point of wikileaks is to inform the public without any filter because we are smart enough to judge things for ourselves. But now clearly Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency. His support of Trump doesn't even promote the goals of his organization vis-a-vis journalistic freedoms. At some point one has to question why is Julian doing these things? If Julian has lost track of the original goals of his organization then why should I care about his de facto incarceration? Why would I or anybody else donate to wikileaks? Why should the Ecuadorians keep him?
    - harry8 10y ago
      Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.
    - abgawrv 10y ago
      I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)
- gragas 10y ago
  > But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt. > Why can't other people be rational like me. You really need to get out of your own head.
  - hackuser 10y ago
    > How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return. * They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant. * There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton. Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.
    - Kristine1975 10y ago
      Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.
      - hackuser 10y ago
        A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish? I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?
- harry8 10y ago
  "trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office" is a massive assumption and one without much evidence. But yeah anything embarrassing to one's own team tends to get that kind of response. Why wouldn't you suppress evidence of corruption in the next US president, one who evidently hates him. "Why can't we just drone him? hahaha" Or whatever that quote is. He should subvert is principles to support her? Really? Trump is likely (imho) more dangerous than Hilary, that doesn't make Hilary good. Exposing her corruption is a good thing. Making her sweat as much as possible about her corruption is a good thing, as it is for any corrupt and powerful person. And yeah, "publish whatever he gets whenever he gets leaked it immediately" Without vetting it to see if it will get anyone killed. Interesting idea and one that Assange, while having rejected it, may well be more sympathetic to than I am. You're something of a radical there. He gets the leaks and he publishes. Nobody seems to have faulted him on doing that which is exactly what he says he does and always has. His opinions about other stuff don't really affect what he does, which is publish. But I do have sympathy especially for him hating Hilary - if indeed he does. I can imagine not caring for someone who (were they joking?) wants to kill me. I wonder if your support of Trump's opposition would make that different for you in his shoes? Maybe it would.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- zby 10y ago
  Do you know about something that Wikileaks did not publish even if they got it? They cannot leak what they do not get. It is clear that their sources use Wikileaks to influence politics. Wikileaks could perhaps withold the information until after the elections - but then they would be accused by the other side.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    Assange said himself that they have material on Trump, but he wouldn't release it, because it is supposedly no worse than the stuff Trump openly says. Fine, I can understand that. Sounds like a lot of noise, no signal. But it's not "releasing everything". It's "deciding what is newsworthy" and "trust me". So it's laughable that in all other regards (mails of regular Turkish citizens, DNC stuff) he and his supporters claim that Wikileaks simply releases everything without any internal motivation or thematic selection.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h... Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion, about murdering one of her critics through the use of drone strikes: Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/ https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang... That candidate is Hillary Clinton. I find it even more disturbing western media has nearly successfully buried this story. I don't support Trump, but Clinton should not be immune to the laws of this country, or of criticism, as Glenn Greenwald and other respectable journalists are saying.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).
    - wallace_f 10y ago
      You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-north-dakota-oil-access-pipeline-protest-arrest-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-... You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen? This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true. And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.
dcposch 10y ago
This is incredibly gracious of Lessig, to defend someone who treated him poorly. I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. I wish him the best of luck in his future projects.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.
  - dcposch 10y ago
    Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2! Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people. It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m... -- When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table. They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency. When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.
lhnz 10y ago
You can't just blame the attacker, it's poor information security practice which enabled the leaks.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  "You can't just blame the gunshot victim, it's poor body armor practices that enabled the injury" Even that begins to fall apart, given that the Tanden's emails were not actually hacked but the person she sent it to.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  It's unlikely the victim made a conscious decision to have deliberately poor security. Perhaps it was an oversight. The decision to publish the emails publicly, however, was very much not an accident. Do you think Assange's cat happened to step on his mouse at an inopportune time?
- Frondo 10y ago
  If you want to assign responsibility for these leaks, assign it on the people who have taken action: the hackers who obtained them and the organization that published them. Neither the writers nor recipients in this exchange bear responsibility for their exchange being published without their consent.
  - lhnz 10y ago
    I am not blaming the victim. A sender of an email should not bear responsibility for an underlying email system's poor information security (expect in specific cases in which they are highly-technical and are transferring highly confidential information). It is the administrator(s) of the email server's responsibility to ensure that both their users and the people they interact with are given basic protections against hackers. There is no point in blaming a hacker for attacking an email server as they will not listen to you. The only sane solution is for the administrator of the email system and those that hired them to be responsible for how secure their systems are and to act accordingly.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aub3bhat 10y ago
I agree its very gracious of Lessig and completely agree that individuals deserve privacy. But lets be honest, even in this case the forgiveness originates in fact that all individuals involved are on the same side in this election. Further the justification about her being engaged with public / public-sector is hollow. Had it been Karl Rove saying the same thing, would the anger be justified? If we are at all going to judge people by the private communication then lets at least be consistent. E.g. Here is the the women who had a left-wing blogger fired: "Progressive blogger fired for calling Hillary Clinton ally a 'scumbag'" Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-joan-walsh-hillary-clinton-223439#ixzz4NVay494i http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tan...
- slantedview 10y ago
  I would not say that Lessig is on the same side as these folks. Tanden is a party loyalist, which basically means, policy opinions aside, she supports taking any and all money from anyone in order to score party victories. Lessig wants to break the system of money in politics. Therefore their vision of America is fundamentally opposed.
- aaron695 10y ago
  > Journalist Glenn Greenwald also jumped into the conversation to suggest that Tanden had influenced Demos' decision to part ways with Bruenig I see no real proof here?
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    There is no public proof; at this point it is a he-said she-said over what happened behind the scenes. I acknowledge the benefit of the doubt in this situation goes to Tanden. Though I do not have good experiences with her truthfulness and tend to disbelieve her on this point, I acknowledge others don't share the background and will likely (fairly) conclude otherwise. I am hopeful that future Wikileaks releases shed some light on this affair.
slantedview 10y ago
Who would expect such a classy response to a threat of violence against a "smug" and "pompous" professor. Or maybe Tanden is wrong and it is actually she who needs an adjusting.
- tanderson92 10y ago
  Tanden may have used her high position to get a left-wing labor blogger fired for calling her "scumbag neera" over her alleged role in 'reforming' welfare in the '90s, ultimately harming those in extreme poverty. Edit: the blogger was also an expectant father. This only substantiates that theory.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    The blogger had a full-time job. The blogging was just a side thing. Neera denies having him fired (as opposed to the org firing him on their on decision). Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/is_matt_bruenig_a_populist_martyr.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
    - tanderson92 10y ago
      The blogger was subsequently fired from the full-time position. Neera lies, a lot: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-about-the-american-ruling-class-and-one-about-neera-tanden/ http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-abo...
      - argonaut 10y ago
        Citation for the first claim?
        tanderson92 10y ago
        Twitter. Unfortunately, I don't have a link handy. You can also go to the blogger's personal site and find his resume showing an end of full-time employment. There were a number of people who did not like his combative style in disproving liberals' claims, who banded together to complain to his full time employer.
slantedview 10y ago
While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. Tanden and Podesta are representative of what will become the Clinton white house. This sort of rhetoric indicates where they, and Clinton, stand on a variety of interconnected issues, from money in politics to lobbying and outright corruption. Lessig has done more than almost anyone to champion the idea of separating money from politics. To many, he is a hero. To Tanden and Podesta, two of the current (and future) policy leaders of the Clinton administration, he is a smug professor who needs to have the shit kicked out of him. This should tell you all you need to know about the outlook and direction of a future Clinton administration. Never in American history has money had such a stranglehold on our elected officials. The winners in this system, such as Hillary Clinton, are perfectly happy with the status quo. People like Lessig want to blow it up. Take note.
- xoa 10y ago
  >While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. You don't have to be, but it might have been a good idea to do so given there's always the chance one is missing a bit of history, like you (and some of the other comments in this thread) are demonstrating here. The post-hoc heroification of Lessig is somewhat sickening on a technical forum given how badly he blew it Eldred vs. Ashcroft with exactly the sort of Mr. Smug Constitutionalist Professor attitude that the Podesta email called out. The result of that case was a huge blow, maybe the only best chance there was to at least prevent flagrant, retroactive infinite extensions of copyright, to help in some way protect Public Domain, and despite direct hints from the justices he just refused to engage in practical core economic arguments in favor of academic scholarship. This was obvious to everyone with a smidgen of legal knowledge following along at the time, and for that it was obvious to him too in retrospect. Read his own analysis from Legal Affairs, "How I Lost the Big One" [1]. His summary sentence says it all really: "When Eric Eldred's crusade to save the public domain reached the Supreme Court, it needed the help of a lawyer, not a scholar." It's directly apropos here because yeah, Lessig is a good writer. And he can definitely do the whole humble/gracious thing alright. But that's cold god damned comfort to the hundreds of millions who lost out due to his total fuck up. I have not forgotten nor forgiven it. I'm glad he's gone on to try to do other good things, and people like him have a valuable role in debate. But the real world of politics and power is not a classroom debate, and people like him do not belong anywhere near a position of importance that requires direct interaction, understanding, and manipulation of the filthy realities upon which good must build. The email might have been "rude" (and I use scare quotes because I don't consider privately using strong language in a bit of venting that you have the self-control not to make public rude), but it was also strongly rooted in fact. His presidential campaign was flat out disgusting, built on an utter lie (I cannot believe Lessig of all people doesn't understand the separation of powers) and flagrant irresponsibility over the lives of billions of people, because that responsibility is part of what it means to be President of the United States of America. He said he was running for real back then, he raised money, and I think anyone who does that should be serious about going all the way in case their super long shot somehow manages to catch a wave of cultural zeitgeist and work against all odds. I would have been delighted if he or anyone else had made a true comprehensive technology cored platform and ran with it, treating the entire thing with the seriousness and practicality it deserves, but he did not. I will always admire many of his ideas and how he's helped a generation of minds think in new ways. But when it comes to politics his approach can get stuffed, and he clearly did not learn from one of the great blunder in technological law precedent of the last few decades. 1. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...
doe88 10y ago
TLDR; When they go low, you go high.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

80 points by dankohn1 10y ago

I used to respect what Assanage is doing. But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. If that were the point then he would leak whatever he has whenever he gets it instead of trying to time it to affect the election. If he really believed in the causes he claims to believe in then he wouldn't be trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. I guess in light of new evidence I changed my opinion. Why can't other people be rational like me.

oh_sigh 10y ago
Are you sure it's not just the fact that you didn't like the groups he was dumping information on in the past, but now you do like the group he is dumping information on?
ftrflyr 10y ago
I am not sure how you arrived at your conclusion that he is "trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office. What you describe is what MSM is doing for Hillary. Perhaps you are a Hillary Troll. Maybe you are not. Based on this comment alone, I will make an assumption that you are in fact a troll and thus, should be discredited and removed from HN. Also, you changed your opinion because why exactly? Let's not forget...he is still fighting allegations that would result in his extradition to the U.S. Perhaps he is releasing the docs as is because it provides leverage or at least a faint possibility that the charges could be dropped? Until you are in his situation, you cannot possible attempt to understand his state of mind.
cjdkcnsnd 10y ago
Please just stop. Have we really become so blindly partisan as a nation that we complain about uneven distribution of evidence of corruption rather than the corruption itself? Ponder that for a moment, please.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > Please just stop. That reminded me of John Stewart on Crossfire.. you're as correct now as he was then. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/15/cf.01.html STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. (CROSSTALK) STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop.
  - myrion 10y ago
    Wow, that was really hard on the Crossfire guys! They couldn't engage with him at all due to, I suspect, either a lack of self-reflection or because doing so would be admitting that they are harmful to public discourse. Thanks for the link!
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  That's not what I'm doing at all. I wouldn't mind if Assanage had simply gotten a leak and released it in a timely manner like he usually does. My opinion changed when he blatantly started timing his leaks to meddle in the election (AKA October surprise). He's not even meddling in favor of someone who is pro-civil liberties. His "October surprise" stunt isn't advancing the mission statement of wikileaks in any way. If his stunt does change the course of the election it will do absolutely nothing to help accountability or journalistic freedom. If anything a Trump presidency may actively hurt these freedoms. So let me beg the question. WTF is Assanage trying to accomplish here?
- byuu 10y ago
  While I am certain there are some troubling revelations in there, I fail to see how Neera Tanden shit-talking about Lawrence Lessig is in any way relevant to the public interest. It's simply an unethical violation of privacy. Had he filtered it to just the important stuff and released it right away, journalists and the public could be having real conversations about said material right now instead. Of course, being fair, they didn't do that great a job with the release of cables in the past either. Being fair, my political bias probably swayed me into overlooking that back then more than I should have. Transparency should be where it matters. People should have a right to privacy for personal comments such as this. I think Julian being trapped in a room for the past several years has not been kind to his health. It's been a shame to see him reduced to a shill for one political party.
abgawrv 10y ago
> Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump As opposed to Hillary-lets-coopt-the-media-and-bribe-my-potential-critics-Clinton? I hate Donald Trump, but dismissing evidence because of the source is clearly misguided.
- IIAOPSW 10y ago
  I didn't say anything about dismissing evidence. I simply said I've lost respect for Julian Assanage. The entire point of wikileaks is to inform the public without any filter because we are smart enough to judge things for ourselves. But now clearly Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency. His support of Trump doesn't even promote the goals of his organization vis-a-vis journalistic freedoms. At some point one has to question why is Julian doing these things? If Julian has lost track of the original goals of his organization then why should I care about his de facto incarceration? Why would I or anybody else donate to wikileaks? Why should the Ecuadorians keep him?
  - harry8 10y ago
    Do you have any evidence at all for this claim: "Assanage is acting as a filter with the explicit goal of stopping a Clinton presidency"
- wallace_f 10y ago
  How you are downvoted for stating that is a sign of partisanship or ignorance on this message board.
  - abgawrv 10y ago
    I didn't expect it either. First I got a couple upvotes, then downvoted heavily, and now back up again :)
gragas 10y ago
> But recently its clear his actions aren't some noble crusade to speak truth to power and promote freedom of speech and otherwise promote civil liberties. How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose is to expose the corrupt behind-the-curtain dealings of leaders and political elite---to give power to the people and remove it from the corrupt. > Why can't other people be rational like me. You really need to get out of your own head.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > How could WikiLeaks be interpreted as anything other than promoting civil liberties? Its sole purpose ... Perhaps taken at face value that's true, but I judge them by their actions: * They consistently advocate for one political point of view, an anti-US government one. Where are leaks about Putin? Bernie Sanders? Jill Stein? For comparison, the NY Times is hard on both candidates: For example, they both broke the Clinton email server story and Trump's tax return. * They are cooperating in what appears to be a Russian intelligence disinformation campaign to disrupt U.S. democracy. Assange seems too smart to be an unwitting participant. * There are reports it's due to a vendetta Assange has against Clinton. Based on the above and other actions, I question whether their mission really is to promote civil liberties.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    Wikileaks can only publish what they are given. If nobody gives them leaks on Putin, Sanders etc. they can't publish any.
    - hackuser 10y ago
      A good point, but how do we know it's true? Does Wikileaks solicit material? Are they selective about what they publish? I see what they claim to do, but it's too important to take at face value.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  What possible corruption is revealed by the quoted email?
harry8 10y ago
"trying to get Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump into office" is a massive assumption and one without much evidence. But yeah anything embarrassing to one's own team tends to get that kind of response. Why wouldn't you suppress evidence of corruption in the next US president, one who evidently hates him. "Why can't we just drone him? hahaha" Or whatever that quote is. He should subvert is principles to support her? Really? Trump is likely (imho) more dangerous than Hilary, that doesn't make Hilary good. Exposing her corruption is a good thing. Making her sweat as much as possible about her corruption is a good thing, as it is for any corrupt and powerful person. And yeah, "publish whatever he gets whenever he gets leaked it immediately" Without vetting it to see if it will get anyone killed. Interesting idea and one that Assange, while having rejected it, may well be more sympathetic to than I am. You're something of a radical there. He gets the leaks and he publishes. Nobody seems to have faulted him on doing that which is exactly what he says he does and always has. His opinions about other stuff don't really affect what he does, which is publish. But I do have sympathy especially for him hating Hilary - if indeed he does. I can imagine not caring for someone who (were they joking?) wants to kill me. I wonder if your support of Trump's opposition would make that different for you in his shoes? Maybe it would.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
zby 10y ago
Do you know about something that Wikileaks did not publish even if they got it? They cannot leak what they do not get. It is clear that their sources use Wikileaks to influence politics. Wikileaks could perhaps withold the information until after the elections - but then they would be accused by the other side.
- Tomte 10y ago
  Assange said himself that they have material on Trump, but he wouldn't release it, because it is supposedly no worse than the stuff Trump openly says. Fine, I can understand that. Sounds like a lot of noise, no signal. But it's not "releasing everything". It's "deciding what is newsworthy" and "trust me". So it's laughable that in all other regards (mails of regular Turkish citizens, DNC stuff) he and his supporters claim that Wikileaks simply releases everything without any internal motivation or thematic selection.
wallace_f 10y ago
It appears the popular perception of the two candidates is that one of them is a "tin pot" dictator who will silence all his critics and act outside the law Sources: NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/us/politics/donald-trump-h... Comment above mine: >Donald-lets-silence-my-critics-Trump What is even more disturbing is that a presidential candidate has asked, in what appears to be an off-the-cuff suggestion, about murdering one of her critics through the use of drone strikes: Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assange/ https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang... That candidate is Hillary Clinton. I find it even more disturbing western media has nearly successfully buried this story. I don't support Trump, but Clinton should not be immune to the laws of this country, or of criticism, as Glenn Greenwald and other respectable journalists are saying.
- argonaut 10y ago
  That is because the Western media is in the habit of actually trying to verify sources and not making things up. The only "citation" offered by True Pundit, the original source of this claim (and a website I have never heard of) is "according to State Department sources" (http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wikileaks-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-proposed-drone-strike-on-julian-assange/ http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pressure-to-silence-wiki...).
  - wallace_f 10y ago
    You read that on Snopes - that's what Snopes wrote on their site. CNN just broadcasted this on national television, in what appears more appropriate of taking place in a movie version of Orwell's 1984 than in reality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... The major media outlets generally have not been figures worthy of ethical praise this election cycle. Meanwhile respectable journalists fighting for civil rights are being arrested and charged with felony crimes for reporting, so I don't buy into that argument in which corporate media, which a small number of corporations own over 95% of what people see and hear, is over- and under-reporting stories entirely out of ethical and professional consideration: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-north-dakota-oil-access-pipeline-protest-arrest-riot https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/17/amy-goodman-... You and I both are incredibly lucky to live in a country where those charges against Amy Goodman have been thrown out, but would that have happened to a journalist who was not famous? Or what if there was no video evidence, and it was the police and the DA against a citizen? This story on Hillary is unproven, but so are the allegations against Trump as a sexual assault perpetrator and look at how much media attention that has garnered. I hate Trump but that disparity in and of itself bothers me and in fact lends even more credence to the claim of growing corruption in government. Just also keep in mind, that if this particular claim against Hillary is forged, which is still entirely possible, remember that yet no one has been able to point to any inconsistencies or untruths which would prove that is true. And your comment of "making things up" is a bit inflammatory. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can say, "you got live in a world with that government, I'll go live in this one," we all have to live with each other's choices.

dcposch 10y ago

This is incredibly gracious of Lessig, to defend someone who treated him poorly. I donated to both his ill-fated Mayday PAC and his ill-fated presidential campaign last year. He is a selfless guy who is trying to address the root cause of US political dysfunction. I wish him the best of luck in his future projects.

snowwrestler 10y ago
Donald Trump has spent far less money than any presidential candidate in recent history. I am hopeful that this election will finally illustrate to people like Larry Lessig that there are worse things in politics than money. Money is just a tool.
- dcposch 10y ago
  Just because you found an example of a politician making it fairly far (but probably not even getting elected) without the support of the rich does not mean that money in politics isn't a problem. In America, there are two kinds of politicians who can get by without wealthy donors: 1. grassroots candidates who go viral, who can get big social media followings and lots of organic non-ad media 2. independently rich people, who can simply bankroll their own campaigns Bernie Sanders is an example of #1. Ross Perot is an example of #2. Donald Trump is, to an extent, both #1 and #2! Most politicians in the US, both in Congress and at the state level, are neither #1 nor #2. They depend on donors who typically write $1000+ checks, every single election cycle. As a result, they spend a shocking amount of their time talking to rich people. It's called Call Time, and for the average congressperson, it's about four hours per day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-most-depressing-graphic-for-members-of-congress/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/14/the-m... -- When people like Lawrence Lessig or Bernie talk about "getting money out of politics", they are not referring to third-world style quid pro quo corruption. They are not talking about an envelope of cash passed under a restaurant table. They are talking about something more subtle that's absolutely pervasive in modern US politics: career politicians whose continued employment depends on their ability to raise money, who every day meet and hear from the wealthiest crust of their constituency. When you spend four hours every day on the phone with the kind of people who might write a $2700 max-allowable-donation check for some representative's re-election campaign, it affects your thinking. Donor issues are always top of mind. How you vote on that pipeline bill today is going to make it either a lot easier or a lot harder to talk to those twenty or thirty guys you have to call next week, asking for money.

lhnz 10y ago

You can't just blame the attacker, it's poor information security practice which enabled the leaks.

akhilcacharya 10y ago
"You can't just blame the gunshot victim, it's poor body armor practices that enabled the injury" Even that begins to fall apart, given that the Tanden's emails were not actually hacked but the person she sent it to.
tedunangst 10y ago
It's unlikely the victim made a conscious decision to have deliberately poor security. Perhaps it was an oversight. The decision to publish the emails publicly, however, was very much not an accident. Do you think Assange's cat happened to step on his mouse at an inopportune time?
Frondo 10y ago
If you want to assign responsibility for these leaks, assign it on the people who have taken action: the hackers who obtained them and the organization that published them. Neither the writers nor recipients in this exchange bear responsibility for their exchange being published without their consent.
- lhnz 10y ago
  I am not blaming the victim. A sender of an email should not bear responsibility for an underlying email system's poor information security (expect in specific cases in which they are highly-technical and are transferring highly confidential information). It is the administrator(s) of the email server's responsibility to ensure that both their users and the people they interact with are given basic protections against hackers. There is no point in blaming a hacker for attacking an email server as they will not listen to you. The only sane solution is for the administrator of the email system and those that hired them to be responsible for how secure their systems are and to act accordingly.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

aub3bhat 10y ago

I agree its very gracious of Lessig and completely agree that individuals deserve privacy. But lets be honest, even in this case the forgiveness originates in fact that all individuals involved are on the same side in this election. Further the justification about her being engaged with public / public-sector is hollow. Had it been Karl Rove saying the same thing, would the anger be justified? If we are at all going to judge people by the private communication then lets at least be consistent. E.g. Here is the the women who had a left-wing blogger fired: "Progressive blogger fired for calling Hillary Clinton ally a 'scumbag'" Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tanden-joan-walsh-hillary-clinton-223439#ixzz4NVay494i http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/matt-bruenig-neera-tan...

slantedview 10y ago
I would not say that Lessig is on the same side as these folks. Tanden is a party loyalist, which basically means, policy opinions aside, she supports taking any and all money from anyone in order to score party victories. Lessig wants to break the system of money in politics. Therefore their vision of America is fundamentally opposed.
aaron695 10y ago
> Journalist Glenn Greenwald also jumped into the conversation to suggest that Tanden had influenced Demos' decision to part ways with Bruenig I see no real proof here?
- tanderson92 10y ago
  There is no public proof; at this point it is a he-said she-said over what happened behind the scenes. I acknowledge the benefit of the doubt in this situation goes to Tanden. Though I do not have good experiences with her truthfulness and tend to disbelieve her on this point, I acknowledge others don't share the background and will likely (fairly) conclude otherwise. I am hopeful that future Wikileaks releases shed some light on this affair.

slantedview 10y ago

Who would expect such a classy response to a threat of violence against a "smug" and "pompous" professor. Or maybe Tanden is wrong and it is actually she who needs an adjusting.

tanderson92 10y ago
Tanden may have used her high position to get a left-wing labor blogger fired for calling her "scumbag neera" over her alleged role in 'reforming' welfare in the '90s, ultimately harming those in extreme poverty. Edit: the blogger was also an expectant father. This only substantiates that theory.
- argonaut 10y ago
  The blogger had a full-time job. The blogging was just a side thing. Neera denies having him fired (as opposed to the org firing him on their on decision). Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/is_matt_bruenig_a_populist_martyr.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    The blogger was subsequently fired from the full-time position. Neera lies, a lot: http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-about-the-american-ruling-class-and-one-about-neera-tanden/ http://coreyrobin.com/2016/06/25/neera-and-me-two-theses-abo...
    - argonaut 10y ago
      Citation for the first claim?
      - tanderson92 10y ago
        Twitter. Unfortunately, I don't have a link handy. You can also go to the blogger's personal site and find his resume showing an end of full-time employment. There were a number of people who did not like his combative style in disproving liberals' claims, who banded together to complain to his full time employer.

slantedview 10y ago

While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. Tanden and Podesta are representative of what will become the Clinton white house. This sort of rhetoric indicates where they, and Clinton, stand on a variety of interconnected issues, from money in politics to lobbying and outright corruption. Lessig has done more than almost anyone to champion the idea of separating money from politics. To many, he is a hero. To Tanden and Podesta, two of the current (and future) policy leaders of the Clinton administration, he is a smug professor who needs to have the shit kicked out of him. This should tell you all you need to know about the outlook and direction of a future Clinton administration. Never in American history has money had such a stranglehold on our elected officials. The winners in this system, such as Hillary Clinton, are perfectly happy with the status quo. People like Lessig want to blow it up. Take note.

xoa 10y ago
>While Lessig is gracious here, I don't have to be. You don't have to be, but it might have been a good idea to do so given there's always the chance one is missing a bit of history, like you (and some of the other comments in this thread) are demonstrating here. The post-hoc heroification of Lessig is somewhat sickening on a technical forum given how badly he blew it Eldred vs. Ashcroft with exactly the sort of Mr. Smug Constitutionalist Professor attitude that the Podesta email called out. The result of that case was a huge blow, maybe the only best chance there was to at least prevent flagrant, retroactive infinite extensions of copyright, to help in some way protect Public Domain, and despite direct hints from the justices he just refused to engage in practical core economic arguments in favor of academic scholarship. This was obvious to everyone with a smidgen of legal knowledge following along at the time, and for that it was obvious to him too in retrospect. Read his own analysis from Legal Affairs, "How I Lost the Big One" [1]. His summary sentence says it all really: "When Eric Eldred's crusade to save the public domain reached the Supreme Court, it needed the help of a lawyer, not a scholar." It's directly apropos here because yeah, Lessig is a good writer. And he can definitely do the whole humble/gracious thing alright. But that's cold god damned comfort to the hundreds of millions who lost out due to his total fuck up. I have not forgotten nor forgiven it. I'm glad he's gone on to try to do other good things, and people like him have a valuable role in debate. But the real world of politics and power is not a classroom debate, and people like him do not belong anywhere near a position of importance that requires direct interaction, understanding, and manipulation of the filthy realities upon which good must build. The email might have been "rude" (and I use scare quotes because I don't consider privately using strong language in a bit of venting that you have the self-control not to make public rude), but it was also strongly rooted in fact. His presidential campaign was flat out disgusting, built on an utter lie (I cannot believe Lessig of all people doesn't understand the separation of powers) and flagrant irresponsibility over the lives of billions of people, because that responsibility is part of what it means to be President of the United States of America. He said he was running for real back then, he raised money, and I think anyone who does that should be serious about going all the way in case their super long shot somehow manages to catch a wave of cultural zeitgeist and work against all odds. I would have been delighted if he or anyone else had made a true comprehensive technology cored platform and ran with it, treating the entire thing with the seriousness and practicality it deserves, but he did not. I will always admire many of his ideas and how he's helped a generation of minds think in new ways. But when it comes to politics his approach can get stuffed, and he clearly did not learn from one of the great blunder in technological law precedent of the last few decades. 1. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_le...

doe88 10y ago

TLDR; When they go low, you go high.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]