7 ms·

I absolutely agree. What Wikileaks did for peace and democracy cannot be disputed but I could not say I am their supporter any more. I wonder how much of it is

by dandare 10y ago

I absolutely agree. What Wikileaks did for peace and democracy cannot be disputed but I could not say I am their supporter any more. I wonder how much of it is Assange's personality and questionable political views and how much is of it is campaign orchestrated by almost all-powerful secret services but it probably doesn't even matter at this point.

Gargoyle 10y ago
So you'd be fine with Wikileaks being shut down at this point?
- solipsism 10y ago
  How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
      - Gargoyle 10y ago
        So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
        jacquesm 10y ago
        Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.
  - anondon 10y ago
    > what can wikileaks do that some other website can't? No fear of going against the establishment. How many websites that you know of reveal such classified information and get wide press coverage for the same? I don't fully understand Assange's political motivations, but the world is definitely better off with Wikileaks than without.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops.
      - koolba 10y ago
        > Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. Most countries have this already. It's called the CIA or whatever the local equivalent is. The only difference is that rather than publishing directly, they leak information to media outlets for dissemination. > It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops. Bah, it can't be worse. The ordinary citizens that can get hurt by stuff like this are in countries that can (and will) already hurt them for less or even nothing. The common citizens of western democracies have nothing to fear.
        tptacek 10y ago
        If one really believes this, I have a very hard time understanding how they can believe dragnet surveillance is an important issue. After all, nobody is really getting hurt, except in the places where they can already get hurt just for chewing gum in public. So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? Why is privacy super important, one of our most fundamental rights, until some dude with white hair who wrote a bad port scanner decides it doesn't matter?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
    - analog31 10y ago
      Indeed, personalities don't matter. To make an analogy, there are scientists whose personalities, and even political views, turn me off. But what matters is whether they do credible science. If it's just somebody's hobby to release information, than that's as far as it goes. But in order for the information to be actionable, it requires interpretation, and then the process of choosing what information to release becomes important. Imagine how a hypothetical scientist's results would be interpreted if it were known that they were only publishing the information that favored their own agenda -- personal, political, commercial, etc. Yet none of the data points that they publish can be discredited.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end. Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern. At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
      - Gargoyle 10y ago
        No, I'm not missing the selective withholding. And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.
        10y ago
angry-hacker 10y ago
What are the questionable political views you are talking about?
mcv 10y ago
My position exactly. They did a lot of good work in their early days, and although they handled the Manning leaks badly, I agree that it contained information that needed public scrutiny. But after that, the success and power seems to have gone to Assange's head. Some early Wikileaks members left because of conflicts with Assange. And now it increasingly looks like it's all about him, and not about fighting censorship and fighting for transparency.
skrowl 10y ago
So you only supported them when they leaked stuff about politicians you don't like?
- dirtshell 10y ago
  When they acted as a pass through for leaks and supported govt.transparency. Now its pretty clearly a partisan attack on dems with the min focus of profiting and keeping wikileaks generating cash (check out their store, which used to never be a thing, if you don't believe me). The first set of large leaks wikileaks ever did were simply dumps. Now they spoonfeed their leaks, which they claim everyone has a right to know, at a peace that is most beneficial to them. Its clear their primary objective is no longer govt transparency, but their own profits.
  - cylinder 10y ago
    So they should only leak documents if they also have leaks for their subjects' opponents? That's silly. They have a store? Large sites cost money to run. Shocker. They play the PR game? They have to because their opponents use tactics to drown them out. They also know the mainstream media has a very short attention span and the leaks would never be talked about again once the news cycle changes. Dropping all the emails at once would be foolish. If you have a problem with it you are free to start a competing outlet...

by dandare 10y ago

Gargoyle 10y ago

So you'd be fine with Wikileaks being shut down at this point?

solipsism 10y ago
How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.
- anondon 10y ago
  > what can wikileaks do that some other website can't? No fear of going against the establishment. How many websites that you know of reveal such classified information and get wide press coverage for the same? I don't fully understand Assange's political motivations, but the world is definitely better off with Wikileaks than without.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops.
    - koolba 10y ago
      > Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. Most countries have this already. It's called the CIA or whatever the local equivalent is. The only difference is that rather than publishing directly, they leak information to media outlets for dissemination. > It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops. Bah, it can't be worse. The ordinary citizens that can get hurt by stuff like this are in countries that can (and will) already hurt them for less or even nothing. The common citizens of western democracies have nothing to fear.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        If one really believes this, I have a very hard time understanding how they can believe dragnet surveillance is an important issue. After all, nobody is really getting hurt, except in the places where they can already get hurt just for chewing gum in public. So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? Why is privacy super important, one of our most fundamental rights, until some dude with white hair who wrote a bad port scanner decides it doesn't matter?
jacquesm 10y ago
Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
  - analog31 10y ago
    Indeed, personalities don't matter. To make an analogy, there are scientists whose personalities, and even political views, turn me off. But what matters is whether they do credible science. If it's just somebody's hobby to release information, than that's as far as it goes. But in order for the information to be actionable, it requires interpretation, and then the process of choosing what information to release becomes important. Imagine how a hypothetical scientist's results would be interpreted if it were known that they were only publishing the information that favored their own agenda -- personal, political, commercial, etc. Yet none of the data points that they publish can be discredited.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end. Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern. At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      No, I'm not missing the selective withholding. And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.
      - 10y ago

angry-hacker 10y ago

What are the questionable political views you are talking about?

mcv 10y ago

My position exactly. They did a lot of good work in their early days, and although they handled the Manning leaks badly, I agree that it contained information that needed public scrutiny. But after that, the success and power seems to have gone to Assange's head. Some early Wikileaks members left because of conflicts with Assange. And now it increasingly looks like it's all about him, and not about fighting censorship and fighting for transparency.

skrowl 10y ago

So you only supported them when they leaked stuff about politicians you don't like?

dirtshell 10y ago
When they acted as a pass through for leaks and supported govt.transparency. Now its pretty clearly a partisan attack on dems with the min focus of profiting and keeping wikileaks generating cash (check out their store, which used to never be a thing, if you don't believe me). The first set of large leaks wikileaks ever did were simply dumps. Now they spoonfeed their leaks, which they claim everyone has a right to know, at a peace that is most beneficial to them. Its clear their primary objective is no longer govt transparency, but their own profits.
- cylinder 10y ago
  So they should only leak documents if they also have leaks for their subjects' opponents? That's silly. They have a store? Large sites cost money to run. Shocker. They play the PR game? They have to because their opponents use tactics to drown them out. They also know the mainstream media has a very short attention span and the leaks would never be talked about again once the news cycle changes. Dropping all the emails at once would be foolish. If you have a problem with it you are free to start a competing outlet...