35 ms·

With the turf wikileaks is treading on, does some authentication code really confirm that this is not a counter intelligence op? I'm not saying that any of the

by fleitz 16y ago

With the turf wikileaks is treading on, does some authentication code really confirm that this is not a counter intelligence op? I'm not saying that any of these things are untrue, it's just that there would be some very valid reasons for wanting to keep the details of the operation opaque. (eg. paying in cash, etc) When you piss of the US National Security apparatus to that degree there is going to be some blow back. Yes, ideally they'd want to put him behind bars in a supermax, like other political prisoners, but he's fairly high profile and has a large amount of public support. You'd definitely want to kill the crusader for freedom aspect of his media image and promote an in it for himself persona. A hit piece in mainstream media is going to give him a better platform and have absolutely no effect on anyone with a clue. The spooks know this so they aren't going to do something like that. This is super effective, cryptome is legit as far as hackers and others that would contribute to his cause. This isn't a money issue it's a technical expertise issue. No one is going to join wikileaks for the money. Yes, money will help buy servers, but it's more about the technical expertise required for the people you're pissing off not to be able to build a solid case. Wikileaks itself has nothing to fear from the axis of evil, but a lot to fear from the G8 (except Russia). They will never honour a chinese extradition request because Assange found a video of Chinese soldiers killing civilians. They will however put his ass right next to the shoe bomber for posting vids of army dudes doing what army dudes are trained to do. Yes, Assange may be running wikileaks to embezzle himself $50 grand a year, OR it could be that he's gone dark and doesn't have time to update the site because he's brushing up on his waterboarding technique with Maher Arar.

sliverstorm 16y ago
> Yes, Assange may be running wikileaks to embezzle himself $50 grand a year, OR it could be that he's gone dark and doesn't have time to update the site because he's brushing up on his waterboarding technique with Maher Arar. You can't blame people for being suspicious. Humanity has proven time and time again that when there is a reason to suspect somebody absconded with large sums of money, they probably did. I have no opinion on the matter, but what could make a more effective cover story for vanishing than a believable 'Big Brother wanted to find me'?
- ultra-nihilist 16y ago
  You make a good point. Sure Assange is self-aggrandizing. Some may even call him flamboyant, but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? I recall similar criticism of Jimmy Wales. Wales acts like a rock star and he, like Assange, is a master fundraiser and aficionado of private jets. Despite mass defections of editors, and the enduring pompousness of Mr. Wales, Wikipedia is better than ever. Sometimes a greasy-haired, eccentric diva is the best person to represent your cause.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    > but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? Honestly, yes. Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda. But Assange does very much have those things. The reason Wikipedia is good is because the community decision process is very strong (mostly through being slow and laborious); they, obviously, have a lot of respect for Wales but he can't influence things dramatically without being called on it (look at the fuss over the commons porn images). Wikileaks doesn't have that sort of critical buffer of individuals (from what I have gathered about his personality Assange doesn't strike me as someone who would take any criticism at all). Sure there are volunteers but from my understanding it all works through Assange.
    - Rod 16y ago
      "Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda." Why? Where's the argumentation? Your opinion is not fact, mister.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Well, yes, this is always opinion (I refuse to constantly add "in my opinion" to all statements :P it stifles the flow). But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims. On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not least reputation).

by fleitz 16y ago

sliverstorm 16y ago

> Yes, Assange may be running wikileaks to embezzle himself $50 grand a year, OR it could be that he's gone dark and doesn't have time to update the site because he's brushing up on his waterboarding technique with Maher Arar. You can't blame people for being suspicious. Humanity has proven time and time again that when there is a reason to suspect somebody absconded with large sums of money, they probably did. I have no opinion on the matter, but what could make a more effective cover story for vanishing than a believable 'Big Brother wanted to find me'?

ultra-nihilist 16y ago
You make a good point. Sure Assange is self-aggrandizing. Some may even call him flamboyant, but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? I recall similar criticism of Jimmy Wales. Wales acts like a rock star and he, like Assange, is a master fundraiser and aficionado of private jets. Despite mass defections of editors, and the enduring pompousness of Mr. Wales, Wikipedia is better than ever. Sometimes a greasy-haired, eccentric diva is the best person to represent your cause.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  > but is that such a bad thing for wikileaks? Honestly, yes. Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda. But Assange does very much have those things. The reason Wikipedia is good is because the community decision process is very strong (mostly through being slow and laborious); they, obviously, have a lot of respect for Wales but he can't influence things dramatically without being called on it (look at the fuss over the commons porn images). Wikileaks doesn't have that sort of critical buffer of individuals (from what I have gathered about his personality Assange doesn't strike me as someone who would take any criticism at all). Sure there are volunteers but from my understanding it all works through Assange.
  - Rod 16y ago
    "Because in a perfect world Wikileaks has minimal editorial, no political bias and no agenda." Why? Where's the argumentation? Your opinion is not fact, mister.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Well, yes, this is always opinion (I refuse to constantly add "in my opinion" to all statements :P it stifles the flow). But I am not sure how easily it can be argued that bias/agenda could be good things for a whistleblower site. Or that it could compromise their aims. On the other hand there are copious reasons why they would be good things (not least reputation).