3 ms·

It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information det

It's not an exclusive or. Assange worked with a number of people (including Manning) to obtain classified information. Some of that classified information detailed war crimes. Some did not; some of it was diplomatic cables, lists of informants, etc. Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. Maybe we can agree to forgive him for the portion of the espionage which exposed war crimes, but I see no reason he should be given blanket immunity for everything he's done.

emilsedgh 7y ago
> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed Citation Needed? Also, were those people involved in those [war crimes]?
- christophclarke 7y ago
  "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak" - Julian Assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange...
  - emilsedgh 7y ago
    That's a quote out of context with bad faith. > The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do. Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good. I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues. Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.
monocasa 7y ago
> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. That was all greatly overstated https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...
- cyphar 7y ago
  In addition, The Guardian's editor (David Leigh) actually published several articles (that WikiLeaks wasn't going to publish) BY ACCIDENT. He then blamed the release of documents on Julian Assange[1]. In addition he published the password for a GPG-encrypted archive of documents that were shared via BitTorrent in a book and claimed that WikiLeaks was given plenty of notice to fix the issue -- not understanding that you cannot change the password of an existing file that was already distributed and probably in the hands of the NSA. [1]: https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818 https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818
  - acdha 7y ago
    You’re leaving out that the file in question was supposed to be temporary (via a server up for a few hours) and the BitTorrent leak happened later, unbeknownst to the Guardian staff, when WikiLeaks reused the same password for an insurance distribution. Also, think analytically about what “probably in the hands of the NSA” contributes other than fearmongering: the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! (Or brute-force it, in all likelihood) It’s everyone else who would be interested in the archive.
    - cyphar 7y ago
      > the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! The US government may not have known exactly what the leaks contained, and providing the passphrase gives cryptographic evidence that they were in fact in possession of certain documents that might not have been revealed publicly. So my invocation of the NSA is not just fearmongering -- the reason why journalists may choose to not disclose something is for their own safety and not just the safety of the public or sources. Also, it's a bit interesting you assume that the NSA could break GPG. If anything, the Snowden revelations showed that GPG is hard-to-break even for the NSA (if not secure).

emilsedgh 7y ago

> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed Citation Needed? Also, were those people involved in those [war crimes]?

christophclarke 7y ago
"1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak" - Julian Assange https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange...
- emilsedgh 7y ago
  That's a quote out of context with bad faith. > The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. The leak informed major corruption by the government. That's what the leak has done and I don't think any person in their right mind argues it's a wrong thing to do. Even the U.S. has whistle blower protection laws to allow such leaks. I'd argue that this would be a very good example of WikiLeaks doing good. I come from a corrupt, third world country (Iran), who has recently had it's share of corruption and violent election issues. Anyone exposing those crimes of the government would be a champion. What happens after the leaks, the uprising and violence, is not the responsibility of whistle blower but people who commit those specific crimes.

monocasa 7y ago

> Publishing the latter stuff almost certainly got people killed. That was all greatly overstated https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html https://web.archive.org/web/20101129044151/https://www.mccla...

cyphar 7y ago
In addition, The Guardian's editor (David Leigh) actually published several articles (that WikiLeaks wasn't going to publish) BY ACCIDENT. He then blamed the release of documents on Julian Assange[1]. In addition he published the password for a GPG-encrypted archive of documents that were shared via BitTorrent in a book and claimed that WikiLeaks was given plenty of notice to fix the issue -- not understanding that you cannot change the password of an existing file that was already distributed and probably in the hands of the NSA. [1]: https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818 https://youtu.be/vwjazrixP1Q?t=4818
- acdha 7y ago
  You’re leaving out that the file in question was supposed to be temporary (via a server up for a few hours) and the BitTorrent leak happened later, unbeknownst to the Guardian staff, when WikiLeaks reused the same password for an insurance distribution. Also, think analytically about what “probably in the hands of the NSA” contributes other than fearmongering: the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! (Or brute-force it, in all likelihood) It’s everyone else who would be interested in the archive.
  - cyphar 7y ago
    > the data in question belonged to the U.S. State Department — if the NSA wanted it, they can just ask! The US government may not have known exactly what the leaks contained, and providing the passphrase gives cryptographic evidence that they were in fact in possession of certain documents that might not have been revealed publicly. So my invocation of the NSA is not just fearmongering -- the reason why journalists may choose to not disclose something is for their own safety and not just the safety of the public or sources. Also, it's a bit interesting you assume that the NSA could break GPG. If anything, the Snowden revelations showed that GPG is hard-to-break even for the NSA (if not secure).