10 ms·

Why is the WikiLeaks foundation responsible for the content posted on their platform, when Google and Facebook aren’t? I haven’t really been following this a w

by moksly 7y ago

Why is the WikiLeaks foundation responsible for the content posted on their platform, when Google and Facebook aren’t? I haven’t really been following this a whole lot, but as I understand it, the US wants him extradited because his platform was used to leak sensible information that put American soldiers in danger. But why is that a thing when it isn’t for other platforms? I mean, twitter, Facebook and YouTube have all been used as effective recruitment platforms for various Islamic terror organisations. That would have put American lives in danger as well.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
threeseed 7y ago
It is alleged that Assange coordinated with Chelsea Manning and the Russian government to obtain information for Wikileaks. This would make him an active conspirator in breaking the law. Completely different from Facebook, Google, Twitter etc where they merely provide a platform for others to upload content and aren't actively involved in sourcing illegal content.
- plutonorm 7y ago
  Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    It's much more tribal than that. For example, Russian authoritarians are pretty happy with him.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      "Russian authoritarians" are happy both that he exists and that Western authoritarians are torturing him to death.
  - scient 7y ago
    What moral act? Working for Russia and helping them push their agenda - willingly or out of ignorance? You are blind if you thing Assange and Wikileaks was some kind of a knight for truth.
    - forgetfulusr 7y ago
      Hmm, maybe if our 'fourth estate' actually wasn't the govs bitch, Assange's org wouldn't have looked so moral. But here we are.
      - peteretep 7y ago
        Your point and the publication of Snowden’s material by the mainstream media can’t both be true
        forgetfulusr 7y ago
        For some reason I thought that Snowden went to a UK publisher because the US outlets were not interested. Once the Guardian agreed, were the outlets here expected to ignore it?
        peteretep 7y ago
        Snowden went to two US journalists, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Greenwald and Poitras don't have glowing opinions of USA news media firms either.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      It is possible for multiple things to all be true. I see no contradiction between the following: 1. Assange helped reveal severe wrongdoings by various governments. 2. Assange engaged in unprotected sexual activity with two women that violated the scope of their consent, because they only consented to protected sex, and also because one woman was asleep in one case. This would have also been illegal in the UK. 3. No prosecution would have been attempted if Assange has not already made political enemies. 4. Russia made hay while the sun was shining by using Assange as a conduit to publish dirt they wanted published. 5. Assange definitely and unambiguously broke UK law by fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy. 6. The fact that the UK would not allow Assange to depart the Ecuadorian embassy was condemned by the UN as indefinite detention without trial. 7. The current condition of Assange is really suspicious and makes the UK look bad. (Which of these are actually true is for someone more qualified than I am, but they are all compatible.)
  - INGELRII 7y ago
    It's not mutually exclusive. * Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. * Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do. If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons exist for a reason. (I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)
    - samatman 7y ago
      Civil disobedience is breaking a law because you believe the law itself is wrong. As invented by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and MLK. Breaking a law you otherwise believe in, in the service of some broader goal, is called direct action, riot, or terrorism, depending on the severity of the law broken, and/or the sympathies of the person describing it.
      - INGELRII 7y ago
        In both cases, if you believe in society based on laws, what I said stands. Agreed?
        samatman 7y ago
        I was speaking to your first point, namely: > Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. Which is not a complete description of civil disobedience. It is accurate, but not precise. Civil disobedience implies the actor wishes the law to be changed. They might expect not just a pardon for themselves, but a pardon for everyone who broke the unjust law. It's a distinction with a difference. We agree that its effectiveness depends on accepting the punishment, sure.
      - jessriedel 7y ago
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act. It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality. The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      > It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes The immoral purpose of letting the people know of the crimes that the US army has committed?
- amelius 7y ago
  If the Russian government wants to leak information, why do they need WikiLeaks? Also, I'm curious, where is the line between investigative journalism and criminal disclosure of information?
  - grzm 7y ago
    > "If the Russian government wants to leak information, why do they need WikiLeaks?" One doesn't always want to be known as the source of information, for a variety of reasons. > "Also, I'm curious, where is the line between investigative journalism and criminal disclosure of information?" Can depend on the jurisdiction and one's own perspective. The "ethical dilemmas" section of this Wikipedia article on ethics in journalism provides a taste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Examples_of_ethical_dilemmas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...
  - foldr 7y ago
    The main issue here is criminal acquisition of information, not disclosure.
    - sneak 7y ago
      I am pretty sure the main issue here is that someone who has not been put on trial yet is being tortured to death.
      - foldr 7y ago
        He has been put on trial, and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for skipping bail: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-prison-jail-time-weeks-bail-embassy-a8894326.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assan... Try to keep up!
        MiroF 7y ago
        Typically in the UK he would have been released by now since he was sentenced for under a year. Unsure why the snark is necessary
- rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
  Sure, but the Barton Gellman, from the Washington Post, coordinated with Ed Snowden to publish his leaks, too. Breaking the law in such a way is just not sufficient to explain why he ends up in prison.
  - foldr 7y ago
    He coordinated with them to publish the information, not to acquire it in the first place.
    - danabrams 7y ago
      The allegations against him (and there is evidence to support this) is that he didn’t just coordinate to publish, but provided instructions and technical training to Manning on how to steal them.
      - foldr 7y ago
        I think you've misread my post. I wasn't talking about Assange.
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        This is not true. The allegations are that he attempted to crack a password on a different Windows account so that the documents would not he tied to Manning. And most of the charges against him are related to publishing.
        droithomme 7y ago
        Manning leaked the info proving US war crimes and lying, including the "collateral damage" video. She got these leaks using her own access, and sent them to wikileaks. There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access and tried to crack the password, but was unsuccessful. She then sent the hash to wikileaks, not something wikileaks asked for, along with a request for help. There was no response. Later she was in a chat with someone using a known wikileaks chat account. The identity of this person has not been established. She asked if they had been able to crack the password hash and that person said no they had not cracked it. They did not say they tried to crack it or they approved of cracking it. They answered the question factually, no, they had not cracked it. Manning never hacked the system, but did try to. There's no evidence Assange attempted to hack the system. There's pretty solid evidence someone at wikileaks told Manning that they had not cracked the hash she had sent them, but none that they had attempted to do so. As far as the leaks that were published, none of these involved hacking, they were obtained using Manning's granted access. They were however unauthorized exfiltration of state secrets documenting war crimes. This is the case alleging he actively assisted a leaker in hacking crimes.
- thiagoharry 7y ago
  And what are the proofs about this russian government involvment?
  - deepakhj 7y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
- wazoox 7y ago
  Breaking which law? Assange isn't a US citizen, nor resident. Why and how should US law apply to him?
jevgeni 7y ago
I’d think it’s the same reasoning why ISPs aren’t held accountable for piracy.
- OrgNet 7y ago
  Looks like this is changing, strangely: https://m.slashdot.org/story/364910 https://m.slashdot.org/story/364910
nabla9 7y ago
WikiLeaks is journalistic organization. (Some claim that they are shitty journalistic organization, but that is not a good argument for removing their status as journalistic organization) The question you should be asking is why Assange and not journalists in NYT, Guardian etc. who published what Assange provided? The answer is that charges against Assange are not about publishing secret information. Charges are Assange actively helping to get that information. That's illegal. Journalist should never get actively involved getting the secret information.
- sneak 7y ago
  He has not yet been put on trial. He must be presumed innocent of all charges until such time that he is. Torturing even a guilty person is not acceptable. Torturing an innocent one is presumably less so.
  - evgen 7y ago
    The only people required to presume him innocent are the jurors in his trial. The rest of us are under no such compulsion for self-delusion.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      And who are the jurors? The jurors are you. You should not expect of yourself to magically pause your judgement only in the event of being chosen as a a juror. The pause of judgement should be your default state.
  - nabla9 7y ago
    Assange is presumed innocent. Assange is in jail because his lawyers are challenging the US extradition request and there is legal process going on. There is no evidence of him being tortured. He seems to have mental problems. People getting mentally ill in jails is very common.
    - Karunamon 7y ago
kspacewalk2 7y ago
The US is accusing him of being more than just a passive receiving end for previously exfiltrated classified info. The allegation is that he actively encouraged Manning to obtain the diplomatic cables after he sent the helicopter video, and that Manning then downloaded them. That's a whole lot more than just being a leak host.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  The only "encouragement" mentioned in the indictment is Assange saying "curious eyes never run dry in my experience" in response to Manning saying that was all she could get for him. Nothing like what you described.
cryptica 7y ago
>> Why is the WikiLeaks foundation responsible for the content posted on their platform, when Google and Facebook aren’t? Governments still have control over Facebook and Google. They don't like WikiLeaks because they cannot control it. But it's still a good point though; I think Google and Facebook do much more harm to American citizens than WikiLeaks ever could. It's just that with Google and Facebook, it's less obvious because the bad is mixed in with the good.
- philwelch 7y ago
  The Russian government has no problem controlling WikiLeaks.
tehjoker 7y ago
Wikileaks is an effective critic of US foreign policy that cannot be controlled by the usual means. YouTube 's executives are much more friendly to US government interests.

by moksly 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

threeseed 7y ago

It is alleged that Assange coordinated with Chelsea Manning and the Russian government to obtain information for Wikileaks. This would make him an active conspirator in breaking the law. Completely different from Facebook, Google, Twitter etc where they merely provide a platform for others to upload content and aren't actively involved in sourcing illegal content.

plutonorm 7y ago
Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act.
- dmurray 7y ago
  It's much more tribal than that. For example, Russian authoritarians are pretty happy with him.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    "Russian authoritarians" are happy both that he exists and that Western authoritarians are torturing him to death.
- scient 7y ago
  What moral act? Working for Russia and helping them push their agenda - willingly or out of ignorance? You are blind if you thing Assange and Wikileaks was some kind of a knight for truth.
  - forgetfulusr 7y ago
    Hmm, maybe if our 'fourth estate' actually wasn't the govs bitch, Assange's org wouldn't have looked so moral. But here we are.
    - peteretep 7y ago
      Your point and the publication of Snowden’s material by the mainstream media can’t both be true
      - forgetfulusr 7y ago
        For some reason I thought that Snowden went to a UK publisher because the US outlets were not interested. Once the Guardian agreed, were the outlets here expected to ignore it?
        peteretep 7y ago
        Snowden went to two US journalists, Glenn Greenwald, and Laura Poitras.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Greenwald and Poitras don't have glowing opinions of USA news media firms either.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    It is possible for multiple things to all be true. I see no contradiction between the following: 1. Assange helped reveal severe wrongdoings by various governments. 2. Assange engaged in unprotected sexual activity with two women that violated the scope of their consent, because they only consented to protected sex, and also because one woman was asleep in one case. This would have also been illegal in the UK. 3. No prosecution would have been attempted if Assange has not already made political enemies. 4. Russia made hay while the sun was shining by using Assange as a conduit to publish dirt they wanted published. 5. Assange definitely and unambiguously broke UK law by fleeing to the Ecuadorean embassy. 6. The fact that the UK would not allow Assange to depart the Ecuadorian embassy was condemned by the UN as indefinite detention without trial. 7. The current condition of Assange is really suspicious and makes the UK look bad. (Which of these are actually true is for someone more qualified than I am, but they are all compatible.)
- INGELRII 7y ago
  It's not mutually exclusive. * Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. * Just because one is breaking the law for common good, civil servants can't and should not be expected to stop enforcing the law. If you allow that, it's the end of the rule of law based society. The whole idea of just society is that you restrict what individuals in the government can do. If you decide that civil disobedience is the way and you break the law, you should not ask to be treated differently under the law. Political pardons exist for a reason. (I'm not taking position on the legality of actions Assage took, or justification of his actions. I'm arguing general principle.)
  - samatman 7y ago
    Civil disobedience is breaking a law because you believe the law itself is wrong. As invented by Thoreau, and practiced by Gandhi and MLK. Breaking a law you otherwise believe in, in the service of some broader goal, is called direct action, riot, or terrorism, depending on the severity of the law broken, and/or the sympathies of the person describing it.
    - INGELRII 7y ago
      In both cases, if you believe in society based on laws, what I said stands. Agreed?
      - samatman 7y ago
        I was speaking to your first point, namely: > Sometimes individuals must break the law for greater good. This is called civil disobedience, or civil resistance. Which is not a complete description of civil disobedience. It is accurate, but not precise. Civil disobedience implies the actor wishes the law to be changed. They might expect not just a pardon for themselves, but a pardon for everyone who broke the unjust law. It's a distinction with a difference. We agree that its effectiveness depends on accepting the punishment, sure.
    - jessriedel 7y ago
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Authoritarians emphasise the fact he broke laws, everyone else appreciates the moral act. It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes, which were successfully attained. That it was also illegal is why it can be punished rather than merely pointed to as the kind of thing that must be tolerated despite its immorality. The argument has, however, been made that the law as it is prohibits some other acts that are not so immoral and it could not effectively address what Assange did without so doing, and so it should be narrowed (or treated as more narrow by the executive) so as to let Assange go free in order to not chill more legitimate acts. This is, IMO, a not entirely unreasonable argument that I can respect, though I am unconvinced by it as yet.
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    > It was an immoral act done as far as I can tell, for immoral purposes The immoral purpose of letting the people know of the crimes that the US army has committed?
amelius 7y ago
If the Russian government wants to leak information, why do they need WikiLeaks? Also, I'm curious, where is the line between investigative journalism and criminal disclosure of information?
- grzm 7y ago
  > "If the Russian government wants to leak information, why do they need WikiLeaks?" One doesn't always want to be known as the source of information, for a variety of reasons. > "Also, I'm curious, where is the line between investigative journalism and criminal disclosure of information?" Can depend on the jurisdiction and one's own perspective. The "ethical dilemmas" section of this Wikipedia article on ethics in journalism provides a taste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards#Examples_of_ethical_dilemmas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standard...
- foldr 7y ago
  The main issue here is criminal acquisition of information, not disclosure.
  - sneak 7y ago
    I am pretty sure the main issue here is that someone who has not been put on trial yet is being tortured to death.
    - foldr 7y ago
      He has been put on trial, and sentenced to 50 weeks in prison for skipping bail: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-prison-jail-time-weeks-bail-embassy-a8894326.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assan... Try to keep up!
      - MiroF 7y ago
        Typically in the UK he would have been released by now since he was sentenced for under a year. Unsure why the snark is necessary
rcMgD2BwE72F 7y ago
Sure, but the Barton Gellman, from the Washington Post, coordinated with Ed Snowden to publish his leaks, too. Breaking the law in such a way is just not sufficient to explain why he ends up in prison.
- foldr 7y ago
  He coordinated with them to publish the information, not to acquire it in the first place.
  - danabrams 7y ago
    The allegations against him (and there is evidence to support this) is that he didn’t just coordinate to publish, but provided instructions and technical training to Manning on how to steal them.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I think you've misread my post. I wasn't talking about Assange.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      This is not true. The allegations are that he attempted to crack a password on a different Windows account so that the documents would not he tied to Manning. And most of the charges against him are related to publishing.
      - droithomme 7y ago
        Manning leaked the info proving US war crimes and lying, including the "collateral damage" video. She got these leaks using her own access, and sent them to wikileaks. There were additional files she was interested in leaking that she did not have access to. She then obtained the password hash of an account that did have access and tried to crack the password, but was unsuccessful. She then sent the hash to wikileaks, not something wikileaks asked for, along with a request for help. There was no response. Later she was in a chat with someone using a known wikileaks chat account. The identity of this person has not been established. She asked if they had been able to crack the password hash and that person said no they had not cracked it. They did not say they tried to crack it or they approved of cracking it. They answered the question factually, no, they had not cracked it. Manning never hacked the system, but did try to. There's no evidence Assange attempted to hack the system. There's pretty solid evidence someone at wikileaks told Manning that they had not cracked the hash she had sent them, but none that they had attempted to do so. As far as the leaks that were published, none of these involved hacking, they were obtained using Manning's granted access. They were however unauthorized exfiltration of state secrets documenting war crimes. This is the case alleging he actively assisted a leaker in hacking crimes.
thiagoharry 7y ago
And what are the proofs about this russian government involvment?
- deepakhj 7y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
wazoox 7y ago
Breaking which law? Assange isn't a US citizen, nor resident. Why and how should US law apply to him?

jevgeni 7y ago

I’d think it’s the same reasoning why ISPs aren’t held accountable for piracy.

OrgNet 7y ago
Looks like this is changing, strangely: https://m.slashdot.org/story/364910 https://m.slashdot.org/story/364910

nabla9 7y ago

WikiLeaks is journalistic organization. (Some claim that they are shitty journalistic organization, but that is not a good argument for removing their status as journalistic organization) The question you should be asking is why Assange and not journalists in NYT, Guardian etc. who published what Assange provided? The answer is that charges against Assange are not about publishing secret information. Charges are Assange actively helping to get that information. That's illegal. Journalist should never get actively involved getting the secret information.

sneak 7y ago
He has not yet been put on trial. He must be presumed innocent of all charges until such time that he is. Torturing even a guilty person is not acceptable. Torturing an innocent one is presumably less so.
- evgen 7y ago
  The only people required to presume him innocent are the jurors in his trial. The rest of us are under no such compulsion for self-delusion.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    And who are the jurors? The jurors are you. You should not expect of yourself to magically pause your judgement only in the event of being chosen as a a juror. The pause of judgement should be your default state.
- nabla9 7y ago
  Assange is presumed innocent. Assange is in jail because his lawyers are challenging the US extradition request and there is legal process going on. There is no evidence of him being tortured. He seems to have mental problems. People getting mentally ill in jails is very common.
  - Karunamon 7y ago

kspacewalk2 7y ago

The US is accusing him of being more than just a passive receiving end for previously exfiltrated classified info. The allegation is that he actively encouraged Manning to obtain the diplomatic cables after he sent the helicopter video, and that Manning then downloaded them. That's a whole lot more than just being a leak host.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
boomboomsubban 7y ago
The only "encouragement" mentioned in the indictment is Assange saying "curious eyes never run dry in my experience" in response to Manning saying that was all she could get for him. Nothing like what you described.

cryptica 7y ago

>> Why is the WikiLeaks foundation responsible for the content posted on their platform, when Google and Facebook aren’t? Governments still have control over Facebook and Google. They don't like WikiLeaks because they cannot control it. But it's still a good point though; I think Google and Facebook do much more harm to American citizens than WikiLeaks ever could. It's just that with Google and Facebook, it's less obvious because the bad is mixed in with the good.

philwelch 7y ago
The Russian government has no problem controlling WikiLeaks.

tehjoker 7y ago

Wikileaks is an effective critic of US foreign policy that cannot be controlled by the usual means. YouTube 's executives are much more friendly to US government interests.