4 ms·
What does that have to do with Assange being charged? EDIT: It seems any effort to seek clarification is discouraged here. My apologies.
by bigbob2 6y ago
What does that have to do with Assange being charged?
EDIT: It seems any effort to seek clarification is discouraged here. My apologies.
- burkaman 6y agoIt doesn't, it's a response to "I hope people don't forget that Wikileaks has never published anything that has been proven false. Not once."
- bigbob2 6y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the comment was a response not about proving that claim to be false (as the commenter pointed out there was no evidence either way), but rather the ethics of releasing data protected under HIPAA.
- ShamelessC 6y agoSorry you were downvoted. Here's an upvote on me because clarification is good. The context you are missing is that there are some sibling comments here claiming that wikileaks has never posted info with questionable veracity. I believe the Steve Jobs leak is one such case. I also was pointing out that sometimes certain types of information don't need to be leaked at all. I personally believe medical info should be very private unless perhaps you are running for the office of the President. But, as I said, there are probably multiple perspectives on the issue (particularly perspectives of people who would want Apple's stock price to go down, or might think of Steve Jobs as evil for the Foxconn scandals, for instance). Hope that helps.
- bigbob2 6y agoThanks for the context--that definitely makes sense. It seems fair to say that legitimate leaks were probably diluted by baseless and largely irrelevant claims such as the Steve Jobs leak. Definitely fair to say if it can be done to Steve Jobs it can be done to Joe Sixpack as well.