3 ms·

People who operate against society always get screwed. That's the cost they take on by operating against society. They have the right to work against society- b

People who operate against society always get screwed. That's the cost they take on by operating against society. They have the right to work against society- but that doesn't mean that they aren't watched, closely. KKK and neo-Nazis have the right to say whatever they want, but life is made difficult for them, and the ATF watches the shit out of them. In the same way, when someone participates in an organization that's going out of its way to acquire and distribute classified stuff, regardless of news value, but rather simply because it's there, I'd hope that our government would make life hard on them. Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism- it's engaging in infowar against America. That's not legally defined yet, and the legal ramifications have not been decided yet- but I hope that it is defined, and there are severe legal ramifications for it.

burgerbrain 16y ago
"it's engaging in infowar against America. That's not legally defined yet" So what you're saying is that you're a fuckwad who's just making shit up? "Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism" In Your Opinion. There is a reason they haven't brought the law down on them, and have to resort to Mafia like tactics.
- nandemo 16y ago
  What happened to civility on HN? Why are people upvoting the above comment?
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    "naughty words" contain no real meaning, but comparing wikileaks to the KKK or neonazis is truly uncivil. Perhaps it is a sign that this avenue of discussion is finally maturing enough to understand the difference between a comment that merely uses taboo words, and a comment that actually contains uncivil content.
kragen 16y ago
> People who operate against society always get screwed. That's the cost they take on by operating against society. That's what Wikileaks is trying to make happen: they're making those people who "operate against society" accountable to that society, secondarily so that those people can get screwed, but primarily to protect society from them. Here's a partial list of people "operating against society" who have gotten screwed so far by Wikileaks: Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, US troops that murdered civilians in Iraq, Magnus Gudmundsson, Ágúst and Lýður Guðmundsson, Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson, the US diplomats promoting ACTA, and most recently Robert Tchenguiz. People "operating against society" who still may get screwed by Wikileaks include Björgólfur Guðmundsson, various tax evaders protected by Julius Baer, and some Bank of America executives. This is not "infowar against America". War involves killing people and creating confusion. This is the opposite of war: exposing corruption and conspiracy, creating accountability, protecting the public.
cromulent 16y ago
> Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism- it's engaging in infowar against America I would agree that Wikileaks have recently had much material relating to the US leaked to it, and has then published it. However, I think this ignores their publications in relation to Kenya, Peru, various banks, Scientology, Iran, and so on. They publish what they get.

burgerbrain 16y ago

"it's engaging in infowar against America. That's not legally defined yet" So what you're saying is that you're a fuckwad who's just making shit up? "Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism" In Your Opinion. There is a reason they haven't brought the law down on them, and have to resort to Mafia like tactics.

nandemo 16y ago
What happened to civility on HN? Why are people upvoting the above comment?
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  "naughty words" contain no real meaning, but comparing wikileaks to the KKK or neonazis is truly uncivil. Perhaps it is a sign that this avenue of discussion is finally maturing enough to understand the difference between a comment that merely uses taboo words, and a comment that actually contains uncivil content.

kragen 16y ago

> People who operate against society always get screwed. That's the cost they take on by operating against society. That's what Wikileaks is trying to make happen: they're making those people who "operate against society" accountable to that society, secondarily so that those people can get screwed, but primarily to protect society from them. Here's a partial list of people "operating against society" who have gotten screwed so far by Wikileaks: Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, Gamal Mubarak, Omar Suleiman, US troops that murdered civilians in Iraq, Magnus Gudmundsson, Ágúst and Lýður Guðmundsson, Hreidar Mar Sigurdsson, the US diplomats promoting ACTA, and most recently Robert Tchenguiz. People "operating against society" who still may get screwed by Wikileaks include Björgólfur Guðmundsson, various tax evaders protected by Julius Baer, and some Bank of America executives. This is not "infowar against America". War involves killing people and creating confusion. This is the opposite of war: exposing corruption and conspiracy, creating accountability, protecting the public.

cromulent 16y ago

> Wikileaks is not engaging in journalism- it's engaging in infowar against America I would agree that Wikileaks have recently had much material relating to the US leaked to it, and has then published it. However, I think this ignores their publications in relation to Kenya, Peru, various banks, Scientology, Iran, and so on. They publish what they get.