4 ms·

I think that's a little unfair to KDC; at the very least, it is no more a complete picture of the man than "John Doe is a felon" is of anyone else. There are a

I think that's a little unfair to KDC; at the very least, it is no more a complete picture of the man than "John Doe is a felon" is of anyone else. There are a lot of other people who see Assange as nothing more than "rapist on the run". Dotcom hasn't stopped fighting his imprisonment and the seizure and loss of his equipment, business, and customers' data, even though he's already won far more than maybe anyone else in his position could have hoped to win in this age. He easily could have gone back home, moved to another country, and faded into obscurity; instead, he relaunched the service that got him into so much trouble in the first place, and has seemingly made it his mission to embarrass the governments involved as much as possible. Whether his motives are entirely selfish, for his own aggrandizement -- as I suspect they probably are -- or more altruistic, I'm still glad he's pouring so much of his resources into this.

jacquesm 12y ago
KDC is a convicted felon in Germany, has 10 or more counts against him and has had a 2 year suspended sentence which he did not contest. He's also been involved in setting up a ponzi scheme and stole 1.5M in a 'pump and dump'. I won't take a word of that back.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  OK. You can refuse to take back anything you said -- which I didn't ask for, btw -- but it will still have nothing to do with what I said.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Apologies for being unclear, I was mostly responding to the bit that states that I'm being 'a bit unfair' to KDC. I think it is very fair and that he's simply a bad puppy. If he accidentally does something useful while he's pursuing his selfish goals then great, but that's not his first and foremost interest, most probably merely a convenient vehicle for his ambitions.
    - thaumaturgy 12y ago
      I'm having trouble understanding how you're able to give Assange and Dotcom different treatments. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm genuinely puzzled. You're having a similar argument with idlewords, but in defense of Assange; your comment upthread acknowledges that Assange has "flaws" and "something to answer for in his personal life", but when it comes to Dotcom, it sounds like you've got a much stronger negative impression of him. This isn't really that important I guess. I should probably just drop it. It just seems weird. (FWIW, I've defended Assange too in other conversations, but with full knowledge that he probably is guilty of a sex crime under his country's laws; likewise with Dotcom, after his release. It's good that the battle against mass surveillance doesn't require saints, since we don't get to pick allies for their winning personalities.)
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        To me the difference is very simple: KDC has shown a structural disregard for the law and his victims to line his own pockets, this is not a one-time affair or something that you could claim is a mistake, an accident or something done half drunk, and he's been convicted of those crimes. It is to me beyond any doubt that he's a common criminal, he's merely found a nice little gray area in which he can operate using the proceeds of previous criminal activities to launch a new operation. He's basically doing what every criminal that is whitewashing his money and reputation has done. Julian Assange has done a whole pile of things that seemed to have been for the common good (no profit motive as far as I can discern, you can of course debate whether or not they really were for the common good but that's out-of-scope), he's been too hungry for the spotlight in my opinion and has made WikiLeaks eventually more about him than about the data, this was definitely a mistake. I don't think WikiLeaks ever needed a figurehead. By making himself a figurehead he's become an Achilles heel to WikiLeaks and that in turn coupled with his flaws has led to his public downfall and a ton of damage to Wikileaks. Where I draw the line is that (1) his motives for running WikiLeaks for the most part seem pure and that (2) Everything KDC does is to enrich himself at the expense of others and that he's been convicted of crimes that are directly related to such activities. This makes them very different kinds of characters in my opinion. Does that clear it up sufficiently?

jacquesm 12y ago

KDC is a convicted felon in Germany, has 10 or more counts against him and has had a 2 year suspended sentence which he did not contest. He's also been involved in setting up a ponzi scheme and stole 1.5M in a 'pump and dump'. I won't take a word of that back.

thaumaturgy 12y ago
OK. You can refuse to take back anything you said -- which I didn't ask for, btw -- but it will still have nothing to do with what I said.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Apologies for being unclear, I was mostly responding to the bit that states that I'm being 'a bit unfair' to KDC. I think it is very fair and that he's simply a bad puppy. If he accidentally does something useful while he's pursuing his selfish goals then great, but that's not his first and foremost interest, most probably merely a convenient vehicle for his ambitions.
  - thaumaturgy 12y ago
    I'm having trouble understanding how you're able to give Assange and Dotcom different treatments. I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I'm genuinely puzzled. You're having a similar argument with idlewords, but in defense of Assange; your comment upthread acknowledges that Assange has "flaws" and "something to answer for in his personal life", but when it comes to Dotcom, it sounds like you've got a much stronger negative impression of him. This isn't really that important I guess. I should probably just drop it. It just seems weird. (FWIW, I've defended Assange too in other conversations, but with full knowledge that he probably is guilty of a sex crime under his country's laws; likewise with Dotcom, after his release. It's good that the battle against mass surveillance doesn't require saints, since we don't get to pick allies for their winning personalities.)
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      To me the difference is very simple: KDC has shown a structural disregard for the law and his victims to line his own pockets, this is not a one-time affair or something that you could claim is a mistake, an accident or something done half drunk, and he's been convicted of those crimes. It is to me beyond any doubt that he's a common criminal, he's merely found a nice little gray area in which he can operate using the proceeds of previous criminal activities to launch a new operation. He's basically doing what every criminal that is whitewashing his money and reputation has done. Julian Assange has done a whole pile of things that seemed to have been for the common good (no profit motive as far as I can discern, you can of course debate whether or not they really were for the common good but that's out-of-scope), he's been too hungry for the spotlight in my opinion and has made WikiLeaks eventually more about him than about the data, this was definitely a mistake. I don't think WikiLeaks ever needed a figurehead. By making himself a figurehead he's become an Achilles heel to WikiLeaks and that in turn coupled with his flaws has led to his public downfall and a ton of damage to Wikileaks. Where I draw the line is that (1) his motives for running WikiLeaks for the most part seem pure and that (2) Everything KDC does is to enrich himself at the expense of others and that he's been convicted of crimes that are directly related to such activities. This makes them very different kinds of characters in my opinion. Does that clear it up sufficiently?