WikiLeaks Losing Support From Anonymous 140
Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that members of computer hacker collective Anonymous have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange. A statement linked from the Anonymous Twitter account, AnonymousIRC, described WikiLeaks as 'the one man Julian Assange show,' and complained that the website implemented a paywall seeking donations from users who wanted access to millions of leaked documents. 'The idea behind WikiLeaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know,' said the statement on behalf of Anonymous. The dispute could starve WikiLeaks of potentially newsworthy leaks in the future, as some of Wikileaks' recent disclosures – including the Stratfor emails – are alleged to have come from Anonymous."
Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation made up of a heirachy of people who all speak with the same voice, united under a single person.
Oh, hang on, no, they're made up of a whole slew of individuals who do not speak for each other. What was I thinking of.
Apparently, the Guardian didn't manage to break out of this incorrect belief about the structure of Anon.
Dissent amongst thieves? (Score:2, Insightful)
So basically, they're having a lover's spat between thieves, and this is news why? Wikileaks sunk itself because it put all it's eggs in a basket named Julian. When you're fighting the good fight against a government, exposing and embarassing them, they're going to target your leaders. The first duty of any political movement is to ensure continuity; Because your leaders will be taken out of the game. Wikileaks was too centralized, and so all it took was removing this one guy and making three phone calls (to paypal, visa, and mastercard) to take it out of the game.
Wikileaks died of poor planning. It died of ego. And you know what: Good. Enough people have seen the need for a secure and anonymous disclosure of documents that are in the public's best interest to know, but come from citizens in oppressive countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you). The next incarnation of Wikileaks will not be captained by one man, it will not rely on easily co-opted financial institutions to survive, and... hopefully, that decentralization will also help the next version stay honest. It'll keep any one person's ego from taking center stage, and that'll mean more rational thinking, and hopefully lead to people focusing less on hurting a government they have a bone to pick with and more on telling people things they actually should know. Yes, that was a veiled reference to the diplomatic cable leaks -- Bad Plan, Darlings. We don't need to know that our diplomats are sexually promiscuous, or that they're having marital problems, etc. Those are private matters -- diplomat or not, we need to respect the privacy of others unless there's a compelling public interest reason for disclosure. If you can't do that, you'll never have anyone's respect -- because you're just settling grudges, not looking out for your country's best interest. And to the former crowd... I hope the police do come and bust your door down and spank the everloving crap out of you so you learn some manners. -_-
Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (Score:5, Insightful)
... countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you).
Journalistic shield laws are a terrible idea. Freedom of expression should be recognized for all citizens, not reserved for a privileged elite.
Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Wikileaks is all about Assange's psychotically huge ego. Cryptome has been doing the right thing for much longer, much more effectively.
Computer hackers? (Score:4, Insightful)
computer hacker collective Anonymous.
I stopped reading right there. Emphasis mine.
There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.
Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Did you even read the first paragraph? They use two verbs that imply a single voice:
Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"
Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Blah blah blah. You're rehearsing all these old arguments about journalistic responsibility. Here's the problem: the leaks are so big that it's impossible to know what's in them. No single organization has the resources to pick through them and find everything of interest. Once it has been ascertained that they contain some information which it is in the public interest to release, the choice is between releasing everything and releasing practically nothing. Only releasing relevant documents is simply not practical.
The analogy with personal communications is a false one. The diplomatic cables were produced by government officials while they were in work getting paid to write them. They are not personal communications.