The Paradox of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks 266
schnell writes "The New Statesman is publishing a new in-depth article that examines in detail the seemingly paradoxical nature of WikiLeaks' brave mission of public transparency with the private opaqueness of Julian Assange's leadership. On one hand, WikiLeaks created 'a transparency mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account' when nobody else could or would. On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.' If WikiLeaks performs a public service exposing the secrets of others but censors its own secrets, does it really matter? Or are the ethics of the organization and its leader inseparable?"
A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Julian Assange may be a bit cocky, but keep in mind that a lot of this "Cult of Assange" shit and a lot of the infighting reports came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a person of VERY questionable motives and honesty--to say the least. His dubious book [amazon.com] is the source of many of these reports.
Now personally, I've always strongly suspected that Domscheit-Berg was an intelligence plant at Wikileaks (working for the CIA, BND, or take your pick). He started to physically sabotage the organization pretty much from day one, acted a lot like an agent provocateur when he was there, destroyed some 3,500 unpublished whistleblower communications as he was leaving, immediately went on a campaign to discredit Wikileaks and Assange after he left, and then unsuccessfully tried [slashdot.org] to set up a leaks site himself that sounded suspiciously like a honeypot to me (send us your leaked documents and trust us to maybe release them to the press--or maybe just send some FBI agents to kick down your door). And apparently Assange suspected this too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Incompetence or ego is significantly more likely than malice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is the wrong focus. It's a diversion.
Assange may be faulty and Domscheit-Berg may be faulty but why does all the attention keep going to their faults and the wikileaks flaws and so little to something that matters much more? To the need for wikileaks and to how it's b
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like the Daniel Domscheit-Berg book myself, without being able to swear to it's veracity. It has the ring of truth about it, and while there are places where I disagree with the author I think the mistakes he makes are the ones that idealistic hackers are prone to -- e.g. he underrates the value of having a poster-boy like Assange (a position for which being egocentric is almost a job requirement), and D seemed to be groping for a purely technical solution to the wikileaks problem that would take all h
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds paranoid. Someone is opposed to your god-king and thus you must turn him into the devil.
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
How often do you need to have your tin-foil hat refitted?
You know, believe it or not, there are actual conspiracies in this world that are real. And there are actually real spies and real saboteurs whose job it is to infiltrate organizations deemed national security threats. They get paid to do it and everything.
After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:5, Funny)
After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?
No, Goats
Re: (Score:2)
No Goatse.
Often they took the pictures.
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:5, Funny)
No Goatse.
Often they took the pictures.
No, you're thinking of the TSA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?
No, most sit and do documentation. Some deal all day with bureacratic nonsense. While there is a field operations division, most of them are a bit busy on other continents to worry about some random guy leaking confidential State Department cables.
Yes, other continents like Europe, you know, where Assange was.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In your universe, WWI happened before 1861?
From wikipedia:
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that the U.S. government regarded Assange as just "some random guy leaking confidential State Department cables"? Seriously?
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most of the "Cult of Assenge" thing comes from open-minded and observant people like me who barely even know who this Daniel Domscheit-Berg is.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether you know who someone is or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are the origin of a meme you swallowed and began regurgitating.
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you need to have your tin-foil hat refitted?
Preventing/controlling government secrets leaks and acquiring other government one is like the mandate of the CIA and all other intelligence service in the world. That means that their job is to look for people that have secret document from the government and plan to leak (to China or Wikileaks, it does not matter).
To take an analogy, it is not paranoia to think that police will try to get you/trap you if you plan to rob a bank / set up a drug dealing network / assassinate somebody / ...
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, those rapists.
I remember a guy who made a speech [guardian.co.uk] calling for a global currency to challenge the dollar. Turns out he became a rapist too, just a few months after making that speech in fact. Well, he was a rapist for a while anyway. The DA later admitted that the previously "rock solid" case against him was completely bogus--exactly three days after his successor at the IMF took office. Coincidental timing, I guess.
But then I guess I would be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat if I suggested that there was anything suspicious about the timing of some rape charges.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just glad that those of you who think that all conspiracies are just the product of paranoia weren't in charge of the Watergate invesitgation--or Iran/Contra, or the torture and extreme rendition allegations, etc. There is a big difference between thinking that black helicopters are circling your house monitoring your brainwaves and thinking that the CIA engages in operations against foreign individuals deemed a threat to U.S. interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
States - in modern, representative democracies, are accountable to the people who fund the state for common welfare and interest.
The transparency and accountability of the state is different in imperative from that of the individual - who has an expectation of privacy to guarantee the conduct of free expression and personal liberty.
Equating Assange's alleged personal characteristics and style of management with the opaqueness and corruption committed by states acting in excess of their authority is false. Doing so reflects a very poor understanding of any of the core rights and issues that are at the heart of the WikiLeaks mission.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
How can we remind you of fiction? (Score:2, Informative)
Since WL does publish leaks about Russia:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html
Remind me, why do you insist on claiming they don't publish leaks about russia?
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
It's called a "disinformation campaign".
And Jemimah Khan? She is a prize disinformation agent. Connected by birth and marriage to both the Windsors and the Rothschilds, and having been married to Imran Khan... The high-wierdness of her connections to seats of power - both public and covert - are beyond the imaginings of fiction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. You are right. I make the same point about useless, pseudo-progressive issues, myself.
But I do hold ,that if one compares a whistleblowers' personal life to the conduct of a government, then arguments should be made, not in terms of how these are realised in practice, but in how they are supposed to be established in principal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia's great contribution is to be among the few outlets that give us raw unadulterated facts, not some journalist's idea of a good story. As long as they continue to do this, they deserve full support. Nothing else matters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikileaks also lacks the ability to cause a global financial crisis.
Re: (Score:2)
Barclay's is in illegal conspiracy to manipulate currency and exchange rates of what is state coinage.
They are an institution, operating in the para-political realm and NOT a PERSON, with requisite Human and Civil rights.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Too many flaws in your analogy and reasoning to bother demolishing.
Assange has more in common with Hunter Thompson and Emile Zola, than he does Anthony Weiner or Betrayus.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
" I'd like somebody else to take their place"
Well, go for it.
Get whistleblowers throughout society and the world to send you confidential information at risk of their employment if not liberty.
Make sure that as you collect and publicize this highly sensitive information, your execution is unquestionable, you publicize every word you and your staff ever hear or say, and that you don't come across as an asshole to fraudulent execs, overreaching governments, armchair patriots, or anonymous cowards.
If offended governments level criminal charges at you, trumped up or valid, you should turn yourself in immediately and just continue your work from Guantanamo or whatever enhanced interrogation facility you are delivered to.
Do all that, and a few of us will, in appreciation, donate 5 to 50 bucks to your organization. But most of us will just Godwin you from the comfort of our sofa.
Re: (Score:3)
I see, so you regard his fears of "extraordinary rendition" as entirely reasonable?
Re: (Score:2)
If I were going to join a cult, it would be the one worshiping Justin Bieber.
Paparazzi for The Firm (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations however, are either breaking your heart, or shaking your confidence daily, so you need to have loads of info on them.
Or was that my pretend girlfriend Cecilia that I was stalking? Either way, you totally understand what I am saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Manti Te'o? Is that you?
One can't be 100% transparent (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikileaks and all of the people working for it are OBVIOUSLY going to need to obfuscate details about themselves. Look at the absolutely living nightmare of a shitstorm that Assange has been dragged through. Look where he is now.
But no, hey, let's be transparent. How about all of the contacts at Wikileaks post their full contact information. SURELY nobody on earth has any axe to grind against them, and they will remain in perfect harmony and safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One can't be 100% transparent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Again, like with most things, it's not an all or nothing proposition. Should I know how my congressman voted on the last counter-espionage act? Absolutely. Should I know roughly what the spies that now receive funding are doing? Absolutely. Should I know where they're doing it or who they are? No. Maybe I should roughly know where they're operating - as in region of t
Re: (Score:3)
No, they do not. Privacy means no accountability, which means absolute trust and absolute power, which is always stupid.
But that is not how most governments, including the United States, are structured. Privacy can mean personal privacy, or it can mean privacy within a select group. The President's authority is only what Congress, the Courts, & the Constitution give him (supposedly). The Constitution structures our government in a way so that even in the case of private matters, there is accountability.
This discussion sounds like it is going to be like math vs. physics though. You think the world is a perfect system
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One can't be 100% transparent (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments can't follow the same rationale?
They're doing it and Wikileaks acts against it. What's your point? Surely governments and wikileaks are two completely different kinds of entities with completely different aims and purposes, just because Wikileaks advocates government transparency doesn't mean or imply in any way that they ought to advocate wikileaks transparency. There is no "paradox" to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:5, Interesting)
My problem with wikileaks is its heavy anti-american bias. It seems like he wants to embarrass the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassment, and not to make the world "a more just society".
If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia. They're the nations who are wandering around the planet dicking with other nations' governments the most, selling the most military hardware and/or engaging in the most metanational corporate activity. We could argue all day over whether these nations are truly in competition or are really engaged in dividing the globe up between themselves in a way they see as equitable and it wouldn't change a damn thing for the average man on the street anywhere in the world, including within these nations.
The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny. And unfortunately, the more scrutiny you subject this government to, the more serious malfeasance you find. At some point you expect things to stop getting worse, but they don't; the system is rotten to the core. It might well look like the USA is being singled out, but perhaps the truth is that the USA is simply up to more misdeeds. The facts seem to support this hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet Assange keeps his mouth shut about Russia- either because he doesn't care, or he knows the Russians won't hesitate to kill him if he tries this crap with them.
Not so sure about the Chinese- but criticizing and screwing with America is pretty safe these days, which kind of makes the 'great evil' point of view rather silly.
In other news, global power politics don't really mesh with some folks kum-by-
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russia [wikileaks.org]
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Russian_Federation [wikileaks.org]
http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:China [wikileaks.org]
but criticizing and screwing with [sic] America is pretty safe these days
You said it, so it must be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably redundant at this point but- what world are you living in? None of what you say is true. Wikileaks goes after Russia and China too, as well as lots of other governments. You are just basing your opinion on what you passively hear through the US media. Do some basic research. Go to wikileaks.org. You should have done that before you said anything in the first place. Secondly, are having your finances illegally blocked and being persecuted on trumped up rape charges to the point of being confined to
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the great evils in the world today you can pretty much name them the USA, China, and Russia. That's really lumping everything together here. The three are very different. The us is militaristic and hegemonic but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well. China is not militaristic and expansionist (in relative terms) despite all the noise, but dealing them is one huge rip-off horror where you're getting screwed on all sides. And Russia, well, it's a small player.
There
Re: (Score:2)
but if you accept them as the boss things can work out reasonably well
You definitely live in fantasy land. I know it is hard for you to accept the truth, but in today's world, there is very little difference between dealing with US and dealing with China. And you often are better off dealing with the latter.
China is not militaristic (Score:2)
"China is not militaristic and expansionist (in relative terms) despite all the noise"
Yeah, let's just ask India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines. You should be ashamed of your self-inflicted cretinism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
NK is heavily armed (proportionally), possibly nuked up, and has the at-least-nominal support of China. Given the recent U.S. track record of invading other countries, what the heck should we be doing?
Ooh, I know--maybe we can have the U.N. impose another sanction on them! So the average guy can be even more miserable and starving than before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China hasn't been too happy with NK lately, it seems.
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is projecting more power across the globe in the name of profit than any other nation, so naturally it should fall under the most scrutiny.
The issue here is that most people equate American business interests across the globe to American government. Like it or not, they're two different things with two different aims. One aims to protect profits, one aims to protect itself. I'll let you figure out which one is which.
No, the issue is that people can't tell the difference because protecting profits and itself has become so intertwined. The Department of Homeland Security was all over San Francisco before the Super Bowl arresting people for selling counterfeit NFL gear. The US military is deployed around the world to "protect American interests". Well, what interests would those be? Is the entire planet gearing up to invade us? Or is it actually some business venture that the military is protecting?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_Files [wikipedia.org]
The US is embarrassed by things it SHOULD be embarrassed by.
Re: (Score:3)
My problem with wikileaks is its heavy anti-american bias. It seems like he wants to embarrass the U.S. just for the sake of embarrassment, and not to make the world "a more just society".
How could we possibly be embarrassed by our actions? We are a just society, and so it cannot possibly embarrass us for our actions to be published. If we are not guilty, we have nothing to hide.
On a more serious note, have you actually looked at, for example, the diplomatic cables? They mostly show the US attempting to pro
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take it for what it is. (Score:3)
Anywhere you get news is going to have an agenda or be hypocritical to some extent (some obviously more than others). It's human nature. Take that into account when evaluating the information they give and look at sources from other perspectives as well before making informed decisions. If you wanted to disregarded news because the source was jaded in some way, you'd have to cut yourself off from media altogether.
Where is the balance? (Score:5, Insightful)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
Re:Where is the balance? (Score:5, Insightful)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
I'll worry more about that when they have more competition. I want done what they are doing. If they're the only hope of transparency, then I'm going to back them. If another, more credible hope appears, I'll back them instead.
Re: (Score:3)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
If I committed crimes and acted in bad faith while people died through my actions and inactions, my arrest records, mug shots, and all my secrets would be revealed in court. Rightly so, I would also argue.
So the question is, has Wikileaks published the contents of people's lives who have not done any wrong? If they start doing that, then we can start the criticism.
The lack of consequences to the behavior of governments is because the people don't demand them, because they have swallowed the pill that Wikile
Re:Where is the balance? (Score:5, Informative)
Then you haven't been paying attention, because Assange himself has admitted that innocents have been killed (not just 'damaged') by the publication of materials outed by Wikileaks.
(source [guardian.co.uk])
He goes on to whitewash that figure by citing malaria statistics - I guess in Africa, if you're responsible for killing fewer people than the average yearly death toll from malaria, you're eligible for sainthood, and all your sins are forgiven.
You can't play it both ways - either there are real world consequences for the publication of the data that you own the responsibility for, or there are no real world consequences and all you're doing is play-acting in front of a camera. Which is it?
So you've noticed that there's a difference between what people say, and what they do, have you? Welcome to conscious existence. People have been calling for accountability, and re-electing the same bunch of retards and crooks every couple years, because "it's not MY GUY who's the problem - he's helping us out here! It's those R's or D's from other places who need to get tossed out on their asses!"
Until the public understands and accepts that accountability means more than "bitching to my co-worker who agrees with me while we have lunch," the accountability won't happen. There need to be actual teeth behind the threats of "voting for the other guy," "initiating recalls and impeachments," and other penalties for behaving badly.
In informing people of things governments need to be held accountable for, Wikileaks *does* provide a valuable service. The problem is, that value is often overshadowed by Assange's attention-seeking and grandstanding behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
Because governments are not people. They should not enjoy any rights of privacy at all. It is anathema to what they stand for,
Re: (Score:2)
without much critical analysis going on
What cave have you been living in? The organization, its process, and the guy have been investigated, probed, and pilloried by governments, media, freelance journalists, and J Random Blogger.
I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future
Have you not noticed the backlash against America's use of diplomatic pressure to strong-arm European governments on copyright policy? Did you sleep through the Arab Spring?
We wouldn't be too happ
propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
It's incredible how anti-Assange the US media is. They even try to create this pseudo-opinion of "I am really progressive and don't like war and all that, but Assange is just not right not to come clean about this."
This is nothing but an empire fighting using the media, and some "intellectuals" not quite realizing how serious the situation really is. Of course the US government wants him dead and we know the US government kills right and left with no considerations for anything.
Re:propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
It's incredible how anti-Assange the US media is. They even try to create this pseudo-opinion of "I am really progressive and don't like war and all that, but Assange is just not right not to come clean about this."
The US media is anti-Assange because the US government is anti-Assange. US news organizations have basically declared themselves tools of the government. Some examples of this:
- There was recently a dust-up over the New York Times revealing the existence of a drone base in Saudi Arabia, a drone base that several news organizations had known about for 2 years but never reported on, even though its existence had been covered in other media. In other words, there was no legitimate reason to keep its existence secret, because any bad guys would have been able to find out about it using a sophisticated tool known as "Google", but media organizations in the US didn't say a word about it because the government asked them to keep it a secret.
- Cenk Uygur was hired at MSNBC because of his successful online news program. He does a few shows, but then one of the network execs pulls him aside and tells him that some politicians in Washington don't like his reporting, so he needs to change it. Cenk didn't change it, and was promptly fired.
- Several news organizations sat on a story that provided significant evidence of a massive illegal domestic surveillance program run by the Bush administration. For a year and a half. For the sole reason that the Bush administration had asked them to. It just so happened that that year and a half gave Bush enough time to be re-elected in the interim.
Also, there's no major news organization that doesn't like war. War is exciting and entertaining. War draws in viewers and readers. War sells ads for the armed forces and cool guns and fast cars and action-packed movie extravaganzas. Remember, if it's white and bleeds, it leads (not-white and bleeds may be acceptable if no white victims are available).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The media doesn't like competition. When Assange started dropping major headlines he 1.) took eyeballs away from the latest Kim Kardashian sightings headlining in the MSM thus costing them money and forcing them to do real work, 2.) Made the MSM look trivial and incompetent since they obviously hadn't been paying much attention or care, 3.) endangered the cozy relationship media has with government by dsrupting their monopoly relationship.
The difference is power (Score:5, Insightful)
Exposing secrets of powerful institutions that can manipulate the fate of humanity isn't in the same league as the secrets that organization may hold. Isn't even the same galaxy.
You can't take revenge and prosecute the powers that be. If you could, they wouldn't be powers and they wouldn't require whistleblowing. Wikileaks, on the otherhand, is very destructible.
Re: (Score:2)
There's always a justification to hide something, and the organization doing the hiding always thinks they have the right...
Eh, that's just Assange's personality (Score:2)
Everyone has an axe to grind. Figuring it out is sometimes easy, sometimes extremely convoluted. Assange has
wikileaks didn't say anything people didn't know (Score:2)
diplomacy is strong arming other nations
diplomats talk bad about other government officials in private because most top government officials are workaholics who don't mind pissing off others
us is killing civilians in our wars
bankers aren't these glorious people who give you a mortgage with a smile. i know, i ride the train with a lot of them to work.
newsflash to nerds, real life is not star wars or star trek where everyone calls others by their official government/military title and says how awesome they ar
Government transparency..... (Score:5, Insightful)
is not incompatible with personal privacy.
Transparency isn't the goal (Score:2)
I don't think transparency is their goal.
Their goal is to push their political adgenda which is basically anti- anything big & powerful.
Transparency is just a cover.
The reality is we need transparency and accountability to control the big powers effectively.
However, realistically they also need some secrets to function effectively.
It isn't black and white like crypto, with a public algorithm and secret key where everyone (with a clue) is in agreement where the line is.
In the real world the division of w
Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Livestrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Livestrong's anti-cancer mission any less worthy now that Lance Armstrong is de-famed?
Kompromat (Score:2)
There was a prominent article a few years back from an ex-intelligence guy warning Assange that he would be the victim of kompromat (most frequently a sexual honeypot). That subsequently Assange happened to be accused of rape by a woman who was thrown out of Cuba on charges of working with the CIA may be mere coincidence (a valid roll on a million-sided die) but regardless, Assange wasn't able to put his organization over his hormones, which calls into question the appropriateness of his leadership.
Meanwhi
it doesn't matter (Score:2)
on as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.' If WikiLeaks performs a public service exposing the secrets of others but censors its own secrets, does it really matter?
No, it doesn't matter. The situations are not parallel. Wikileaks isn't an elected government. They don't and can't "censor" information about themselves or anyone. They keep secrets, same as any reporter does, in particular to keep sources confidential to protect them. No matter how big a jerk Assange is, it's irrelevant to anyone except those who work with him. And clearly Assange could not "censor" stories about himself. "Cultish"? Bollocks. No one was setting themselves on fire on his command.
PR Bullshit (Score:2)
while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.
Expected by whom? Who cares what you claim someone expects? I support Wikileaks, and I think Assange is megalomaniacal, and I think they should be more forthcoming with their material and process. An unsubstantiated claim that someone expects something does not imply that supporters of Wikileaks are blinkered, cultish, devotees. This is a shallow and transparent attempt to manipulate people's perception and make the
The problem of no transparency (Score:4, Insightful)
His organization has and gets very secret information. This information is often so powerful/secret/damning that could potentially bring down banks, companies, individuals, or maybe even countries or at least their regimes. There are a number of problems with a sole person with this much power.
How do we know if he's not 'cherry-picking' information and just releasing what he wants to cause the reaction he wants? Does he fact-check anything he releases at all? We know news organizations Fox/NPR/et al can do exactly this to sway public opinion. Just because he's releasing information doesn't mean he's releasing ALL the information that would paint a full picture. It doesn't tell us if he's at all modified or tampered with that information. Unless the person who's accused comes out with counter-proof (if there is even a way if the leaked info was purely made up anyway), there is no way to know without a LOT of fact checking of likely terribly secret stuff. But the damage would be done by then. At best it turns into a credibility war; and with no transparency on either side - who are we to believe?
With information so central and key to financial and government systems, what is to keep Assange and co from going rouge and extorting or holding companies, countries or people for blackmail? "Just leave me alone Obama or I'll dump all that stuff about those drone strike kills you ordered". "Ok Goldman, give me 5 million dollars/year and a Lear jet or I leak how you knew about the housing collapse and fed into it" He very well could have information right now that could upset major governments and/or financial institutions, bankrupt huge corporations, and plunge the world into chaos/worse recession. With as somewhat unstable as he seems at times - do you really trust one man bouncing from country to country - living in hotel rooms - to make decisions to 'do the right thing' at all times?
These are all the exact same problems that news organizations have. They must fact check, and release information in a way that promotes truth in our organizations without destroying the very things we need to survive in a modern world. He has none of these burdens.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd agree with you, except Assange doesn't have some intrinsic power to information. His "power" is that he's trusted to release this information with the wides disbursal. The moment he develops the appearance if cherry picking, he loses that power and whistleblowers will use other outlets.
Article is missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The article misses the point of the premise for more government transparency. The main idea is that the more damage a particular entity can do, the more transparency there should be. If a government can decide whom to kill, there should be a full disclosure of the protocol and a way to correct any errors. If such entity is an organization (say that supplies drinking water), there should be an equal transparency for the same reason that any misstep can do a lot of harm.
This universal principle does not get limited to a case of government vs. citizens. For example, if we as people grant special powers to a policeman to detain anyone while on the job, there should be rigorous checks and disclosures in place at the time when that policeman has those special powers. On the other hand, when he goes home and has no such privileges, his privacy should be protected just as anyone’s else.
Wikileaks is not about disclosing “everything about everyone,” but rather about preventing the abuse of power, which is very much a basic requirement for a healthy and just society.
Let's symbolically punch this Blog in the face. (Score:3)
On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'
Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.
I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?
I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.
Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.
Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.
The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'
Back in the day we used to have investigative journalists. We didn't get to know what color underwear Walter Cronkite war, or whether Dan Rather burped after a big meal -- somehow we trudged on.
I did not realize that when I went to WikiLeaks to get some INFORMATION I should know as part of a transparent Democracy (because otherwise, how am I an informed citizen?) -- that I was being "slavish". I'm surprised I'm also not part of a cult and heralding Assange as the next Jesus -- isn't that how these straw man arguments go?
I don't give a rats ass about Julian Assange -- he has no real power in this world to abuse. He is beside the point.
Al Gore can make a speech about global warming -- and the environment will change based on science in action -- not whether Al Gore has integrity, or we should worship him. He could be a crook -- it doesn't matter. He's been telling the truth AFAIK, but we don't "sink or swim" on sea level rise based on the messenger.
Screw everyone who thinks that we have to hold people accountable for bringing us information. Debate the damn information -- or shut the fuck up. Anyone who wants to conflate the purpose of WikiLeaks with some bedroom gazing of it's founder or maybe the Janitor can kiss my damn ass. That goes for any subject in the future; debate the science, debate the value, debate the information. You debate the "personality" and we know you are an a-hole.
The "begging of the question" here truly pisses me off.
Julian Assange had/has plenty of power. He knows and has information. Information that he has is powerful if it's the kind which can put lives at risk.
The point is that Julian Assange is ultimately just a man. All men get corrupted over time just like all men age over time.
An errand boy (Score:2)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:2)
However, mind that what you want to watch is the Wikileaks organization, not the Wikileaks leader, for openness.
For instant Godwinization, if what you are worried about is the SS, why are you worried about whether Himmler wears boxers or briefs? (Or whether he beds his wife vs unmarried women of loose morals?)
Re: (Score:2)
WikiLeaks is a private organization. They can be as secretive as they want. They're not governments. Or do all you people who demand government transparency broadcast every little aspect of your private lives?
I think too many people miss this point. Corporations are not people and can be regulated, and there's a lot of credibility in the idea that both corporations and people have different, but substantial, rights to privacy.
Governments might have a need to keep secrets in order to function well, but they don't have the right to keep secrets. (I mean, they have given themselves the right, but that doesn't make it "right".)
Governments must be accountable to the people they serve, and to the greater world.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the most important thing is to recognize the fact that Assange != WikiLeaks. I for one believe strongly in the latter but not the former. The real work has been done by other people - he's just what media (and some others) mistake for the same thing.