Julian Assange Charged in Superseding Indictment (justice.gov) 229
A federal grand jury returned a second superseding indictment today charging Julian P. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, with offenses that relate to Assange's alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States. DOJ, in a press release: The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged. According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks. Since the early days of WikiLeaks, Assange has spoken at hacking conferences to tout his own history as a "famous teenage hacker in Australia" and to encourage others to hack to obtain information for WikiLeaks. In 2009, for instance, Assange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting "a small vulnerability" inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, and then asserted that "[t]his is what any one of you would find if you were actually looking."
In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked materials would be from the CIA, NSA, or the New York Times. WikiLeaks obtained and published emails from a data breach committed against an American intelligence consulting company by an "Anonymous" and LulzSec-affiliated hacker. According to that hacker, Assange indirectly asked him to spam that victim company again.
What obligation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
About as much obligation that a Slashdotter has to RTFS.
The new indictment does not add additional counts to the prior 18-count superseding indictment returned against Assange in May 2019. It does, however, broaden the scope of the conspiracy surrounding alleged computer intrusions with which Assange was previously charged. According to the charging document, Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited and agreed with hackers to commit computer intrusions to benefit WikiLeaks.
That's a crime in the US regardless of your nationality. If the US is somehow able to take you into custody, this sort of crime will get you convicted.
We decided long ago that even US citizens on US soil can legally publish stolen classified documents [wikipedia.org]. But actively being part of the conspiracy to steal the documents, that is a very different thing.
Assange and others at WikiLeaks recruited (Score:2)
It's the recruiting and soliciting specific information that makes him prosecutable. If WikiLeaks had stuck with just passively receiving information that it would (arguably) be a Press within the meaning of the 1st Amendment. But recruiting people to hack on its behalf and asking specific people for specific information crosses over into espionage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the Internet is a global phenomenon. The USA doesn't get to regulate it or act like its owner..
Re: (Score:2)
Only in retrospect, and only once in US federal custody.
No and Yes (Score:3)
Re:What obligation (Score:4, Interesting)
If a citizen of the U.S. mails evidence that the U.S. government is using bombs on civilians to a non-citizen in another country, is it a crime?
Bonus points if you notice there's not just one entity that may have acted criminally.
localtion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is location of his actions relevant? (and in the internet era how one defines "location")?
By law of what country then?
Say can Iran extradite all these that publish against them?
Re: (Score:2)
Is location of his actions relevant?
For most laws, yes.
(and in the internet era how one defines "location")?
Physical, otherwise we'd all be subject to all laws. This is also why extradition normally requires the illegal act to be illegal in both countries.
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases the location of the system being accessed matters.
Re:localtion? (Score:5, Interesting)
No thy cannot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. There can be two criminal acts; one in a national government committing some offense, either against domestic law or against international law (whatever that might be and however it might be interpreted), and a citizen of that nation communicating with foreign powers or agents of foreign powers. The latter is pretty much the classical textbook definition of treason.
It's quite a catch 22. Take someone like Snowden. Sure, he found evidence of malfeasance by the US Government. What were his choices?
Re: (Score:2)
"Sure, he found evidence of malfeasance by the US Government. What were his choices? Go to his Congressman? Inform someone else in the US government?"
YES. Or any US-based media. I mean he couldn't find one that would run with it? Half our government is at the other's throats constantly, and that's really oversimplified. If you can't find someone IN our country willing to stab everyone else in the back, you didn't try. Period. That's why it's so easy, he crossed the line and is a traitor. Clear and si
Re:What obligation (Score:5, Insightful)
Assange is only under fire for exposing US atrocities. I don't know if he has any ideology other than to expose government corruption. Governments don't like it when you expose their secrets.
Re: (Score:3)
Assange is only under fire for exposing US atrocities. I don't know if he has any ideology other than to expose government corruption. Governments don't like it when you expose their secrets.
If Batman's fighting crime all on one side of the city, that's nice and all, but we've got to wonder if someone on the other side has a leash on him. "But he's fighting crime" only goes so far...
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a "better analogy," it is an analogy for something that didn't happen.
He's accused of recruiting people and helping them plan to get access and leak the stuff. Before it was leaked.
The accusations are about events that happened before anything was leaked.
If somebody helped to steal something, no, mailing it between conspirators does not in any way make their earlier actions disappear. Imagine a bank robber mailing the money somewhere; does it matter at all to the situation that it is normally legal
Re:What obligation (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether the documents were classified or not is irrelevant. He never agreed to protect US classified information in the course of any duty with the US government.
Re: (Score:3)
If he broke into a computer network, that's one thing. But if he received this information from a third-party in the course of his involvement with Wikileaks (a media outlet), he should be afforded the same protections as the media outlets that published the Vietnam and Watergate documents. His likeability doesn't factor into this equation.
It's too bad he bragged about breaking into computer networks then. From the fine summary:
Asange told the Hacking At Random conference that WikiLeaks had obtained nonpublic documents from the Congressional Research Service by exploiting "a small vulnerability" inside the document distribution system of the United States Congress, [...] In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs.
So that's unathorized access and probably conspiracy right there. I mean maybe he didn't actually do it, but that's another question. Journalism should absolutely be protected but it looks like he got his hands dirty, and then got caught.
Re:What obligation (Score:5, Informative)
There are three issues here.
1. Is publishing classified documents illegal? Yes it is. Doesn't matter if you do it because you think it's right or do it for profit. Illegal.
No, it is not. Stealing them is illegal, publishing them is not. Assange here is charged because accused of being part of the conspiracy to steal them, not for their publication (btw RTFA). That said, obviously the charges are bogus, the establishment just wants to deter people to exert their rights of free press and free speech by accusing them on a false basis.
Re: (Score:2)
It absolutely [wikipedia.org] is illegal [cornell.edu].
Re:What obligation (Score:4, Informative)
US code applies only to US citizens in the USA, so no it's not illegal. Learn to read. Fucking Seppos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure. Hence, my comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus one.
Jusus, ther are some dumm assholes on this forum now,
Slashdot. can we have an IQ question required bofoe posting so we can lose these trump/flat earth/didn't-lad-on-moon supporters?
Re: (Score:3)
Just ban every SID# over six digits.
Re: (Score:2)
"Phew!"
Another 100K and some on my SID# and I wouldn't be able to post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stated this in my original comment:
"3. Does this apply to a non-citizen in a foreign country? That I'm not sure of."
Is there some precedent here that I don't know about? Please enlighten us. They're extraditing Assange for a reason. It's not so he can just walk out of court a free man.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the precedent you're looking for is "the bully makes the rules, and they are always situational."
This has nothing to do with the law.
It's about Boris showing fealty to the USA Hegemony.
Christ, can you believe we're in the middle of an international incident that the guy named Boris isn't even a Russian? What a fucking time to be alive.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's not so he can just walk out of court a free man.
I ask them same question about trump every day
Re: (Score:2)
So is flag burning [cornell.edu], but that doesn't make it constitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, actually it does. Twisted and backwards? Yup. But still freedom of expression. Troops fight for the democracy the flag is supposed to represent, including the absolute denial of the government to infringe on the authority of The People to tell it what to do by keeping us uninformed. The flag itself is just a rectangle of synthetic fiber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What obligation (Score:5, Informative)
It absolutely [wikipedia.org] is illegal [cornell.edu].
Is that so? Because the last time this was litigated before the Supreme Court [wikipedia.org], it didn't go the way you say it "absolutely" should have gone.
Re: (Score:2)
It absolutely [wikipedia.org] is illegal [cornell.edu].
Does the US code apply to non-US persons?
And by extension, does any country's law corpus apply globally?
I guess what I am asking is whether western journalists reporting on these subjects [archive.org] should be extradited to China to stand trial for their illegal actions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> 1. Is publishing classified documents illegal? Yes it is. Doesn't matter if you do it because you think it's right or do it for profit. Illegal.
No it is not. The most respected US media sources do it all the time.
> 2. Does this apply to a non-citizen? Yes, it does.
No. It does not even apply to citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that cut and dry. The Pentagon Papers cases did not give press free and unfettered rights to publish classified material, but rather added barriers to prior restraint of speech.
Re: (Score:2)
None of this academic-sounding logic matters.
Since World War II, Western governments have been supporting the prosecution, persecution or execution of foreign nationals for actions considered contrary to their present foreign policy aims.
One of the earliest examples is the execution of Reinhard Heydrich in Czechoslovakia. The UK gave away the Sudetenland to the Nazis in the Munich Agreement in 1938, but then turned around and provided training and resources for the assassination of Heydrich in 1942.
You mi
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately might is right. You can do whatever you want if you can prevent anyone else from stopping you or enacting any retribution. Similarly, it's why police officers can get away with excessive force, and no one is able to do anything about it. It's why they can be killing someone in the the street, but anyone else getting involved is risking their lives, or at the very least, jail and several serious charges.
Re: (Score:2)
But at the same time, what gave the British the moral authority to kill a foreign national
The fact that they were, at that point, at war with the nation of said foreign national, and the foreign national in question was part of that nation's military forces?
as legally justifiable as shooting POWs.
I know wikipedia has its accuracy issues, but here's what it says about the action in question:
On 27 May 1942, Heydrich planned to meet Hitler in Berlin. German documents suggest that Hitler intended to transfer him to German-occupied France where the French resistance was gaining ground.[121] Heydrich would have to pass a section where the Dresden-Prague road merges with a road to the Troja Bridge. The junction in the Prague suburb of Libe was well suited for the attack because motorists have to slow for a hairpin bend. As Heydrich's car slowed, Gabík took aim with a Sten submachine gun, but it jammed and failed to fire. Heydrich ordered his driver, Klein, to halt and attempted to confront Gabík rather than speed away. Kubi, who wasn't spotted by Heydrich or Klein, threw a converted anti-tank mine at the car as it stopped, landing against the rear wheel. The explosion ripped through the right rear fender and wounded Heydrich, with metal fragments and fibres from the upholstery causing serious damage to his left side. He suffered major injuries to his diaphragm, spleen, and one lung, as well as a broken rib. Kubi received a minor shrapnel wound to his face.[122][123] After Kubi fled, Heydrich ordered Klein to chase Gabík on foot, and Gabík shot Klein in the leg, before escaping himself.[124][125]
So no, not really at all equivalent to shooting POWs. Dude was a legitimate target of war who was killed "lawfully" such as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Assassinating foreign nationals is not a legal act of war.
Reinhard Heydrich was not a member of the military forces of Germany. He was the Deputy Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, and the head of Reich Main Security office, both of which are basically civilian posts, not military.
Further, Gabik and Kubi were not legal combatants as they were not wearing the military uniform of a country engaged in war with Nazi Germany. They were basically spies on an assassination operation, and can claim none of the pro
Re: (Score:2)
"1. Is publishing classified documents illegal? Yes it is. Doesn't matter if you do it because you think it's right or do it for profit. Illegal."
False. In the US at least there is a higher law which preempts even an act of congress, the first amendment. If the government we suffer to serve us keeps failing to remember that we may need to remind them of another power we reserved in the 2nd Amendment and when they collude with our courts and ignore that it will be time to use our right to nullify their laws
Re: (Score:2)
3. Does this apply to a non-citizen in a foreign country? That I'm not sure of.
Might makes right. If the US says it applies, then it applies, and that's that. It doesn't mean they are correct, but you and which army are going to stop them?
Re: (Score:2)
does a non-US citizen have to safeguard US classified information?
If a non-citizen in another country mails a bomb to someone in the U.S., is it a crime?
Completely different situation. Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely different situation. Obviously.
How so? Everyone here is arguing that U.S. laws don't apply to non-citizens in other countries.
That one certainly would.
Re: (Score:2)
>>does a non-US citizen have to safeguard US classified information?
>>If a non-citizen in another country mails a bomb to someone in the U.S., is it a crime?
Are apples better than oranges?
You sir are an idoit
NSA enemies of all of humanity: Still free. (Score:2)
This is insanely fucked up, and every disgusting abomination of a creature that cheers for this, must be, in the friendliest manner, ejected off this planet to their rotten smelly planet of unhuman psychopath degenerates.
Sabu? (Score:2)
Why is the NSA trying to claim they have a case against Assange through the use of someone like Sabu (and who not mention him by name), when they already arrested him for being a fraud?
You'd think if the government was dealing with such criminal elements they could get their investigators (and CI's) to avoid criminal acts.
Manning barely got a slap on the wrist (Score:3, Informative)
Manning is an actual criminal. Not only a US citizen, but enlisted in the US Armed Forces, and held a top-secret clearance. Manning completely betrayed the US, a bona-fide traitor.
Assange, by contrast, is not a US citizen. All he did was publish leaked information. The most respected US media sources do that all the time. Assange has already been punished, with essentially 7 years of incarceration.
Re:Manning barely got a slap on the wrist (Score:5, Informative)
Manning completely betrayed the US, a bona-fide traitor.
As defined in the US constitution, treason means "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". Manning was charged with "aiding the enemy", but was acquitted of that charge, meaning Manning is not, per US law, a traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fairly obvious to me that he's some kind of mentally ill. Before anyone leaps on me, I have clarify that this has nothing to do with his transgender status. His work history showed serious problems, which included documented cases of him throwing furniture at his supervisors. The people responsible for the Manning dumpster fire are the ones who let him keep his TS clearance after is became dreadfully in-you-face obvious that he w
Re: (Score:2)
Assange has already been punished
Self inflicting punishment is not a recognised form of punishment in the eyes of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
All he did was publish leaked information. The most respected US media sources do that all the time.
Publishing leaked materials is both legal and protected, as it should be. Leaking information, however—whether you're conspiring, coercing, soliciting, or actively participating—is oftentimes illegal, regardless of whether you intend to publish it. The distinction is important, and he's being accused of the latter.
When we taught whistleblowing in ethics, we always stressed that it should not be treated lightly, because whistleblowing oftentimes means throwing away both your career and freedom b
Re: (Score:2)
I would disagree with regard to manning if there was any credible reason to believe he leaked the information in some effort to make the US Govt accountable to the US Citizens they are supposed to represent and answer to. But that doesn't really seem to be the case. I do believe Manning was mentally ill but I don't believe that exonerates him.
Re: (Score:2)
Manning did the right thing but he did it as arguably mentally ill sour grapes not to expose torture, murder, etc.
So is it official now (Score:3, Insightful)
that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process? I remember people here claiming here that the accusations were actually valid. Looks like we can now all agree this people were wrong but did Sweden openly admin to being US lapdog or are they still pretending that's not the case?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Women. But I believe MENDAX more.
Re: (Score:3)
You've come to this conclusion, based on what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
There never having been any sort of basis for the accusation other than a bribe and once brought in custody successfully the immediate political persecution alleged by Assange and crazy conspiracy theorists officially engaged?
Re: (Score:3)
that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process?
What makes you say that? The USA clearly was waiting for an arrest in any case to start an extradition process, and if anything it's success in the UK is a clear indication that Sweden and the rape allegation was completely irrelevant to this process. Incidentally it's far harder to get extradited from Sweden than the UK, and a known douche-bag (what you think of the case is quite irrelevant to this douche-bag's personality) standing trial for one crime does not magically absolve him from having committed a
Re: (Score:3)
that the rape accusation was only there to arrest him and start the extradition process?
What makes you say that?
He asks because he decided that was the story he wanted to read already, in the past, and now he's wondering if his hairbrained prognostications have come true yet, since he's was so obviously feeling righteous when he said it. And everybody knows when you really feel right, you're right.
So now he's still asking. There is either evidence that his prognostication was righteous, or there is propaganda and lies. Nothing falls through the cracks, so there is no reason to introduce other possible explanations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden I believe at some point actually dropped their request. The UK was pedantically holding him on the basis he "jumped bail" by seeking asylum in the embassy. Punishing someone for seeking asylum from political persecution in an allies sovereign embassy seems like it should be some kind of treaty violation but apparently it isn't.
Trustworthy Charges? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the recent spate of revelations regarding the corruption of the US DOJ and the FBI regarding falsifications, coersion, and dirty trials (Russian collusion, Flynn, Stone,) one has to wonder about the veracity of claims against Assange.
Totally BS (Score:3)
Re: How times change! (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when Saddam Hussein was the USA's pupp..err, I mean, friend and ally in the region?
The second he stopped obeying even once, he became "the new Hitler".
Remember when Iran was our biggest ally, and we turned their army into the world's third biggest, "as a stronghold against the Soviets"?
Then they democratically elected admittedly nutjobs but still superseded by the evilness of the previous US puppet nutjobs, and that is how they became "evil" (religious nuttery never bothered the US. See: Saudi Arabia) and how Saddam got the ticket in the first place.
Remember how Germany is called part of the axis of evil, whenever they do not obey the US like a vassal state?
I remember.
And for the record: Snowden and Assange and Manning are still heroes. To everyone but utterly evil complete nutjobs. (Whose side you seem to have chosen, but I would be willing to see that as a temporary lapse.)
Yeah, it's good that the US is in the process of coming apart. I have hopes that the emerging new US will be quite the nice place. But sometimes it takes a thunderstorm, to get some fresh air.
Re: (Score:2)
Saddam Hussein was an enemy of our enemy, not a friend. Iraq was more a friend of the Soviets (going back to the Soviet arming and financing of Arab nations as a counterpoint to US arming and financing of Israel). Iran was seen as the real enemy, and Iraq's invasion was seen as having potential to rein in or maybe (long shot) overthrow the ayatollahs without US forces getting directly involved, which would have complicated the area even further given that it was in Moscow's sphere of influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Saddam Hussein was an enemy of our enemy, not a friend.
The US sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons to kill Iranian civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
That is false. Declassified documents revealed the US (at least the CIA) knew about the chemical attacks against Iran and didn't withdraw support but the US did not provide the chemical weapons he was using.
Re: How times change! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not incorrect but it is also deceptive bullshit. Delivering the actual weapons is the only thing the US did not do. All the other forms of assistance and cover were there, including obstruction in the UN so Iranian claims about CW would not be investigated, and obstruction ofn investigation of Halabja(even saying the Iranians did that.)
All the later accusations of Iraqi use of CW omit the fact that Iraq only used them as long as the US condoned it and covered it up. The Iranians on the other hand, on principle decided they would not use CW and stuck to that. An action which is still so alien to US mindset that it still has not been understood.
Re: (Score:3)
>Then they democratically elected admittedly nutjobs
Like america did?
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Define hero/Standing by while shit goes on is not the rational definition of hero. The correct term would be "coward"
Re: (Score:3)
Snowden and Assange coordinated to reveal active treason against the people of the United States by their own intelligence agencies. Assange has helped reveal a number of other things including corruption and election interference within a major political party and billions in good old fashioned tax dodging in the Panama papers.
I'm sorry, those aren't dupes. They are heroes. Being thrown under the bus was the price but we can still recognize their acts even if our corrupt former democracy doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
manning is a mentally unstable quack
That's what happens when you spend years in jail for doing the right thing. It's not just the blood of patriots, it's their sanity that gets sacrificed, providing ample justification to keep them locked up.
Re: How times change! (Score:5, Insightful)
Carefull, that is what happened to Manning after extremes of psychological abuse purposefully inflicted upon, in order to torture out of Manning, the testimony they wanted.
Note as the USA continues to change the extradition request, the UK government continue to keep Assange locked up, illegal by any countries laws. As each attempt fails to meet muster, they change it without releasing Assange. The intent is clear, the UK government intends that Assange dies in prison awaiting the ever changing US extradition case, years on. This after locking him up for jumping bail for a case that no longer exist, also illegal.
The UK government is clearly corrupt. The fully intent to keep Assange locked up for as long as possible as they fuck with bullshit extradition attempts ie until Assange dies in prison, with zero respect shown for the Australian people, their laws and their government. Assange should have been deported to Australia to face extradition there.
This just shows what kind of corrupt cunts are in the US and UK government and their willingness to abuse laws and justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Normal people put self preservation first and know to toe the line.
i guess that is an overstatement. But Manning is in jail now for refusing to snitch on Assange. That is an extremely moral position.
Re: How times change! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How times change! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you actually believe in freedom, democracy, and that government both incorporated and elected must account to the people... Assange and Snowden are still heros.
Some of us who aren't partisians haven't changed our views. We still just get lumped in with 'the other guys' at political stereotype time. But I will give you this, getting lumped in with 'the other guys' is roughly the same experience it always was when speaking to an R. Sometimes ideology wins, occasionally they'll consider a point slightly outside their comfort zone if you approach slowly with palms up. It used to be that way with the D's... actually they would have logical discourse more often if anything. Now they are total ideologues as well, quickly find some reason to hate and discount anything you say. There is no tolerance for failure to completely conform on that side anymore.
As an example, I suggested online organization might be the better path for black lives matter protesting and organization. There was no reason to think physical protesting accomplished more than organizing in other ways and that now especially the streets are a tinderbox. I was defriended by an actual meatspace friend for suggesting that we go about fighting for the same objective with a slightly different method.
Re:How times change! (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on differences between Assange and Snowden is curation. Assange is under the assumption that all the information should be out there and let folks figure it out. Snowden released his information to publications who then cut away the useless bits and gave a well organized argument. Now there's pros and cons to each but getting into that is beside the point, at least for what you're arguing.
That is until something Assange did was seen as unfavorable to a politician with a D after her name instead of an R
I believe it had a lot less to do with the political party and a lot more to do with a few factors. One, information on the Rs was also obtained [thehill.com], but not released. The argument against it?
the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day
That's a bit rich. But more importantly, it flies in the face of the curation that Assange has typically taken. Let all the information be out there and let people decide. And that's not an isolated event. Several times when it came to the GOP Assange took the stance that it was better for events to unfold rather than add to the discourse. But did not take that same stance with Democrats.
However, the D or the R is unimportant. At least to me. It's the inconsistent rationale that Assange kept giving. If you're a person who wants the floods of information to bathe over the masses, then you ought to stick to it. Just plain and simple as that. Be consistent.
Funny how Assange was always the same person
The way Assange is, and I concur some folks might not agree with me, it's a hard take to take him serious. The flood waters of information isn't a good way to put information out there. Not all information is important, in fact most of it isn't. That's why curation is important. We all know that there were thousands of emails from the Clinton leak, but like 200 of them were a CC going around of a recipe. Why is that even important? However, that still gives power to folks indicating "Clinton leaked XYZ thousands of emails!!" Yeah, but like 90% of it was dumb crap like, "Hey Bob, is the meeting still on today?" and the REs and CCs that followed that one email. The vast majority of emails that got leaked were noise, or that one recipe. However, you don't hear people say "Clinton leaked XYZ thousands of emails, but 95% of them is just normal garbage that we're all accustom to in day-to-day office life." They just go for the more shock value. That's why curation is important. It removes that shock value statement, allows people to focus on the important things. Like all the Uranium One emails. Like ask someone in general what the buttery emails were about, and they'll shrug not really knowing. That's because the important part didn't get enough promotion.
That's always been my biggest beef with Assange. And that came to the forefront when he decided to take poorly to none at all curated information from Russian operatives [newyorker.com] and paste them on his website and let the public do what they want with it. Assange would say, "That helps the public" but I would indicate that it didn't. Much of the release was already politically tainted, so he flooded the public with politically tainted information. Granted, he didn't do any of the taint. But a proper vetting of the information would have checked that flood the fields with a political taint. And when Assange got popular, that's when better organized people began using him more as a tool and less as a source. Heck, even you indicated that when Assange is helping the "D" no one bites, b
Re: (Score:3)
There are differences between Assange and Snowden. Snowden's choices were based on loyalty to the overall system. Assange is motivated by shifting the power balance from the power centers back (a little bit) towards the population, while the general shift is going in the other direction.
For the rest you're just psychologizing and rationalizing that whatever happens to Assange he somehow did bring onto himself.
You're doing that because the power has shifted so much that if some people decide that Wikileaks s
Re: (Score:3)
Remember when Assange & Snowden were held up to be our saviors when it looked like they were fighting Hitler -- oh I mean "old" Hitler (Bush)?
Not really, Assange was always a problematic figure, though not nearly as much as he became later.
Remember when Russia was a great defender of Freedom by keeping Snowden away from those evil evil federal agencies
I definitely don't remember that. No one ever thought that Russia was a defender of freedom for harbouring Snowden, they just figured Russia was powerful enough to shelter Snowden as a middle finger to the US.
(funny how they became pure as snow the instant that Trump stopped blindly following them and when mid-level unelected bureaucrats decided that democracy didn't apply to them by becoming "whistleblowers")
... I'm actually not sure what this even means.
Remember when Assange was a hero in exile surrounded by hostile Bush-toadies?
Ahh.. those were the days.
That is until something Assange did was seen as unfavorable to a politician with a D after her name instead of an R. At that point Assange went from Messiah to Nazi overnight. Funny how Assange was always the same person -- and never a magical messiah or as evil as he is made out to be now -- but his sins didn't exist as long as the perception was that he was out to get those nazi-Republicans and help those pure Democrats but literally the instant he "spoke truth to power" by not toeing the line for Hillary Clinton it's amusing how his worshipers on sites like this turned on him in a way that would make Orwell cringe.
Actually the 2016 Assange was markedly different. Prior to that Wikileaks seemed to largely be about hosting (and orchestrating) leaks, problematic but a litt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Russia was a great defender of Freedom by keeping Snowden away from those evil evil federal agencies
No, that was never a thing.
Re: How times change! (Score:2)
Re:He was and is a reporter (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sorry, but intentionally spreading data that has been corrupted by an aggressive intelligence agency that is working to subvert Western governments is not 'reporting'
Re:He was and is a reporter (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry but the most respected US media sources publish leaked information all the time. It has always been completely legal.
Re:He was and is a reporter (Score:5, Insightful)
It is journalism, but it is bad journalism. Wikileaks is a publisher and Julian Assange is a journalist and as such, both should be afforded all the protections of the press under US law. Political journalism is hard. Practically every source is lying to a degree, and every leak is a ploy by someone. Figuring out what is real, who to trust, and what the facts really are is the job of the journalist. And Julian Assange is a terrible journalist.
Look at what happened during his first big scoop [wikipedia.org]. He trusted Adrian Lamo [wikipedia.org] of all people and got his source busted. The kid is a hack, a clown, a showman, and a lousy journalist.
TFS makes it sound like he is also a criminal in my opinion. Two-bit wannabe hacker shoots off mouth and foot in the process. He is causing the wrecks so he can chase the ambulances and gather evidence of racism in the EMS department so he can bust the real bad guys on his website. H4X0rZ!
But he still gets the protection of the 1st amendment. EVERYONE does.
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't watch the Mainstream Media at all, huh? Good on you.
Re: (Score:3)
lolwut?
This has been widely reported, what rock have you been hiding under?
from vox.com
Julian Assange insists, against all evidence, that the hacked Democratic emails WikiLeaks published didn't come from Russian intelligence services. “Our source is not the Russian government,” he said in a Tuesday interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity.
This is a touch hard to believe. Publicly available evidence, including unique code and Russian writing in the hacked documents themselves, links the docum
Re: (Score:2)
His source was Roger Stone. Stone got the c4k3 from Guccifer but couldn't use it qua the campaign so he recruited Assange to drop the leak.
Now they covering their tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Indeed, when it comes to Russia, Assange doesn’t have a ton of credibility."
Right since you can't defend against the content of the message you attack the credibility of the messenger.
Our candidate was actively raping a small boy in the street and Assange intervened to stop it hurting our party in the election. Clearly the key information is who told Assange about the rape in-progress!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a reading/comprehension problem?
>> Publicly available evidence, including unique code and Russian writing in the hacked documents themselves, links the document theft to Russian state-sponsored hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the guy you're replying to is ceding the argument on the provenance of the documents, but standing behind his "they were not tampered with" statement. Your response was to tell him he could not read and to question the provenance of the documents, while ignoring whether or not they were tampered with (your original thesis, "spreading data that has been corrupted"). At no point did he suggest the documents did not come from the Russians, you built a strawman to that effect.
I'd suggest the rea
Re: (Score:2)
In the quote provided, there was "Russian writing in the hacked documents themselves", which is a clear statement that the documents were tampered with
But, thanks for the opportunity to clarify that, I made a huge assumption that readers of Slashdot are capable of applying simple logic
you have demonstrated that is not always the case