TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 126 to 143 of 143

Thread: Julian Assange's Arrest and the Repurcusions for Whistle blowers

  1. #126
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    An extradition case has started up.

    Link:
    https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...g-bail-in-2012

  2. #127
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The US filed espionage charges against Assange: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48391266

    Unlike the hacking charge, this is a direct shot at the first amendment.

    Also, meanwhile, Sweden has reopened the rape case against Assange: https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...julian-assange

  3. #128
    How on earth do you justify a hacking charge?

    It's patent bullshit because everything we know indicates that Wikileaks has not hacked anything, anywhere. They merely platformed hackers and published information obtained by hacking. That's not a crime to publish that information with the exception of stolen PII.

  4. #129
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I believe the Democrats want to indict him as a co-conspirator of both the DNC hack, and Chelsea Manning's little shindig. In other words, they believe he didn't act as a neutral repository, merely hosting the information provided him, but as an active participant in both of these crimes.

  5. #130
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Assange allegedly cracked a password hash for Manning. That's where the hacking charge comes from.

  6. #131
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2011
    Location: Ferrol - Spain
    Glad to know that that bitch has been finally arrested.
    One less idiot to please many evil-ignorant morons like him.

  7. #132
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    The US filed espionage charges against Assange: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48391266

    Unlike the hacking charge, this is a direct shot at the first amendment.
    Thank you. Can you help me explain this to Tony because he totally doesn't get it?

  8. #133
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    The charge justifications against Assange, used similarly could be used against upload storage sites for hosting pirated content, even though they themselves did not pirate it.

  9. #134
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    How on earth do you justify a hacking charge?
    Ask your current administration that. Obama's eventually opted not to charge him, after a long deliberation.

  10. #135
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    The charge justifications against Assange, used similarly could be used against upload storage sites for hosting pirated content, even though they themselves did not pirate it.
    It's different because upload sites don't directly control what their users upload and make public. Suppose one of their users uploaded an archive of US classified information and the site was ordered to take it down. If they refused, they would be charged. If they complied, they presumably would not. Wikileaks is not an upload site. They work with leakers to obtain material and choose what to post.

  11. #136
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Aren't the methods the same for all investigative journalists? Isn't that, and the 1st, going to be what this hinges on?

  12. #137
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Which as the thread topic says, opens the door to higher risks for whistle blowers.

  13. #138
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    What's interesting is that there has never been more internal leaks from the US government than what's happening right now under Trump's administration. Most US agencies have a rogue Twitter account where they're leaking information, and a lot of leaks have been making their way into the newspapers. There's also whisleblower friendly case law like the Pentagon Paper's Supreme Court decision.

    I haven't looked at the new charges against Assange in depth. It looks like one of them is conspiring with Manning for the actual taking of the data, and Manning has already been convicted of that of course. At least a claim like that would turn on the extent which Assange's cooperation amounts to conspiracy with the charge Manning was already found guilty of, which any future court can just inherit as a matter of law.

    It's a mixed bag for whistleblowing in the US. I think if one is going to do it, they're much better leaking it through the NYTimes or WaPo than an outside entity like Assange. Go with an outlet that has better resources, expertise, a good reputation, and a successful history of actually protecting their sources. That's my advice.

  14. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Ask your current administration that. Obama's eventually opted not to charge him, after a long deliberation.
    I didn’t vote for Trump. If that was your best shot you aren’t nearly as intelligent as you think you are.

    If you go back to 2015 I specifically stated that I found his views on policing and “war on terror” policies abhorrent while noting that they’re also the same as everyone else in DC. During the debates him and Hillary spent most of their time trying to out do each other in agreement on these issues.


    ****

    Also, leaking to WaPo or NYT is RETARDED. You have their reporters openly bragging on Twitter about tattling on leakers and they’ve been caught multiple times collaborating directly with US agencies to help those agencies disseminate the ideas they want put out. Plenty more reasons why but those are the two that come to mind.

    Besides which Snowden didn’t go to WikiLeaks first. He went to the Guardian. I’m

    It’s a safe bet that NYT wouldn’t have any interest. After all the domestic spying program (and other things like Harvey) were well known and major papers declined to report on them. Hell I warned this was happening well ahead of the leak and most of you guys just insisted I was watching too much Alex Jones. If I knew I guaran-damn-tee the major media outlets knew.


    That’s the equivalent of going to the police to complain about police corruption.

    the kicker:
    Manning was actually exposed by a mainstream reporter. Wikileaks did successfuly protect Manning’s Identity. Manning confessed what he’d done to a reporter from the stress of that and the reporter immediately ran to sell him out.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 4th Jun 2019 at 08:00.

  15. #140
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    WaPo and NYT know how to protect their sources, as opposed to amateurs like The Intercept. As for their reporters "tattling on leakers", at this point I can pretty confidently just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about, either by misreading something or by misrepresenting something, as you have consistently proved time and time again.

    And as for the supposed kicker, Manning was actually exposed by a hacker and a self-described friend of Wikileaks, not a mainstream journalist. How many mainstream journalists do you know who hack into the NYT? And you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.

  16. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    WaPo and NYT know how to protect their sources, as opposed to amateurs like The Intercept. As for their reporters "tattling on leakers", at this point I can pretty confidently just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about, either by misreading something or by misrepresenting something, as you have consistently proved time and time again.

    And as for the supposed kicker, Manning was actually exposed by a hacker and a self-described friend of Wikileaks, not a mainstream journalist. How many mainstream journalists do you know who hack into the NYT? And you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.

    The person is a hacker/reporter.

    Also that WaPo/NYT "know how to protect their sources" is irrelevant if they also lack the inclination to do so.

    As for me "not knowing what I"m talking about".

    Wrong. Just because you're not informed enough to be familiar with the topic I'm referencing doesn't mean I "don't know what I"m talking about". Part of why I post the way I do is because I enjoy baiting you into exactly what's happening here where you insist I don't actually know what I"m talking about then flip it to show that it's actually you who is completely uninformed.


    I present to you: A journalist bragged about turning her source into the FBI voluntarily and pre-emptively: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/statu...62129352306688

    Washington Post's Margaret Sullivan later chimed in supporting this action.


    This also isn't new. Multiple times we were warned by people like former NSA analysts that they were conducting mass, warrantless, domestic surveillance and those sources you had mentioned displayed a complete lack of interest in the story. Those same mainstream "journalist" outlets also repeatedly refused to cover information damaging to the official narrative that the Iraq war was a great success.

    Given the pattern of previous behavior it's entirely rational for both Snowden and Manning to have gone to non-corporate news outlets. If their past behavior was any indication they would most likely have refused to even run the story.


    [quoteAnd you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.[/quote]

    The person being on the donor list doesn't somehow mean "Wikileaks failed to protect their source". Manning, who already suffered mental health issues, both initiated contact and revealed their identity themselves. No security breach occurred on Wikileak's part. Snowden on the other hand knew the gig would be up instantly because the NSA would be able to identify him trivially regardless of any security on the publication's part and left prior to that happening. He also was willing to step forward publicly and not trying to hide his identity.

  17. #142
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Hacker/reporter my ass. The fact that you're going so far to twist someone who was essentially a homeless hacker into a "mainstream journalist" is telling. Pray tell, which mainstream newspapers did he report for? Show me his news articles? What university did he have his journalism degree from?

    I never said anything about Wikileaks failing to protect their source. That was simply to show that this person was as far from being a "mainstream journalist" as it can get.

    And you have proven time and time again that you don't know what you're talking about. That (so predictable) Glenn Greenwald tweet shows that as well. You have no idea about the circumstances, but if it supports your ideological viewpoint that mainstream journalists are bad people you're just willing to swallow it no questions asked. Journalists have no obligation to protect criminals, even if they are sources. Rather, if they think a crime is being committed, they have an obligation to report it.

    WaPo and NYT have a far better record of protecting their sources than the publication Glenn Greenwald works for.
    Last edited by Starker; 6th Jun 2019 at 01:19.

  18. #143
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    In related news, over the past few days the federal police (in Australia) have raided media companies in search of who was the leak behind a news story, which contained details on government secrets back in 2017. There has been big complaints about the raids, that it is an attack on press freedom and should not be happening in a democracy. I completely agree. The head of the police responded that even the media is not above the law, and the secrets released threatened national security.

    So its not just the U.S who have been cracking down on whistleblowers.
    Last edited by icemann; 6th Jun 2019 at 05:10.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •