WikiLeaks mass disclosure slammed by newspapers

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
78,154
Reaction score
13,208
Points
2,220
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange talks to members of the media in July. Newspapers, such as the New York Times slammed the group for its mass disclosure of uncensored cables Friday, saying the action could put sources at risk. (Lefteris Pitarakis/AP)
WikiLeaks disclosed its entire archive of U.S. State Department cables Friday, much if not all of it uncensored — a move that drew stinging condemnation from major newspapers who in the past collaborated with the anti-secrecy group's efforts to expose corruption and double-dealing.

Identification of dissidents

But now many, and possibly even all, of the cables posted to the WikiLeaks website carried unredacted names, making it easy to identify dissidents in authoritarian countries such as Russia, China or Myanmar.

WikiLeaks staff members have not returned repeated requests for comment sent in the past two days. But in a series of messages on Twitter, the group seemed to suggest that it had no choice but to publish the archive because copies of the document were already circulating online following a security breach.
Amid the latest controversy, the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders said it had temporarily suspended its WikiLeaks "mirror site." Such sites act as carbon-copies of their originals, relieving pressure due to heavy traffic and preserving data in case of attack.
WikiLeaks mass disclosure slammed by newspapers - World - CBC News
 
OP
Ropey

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
78,154
Reaction score
13,208
Points
2,220
For sharing the truth on worldwide crooks running nations? I guess some people just prefer suppression of knowledge and uninformed societies for easy manipulation.
For theft of government information.... that's espionage. And that is a crime. And Assange is not a journalist. Get over it. The guy is as big a crook as those he claims to expose.
The United States' Government is a government Of The People, For The People and By The People. The Government belongs to the People, along with everything associated with it, including the information it transmits and receives. The only qualified exception is that information which is classified for a valid reason. Thus far it has not been shown that anything revealed by WikiLeaks has had or could have a damaging effect.

The problem rests with that category of brainwashed, narrow-minded, mean-spirited and authoritarian/submissive Americans, of which you are an eminent example, who believe that assigning the "classified" category to an item imparts a sacred status to it regardless of its content. But it doesn't.

That word has special importance during wartime but government has hijacked that importance and applied it to anything and everything it doesn't want the People to know about. It has in fact emerged as the bedrock of what has become an indordinately secretive govermnent -- even under Obama, the "transparency" president.

Keeping the American People in the dark is ultimately more harmful than any potentially harmful effect WikiLeak's revelations might have.
So, where's Mikek now?

Come out and speak your piece about this new event.

The End of WikiLeaks As We Know It
This incident is unfortunate in the extreme for multiple reasons: it's possible that diplomatic sources identified in the cables (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) will be harmed; this will be used by enemies of transparency and WikiLeaks to disparage both and even fuel efforts to prosecute the group; it implicates a newspaper, The Guardian, that generally produces very good and responsible journalism; it likely increases political pressure to impose more severe punishment on Bradley Manning if he's found guilty of having leaked these cables; and it will completely obscure the already-ignored, important revelations of serious wrongdoing from these documents. It's a disaster from every angle.
Julian Assange Likely Arrest in Australia over Unredacted Cables | Media | guardian.co.uk

Reporters Without Borders suspends its WikiLeaks Mirror site - Reporters Without Borders

WikiLeaks Defector Slams Assange In Tell-All Book |A Major Threat Level | Wired.com

Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
For theft of government information.... that's espionage. And that is a crime. And Assange is not a journalist. Get over it. The guy is as big a crook as those he claims to expose.
The United States' Government is a government Of The People, For The People and By The People. The Government belongs to the People, along with everything associated with it, including the information it transmits and receives. The only qualified exception is that information which is classified for a valid reason. Thus far it has not been shown that anything revealed by WikiLeaks has had or could have a damaging effect.

The problem rests with that category of brainwashed, narrow-minded, mean-spirited and authoritarian/submissive Americans, of which you are an eminent example, who believe that assigning the "classified" category to an item imparts a sacred status to it regardless of its content. But it doesn't.

That word has special importance during wartime but government has hijacked that importance and applied it to anything and everything it doesn't want the People to know about. It has in fact emerged as the bedrock of what has become an indordinately secretive govermnent -- even under Obama, the "transparency" president.

Keeping the American People in the dark is ultimately more harmful than any potentially harmful effect WikiLeak's revelations might have.
So, where's Mikek now?

Come out and speak your piece about this new event.


This incident is unfortunate in the extreme for multiple reasons: it's possible that diplomatic sources identified in the cables (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) will be harmed; this will be used by enemies of transparency and WikiLeaks to disparage both and even fuel efforts to prosecute the group; it implicates a newspaper, The Guardian, that generally produces very good and responsible journalism; it likely increases political pressure to impose more severe punishment on Bradley Manning if he's found guilty of having leaked these cables; and it will completely obscure the already-ignored, important revelations of serious wrongdoing from these documents. It's a disaster from every angle.
Julian Assange Likely Arrest in Australia over Unredacted Cables | Media | guardian.co.uk

Reporters Without Borders suspends its WikiLeaks Mirror site - Reporters Without Borders

WikiLeaks Defector Slams Assange In Tell-All Book |A Major Threat Level | Wired.com

Facts and myths in the WikiLeaks/Guardian saga - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Ropey, I have a question for you: Is Wikileaks part of the same group as Wikipedia?
 

Douger

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
935
Points
0
Location
Not fucking there !
Anyone who follows any type of mainstream bullshit is a complete asshole.
I wish there were 1 million Assange's world wide. Once you find out who your masters REALLY are. You have two options.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
Anyone who follows any type of mainstream bullshit is a complete asshole.
I wish there were 1 million Assange's world wide. Once you find out who your masters REALLY are. You have two options.
They're already out there, Douger. They're the mainstream media, and they don't necessarily pay attention to whether what they're feeding the public is the truth or something they picked up off a promising political piece that agrees with their propensities, and ignore or obfuscate that the author is a former prison convict with a bone to pick with a politician who didn't pardon him for trying to murder someone he hated, so he had to spend an extra year of his life completing his sentence.

You might not feel so generous toward Assange's cavalier proteges if all of them went after your best friend, your politics, or you for that matter, for the purpose of decimating you into the next century.
 

freedombecki

Let's go swimmin'!
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
23,687
Reaction score
7,640
Points
198
Location
My house
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4095697-post3.htmlme

The other day, I asked someone if WikiLeaks and Wikipedia were part of the same group.

WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (which operates Wikipedia).

"Wiki" is a generic word that anyone can use; it is not a brand name or trademark. A wiki is any website that allows the creation and editing of interlinked webpages via a web browser. There are many wikis in existence, run by various organizations, which contain various types of content; thus, albeit one of the largest and most well-known examples, Wikipedia is only one wiki among many. The term "wiki" was coined in 1994-1995 by Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the concept, who also created its first implementation. The term was thus already in existence prior to the advent of Wikipedia (6-7 years later, in 2001), and the Wikimedia Foundation​ therefore does not claim ownership of the term in any way.

The Wikimedia Foundation has officially stated that there is no relationship between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia or Wikimedia. In an 11 August 2010 article in The Daily Telegraph (London), Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales was reported as stating that he has had no connection with the Wikileaks.org website.

Despite its name, since at least May 2010, WikiLeaks no longer includes wiki features, including editing or commenting by readers.
Wikipedia: WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
OP
Ropey

Ropey

String tension is not infinite.
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
78,154
Reaction score
13,208
Points
2,220
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4095697-post3.htmlme

The other day, I asked someone if WikiLeaks and Wikipedia were part of the same group.

WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation (which operates Wikipedia).

"Wiki" is a generic word that anyone can use; it is not a brand name or trademark. A wiki is any website that allows the creation and editing of interlinked webpages via a web browser. There are many wikis in existence, run by various organizations, which contain various types of content; thus, albeit one of the largest and most well-known examples, Wikipedia is only one wiki among many. The term "wiki" was coined in 1994-1995 by Ward Cunningham, the inventor of the concept, who also created its first implementation. The term was thus already in existence prior to the advent of Wikipedia (6-7 years later, in 2001), and the Wikimedia Foundation​ therefore does not claim ownership of the term in any way.

The Wikimedia Foundation has officially stated that there is no relationship between WikiLeaks and Wikipedia or Wikimedia. In an 11 August 2010 article in The Daily Telegraph (London), Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales was reported as stating that he has had no connection with the Wikileaks.org website.

Despite its name, since at least May 2010, WikiLeaks no longer includes wiki features, including editing or commenting by readers.
Wikipedia: WikiLeaks is not part of Wikipedia
Ropey, I have a question for you: Is Wikileaks part of the same group as Wikipedia?
Excuse my missing this and thanks for the information. I actually thought it was a part of the Wikki...
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top