Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

first previous 10 11 12 13 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Chris Russell

Sun Dec 19 2010, 12:37PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

GluD wrote ...

Are you purposelly misunderstanding my writings or am I just really bad at expressing myself in english....

Lets look at the question Ash Small asked, "Does this mean Wikipedia is also guilty of publishing confidential information that is useful to terrorists?"

I think its against the law to publish confidential infomation, and I also think this infomation is usefull to terrorists, so I answered yes to the question. I also belive it is irresponsibel to publish this sort of infomation because it could damage us all. So I added that it was irresponisbel and could damage us. I dont see where you could misunderstand that unless you wanted to.

My answer is only to been viewed in the context of the question, which I think is about the targets, not whatever else they have and is claimed by the goverments to endanger "national security", or anything else you might like to call "any and all infomation", just the targets. If I misunderstood Ash' question and it was in fact about the "any and all infomation" and not the confidential infomation useful to terrorists (the targets) which I belive the question was about, I shall re-write my answer.

I'm not trying to misunderstand you -- I think you are not expressing yourself very well in this case. Your reply, in context, was to a piece of information that Ash Small quoted from Wikipedia. That information by itself is not confidential. Ash was probably hoping to stimulate some discourse by illustrating that at least some of the "hit list" information Wikileaks published could have easily been found elsewhere. Your reply instead seemed to indicate that you don't think Wikipedia should have information about undersea cables because terrorists might find them. I'm hoping that's not what you meant.

Nicko

Sun Dec 19 2010, 02:02PM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

Maybe I'm old-fashioned and cynical, but the general assumption is that all of this is an attempt to smear Assange's reputation...

Just suppose for a minute that the women concerned have a genuine grievance. Have you ever heard of a case where the press and populace are so vehemently aggressive about the potential victims in a rape case?

I'm distinctly uncomfortable about this bandwagon... The Guardian newspaper (UK) yesterday published the Swedish prosecutor's indictment in full. Its not good reading...

Proud Mary

Sun Dec 19 2010, 02:53PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Nicko wrote ...

Maybe I'm old-fashioned and cynical, but the general assumption is that all of this is an attempt to smear Assange's reputation...

Just suppose for a minute that the women concerned have a genuine grievance. Have you ever heard of a case where the press and populace are so vehemently aggressive about the potential victims in a rape case?

I'm distinctly uncomfortable about this bandwagon... The Guardian newspaper (UK) yesterday published the Swedish prosecutor's indictment in full. Its not good reading...

It certainly is an eye opener to witness the way in which the corporate media have focused their attention on the morals and otherwise of Julian Assange, and so distracted the public away from thinking too deeply about the issues raised by the content of the leaked cables themselves.

Clearly, the personality and conduct of Mr Assange is completely irrelevant to the content of the cables, and the pervasive corruption, criminality, human rights abuse, and hatred of democracy they reveal.

Nicko

Sun Dec 19 2010, 05:29PM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

Proud Mary wrote ...

That's not what I was getting at - don't forget that the Guardian is one of only 5 GLOBAL newspapers that Wikileaks has trusted with analysis and dissemination of the cables. Even they are questioning whether it is appropriate to claim that the rape charges should be dismissed as trumped up or part of a USA honey trap.

No one is questioning the veracity of the cables themselves, or indeed what they reveal. My discomfort is in relation to Assange and how he is handling the media in response to the rape charges.

Guardian:

New York Times:

Ash Small

Sun Dec 19 2010, 07:04PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Nicko, if I'd been charged with rape every time a condom broke............................................. .......

EDIT:

From Wikipedia:

One-size condoms

The Independent on Sunday, on 12 March 2000 reported "The EU â€¦ has decreed that condom dimensions should be harmonized across the seamless Continent".[20] [21]

The European Commission responded:[20]

"The EU is not involved in setting condom standards. The European Standardisation Committee (CEN) is a voluntary body made up of national standards agencies and affiliated industry/consumer organisations from nineteen European countries."

The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) likewise rebutted the Euromyth with the statement[21]

Neither the European Union (EU) nor the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) have undertaken work to harmonize condom sizes. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed a standard in 2002 which covers methods for the testing of condom safety. It includes tests to ensure consumer confidence that the condom is an effective contraceptive, that it is helping to prevent the transmission of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), that it is free from holes, does not split during use, is correctly packaged to ensure protection during storage and is correctly labelled.

Seven years later, the EU condom regulation story was repeated as an April Fools' joke by Radio Netherlands. On 1 April 2007 Vanessa Mock, a journalist at the Brussels bureau of Radio Netherlands broke a story about a European Commission proposal to strictly regulate the size of condoms in the European Union. It included interviews with a Commission spokesman and a Member of the European Parliament and credibly argued that regulation was necessary to ensure competition and a level playing field for smaller companies producing condoms.[22]

quicksilver

Sun Dec 19 2010, 08:05PM

Registered Member #1408 Joined: Fri Mar 21 2008, 03:49PM
Location: Oracle, AZ
Posts: 679

Not only do I think that's a good point but quite obvious [from a certain perspective]. - Well, unless your target audience are those in the USA who read magazine aimed at "entertainers" and their love life, drug use, clothing. etc. Realistically I am saying this because I am an American; obviously those in the UK could point to the same population base in their own country.

However, this really is a bit like closing the barn door after the cow has wandered off. IF the documents were not highly redacted, were even real, & have some major impact on national security, I think they would have acted a great deal sooner and much more powerfully.

I do NOT think of myself as a "paranoid" but I do not underestimate the various government's intelligence technology what so ever. Frankly, I think there are an enormous amount of "listening" going on and if something really crosses the line; it would get "altered" in some manner or the issue is addressed so that the genuine vulnerability is not available to the world. This may happen is micro seconds. I would imagine there are policies and procedures for it in existence (& have been for some time).

When the original "Carnivore"-like engines were being discussed in technical journals (this was a seriously LONG time back), the ability for the governments to accomplish this type of snooping and alteration, etc was touched upon. I seriously doubt that the public even conceives of what can be done with computing power today.

A computer that fit in a room was what we depended upon to work with various NASA projects and military issues. I am not sure if people to day even remember the Cray let alone the Univac super computers but we have more processing powder today in a laptop than the Mil-spec Univacs of the late 1960's. What today occupy several rooms in Ft Mead is not comprehensible to the average computer user.
I believe that majority of nations today are quite safe in terms of what may have "leaked" via someone's supposed "original Email transcripts".

Ash Small

Mon Dec 20 2010, 12:32AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Chris Russell wrote ...

.I'm not trying to misunderstand you -- I think you are not expressing yourself very well in this case. Your reply, in context, was to a piece of information that Ash Small quoted from Wikipedia. That information by itself is not confidential. Ash was probably hoping to stimulate some discourse by illustrating that at least some of the "hit list" information Wikileaks published could have easily been found elsewhere. Your reply instead seemed to indicate that you don't think Wikipedia should have information about undersea cables because terrorists might find them. I'm hoping that's not what you meant.

That was my intention in part, Chris. I was also pointing out the futility of 'locking the stable door after the horse has been wandering around for decades'.

Sticking with the example here, not only are details of these terminals on other websites, but they were also, no doubt, reported in trade magazines and newspapers at the time they were constructed and came into service. While the example I gave above (TAT-8) was decommissioned in 2002, after TAT-14 was laid in 2001, the terminals are at the same locations. (This information has never been 'classified' or considered to be 'secret', as you rightly point out.)

The point is that no-one can censor information that is already in the public domain.

Maybe GluD is one of those people who believe that websites like 4HV should be shut down because they contain information that 'MAY' be useful to terrorists or criminals wishing to construct Taser like weapons, even though the same information is readily available in countless textbooks etc., some of which have been around for a hundred years or so?

GluD

Mon Dec 20 2010, 10:18AM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

I think untill now the thread as been kept in a somewhat respectable manner but apperantly you found it necessary to throw dirt around, Ash?

I said the chemistry/physics section of wikipedia should remain as it is, so how the hell can you get the idea that i should want 4hv shut down?
I said confidential info usefull to terrorists shouldnt be published and then you start saying I want 4hv closed?? I dont see the connection.

You, Ash, mentioned it was confidential so I assumed that was correct and answered as such, then Chris comes along and says it isnt confidential and everyone laughs at my reply and say I want 4hv.org shut down and wikipeadia striped of "any and all infomations". I think thats a very offensive action by you people. Maybe you disagree with me but dont make things up about what I say. Its fine you tell me when Im wrong,no point in talking if you didnt, but dont make things up. Seriously how can you honestly think i would wanna shut down 4hv.org, considering i said there wasnt any problem in their chem/physics section, and that the question/answer was, I thought, about confidential infomation?! You ask a question about confidential infomation but threat the answer as regarding "any and all infomation" that is not fair.

Besides Ash, I dont think theres much infomation about Tasers on here, that sort of thing tend to get closed down pretty fast. Oh is that my fault too then?
Yeah why dont you just blame all the bad things in the world on the people you so obivously dislike.

Chris
"Your reply instead seemed to indicate that you don't think Wikipedia should have information about undersea cables because terrorists might find them" I didnt think they should have the infomation because I thought it was confidential. If something is confidential and the public has no use of that particular piece of infomation, but it is however of value for terrorists, then I dont see why it should be made public. In such a case we wouldnt gain anything, but they would. Is it clear or do I have to stand up to more accusations now?

Of course if it isnt confidential, as I was lead to belive with the wording of the question, there isnt any more problems with publishing it than there would be publishing ohms law!

Ash Small

Mon Dec 20 2010, 12:35PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Glud, It seems there was definitely some confusion earlier.

I was making the point that the information regarding undersea cable terminals was not, and never has been, confidential.

(Nor is the location of BAe defence sites)

The most serious allegations against Wikileaks seem to be regarding publication of details of these, and other, sites which is not, and never has been, confidential.

It seems you may have been a victim of US Government propaganda if you believed this information was confidential.

I appreciate there are some language difficulties, and I apologise if I have offended you. This was not my intention.

However, if Chris and I had not challenged you on this point, you would still be under the impression that this information IS confidential.

While I appreciate that anything posted on 4HV regarding the subject of building Tasers or other weapons, etc. would be deleted by the moderators (and rightly too, as that is not what this site is about), one MIGHT argue that some of the general HV technology published here MIGHT be useful to someone planning to construct such a device. even though that same information is freely available from countless other sources.

The point I was making is that it would be futile to try and censor information that is already in the public domain.

Proud Mary

Mon Dec 20 2010, 04:18PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

The people who are now saying that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" who should be "executed" or "taken out" belong to exactly the same sectional interest group as the people who had Frank Serpico shot, and for the same reasons too.

first previous 10 11 12 13 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob