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 7 8 9 10 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

GluD

Mon Dec 13 2010, 03:50PM

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

"We're against corporations and government interfering on the internet," Coldblood said. "We believe it should be open and free for everyone. Governments shouldn't try to censor because they don't agree with it." from:

Yeah right, the internet should be open and free for everyone, except the ones who disagree with wikileaks. Those kids are no better than the goverments they fight.

"Who are the real criminals here?"
I'd say they're all real criminals, wikileaks broke the law, their sources broke it, those hackers broke it, the goverment broke. They all did. Some to a lesser extent than others but that doesnt make it legal.

Here in denmark I think you are given an laywer by default and then if you dont like him you could hire one of your own choice. I supose its the same in sweden and elsewhere in the so called "civilised" world.

Conundrum

Mon Dec 13 2010, 06:41PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

Interestingly, the Govt writes the law but this seems to give them carte blanche to break it ten ways from Sunday, too many examples to list here.

Back to the OSA, it seems that a number of "close encounter" cases have seen guys in suits turning up asking people to sign documents stating that they did not see the flying whateveritwas, and in some cases handing over their memory cards and cameras for "examination".
This makes me wonder if many sightings are some secret military craft being tested.

I would like to point out that the "official" line is that e-ink is in fact too slow to be useful for active camouflage. This is simply not the case, as my own experiments suggest that it can be updated 30* more quickly than this if it is kept warm and run substantially above its ratings.
In addition, the mysterious cancellation of the Que suggests that the flexible polymer transistor technology was too close to what is being used currently by the military...

-A

Ash Small

Mon Dec 13 2010, 11:29PM

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

Proud Mary wrote ...

Ash Small wrote ...

I stand corrected, Nicko. Maybe the 'old' OSA (pre-1989)was different. I was always under the impression that you were subject to stricter guidelines if you had signed it. By the way, I got the jobs anyway, one building ships for the Royal Navy, and one working for British Nuclear Services.

Honestly, Ash, Nicko is wholly right. The point of 'signing the OSA' is three-fold, namely:

1. To put the frighteners on.

2. To weaken any mitigation that you did not know something was secret. Note that I have said mitigation and not defence, since ignorance is no defence in UK law.

3. To give a badly paid menial job a bogus aspect of working for the 'national interest.'

PS I've added the last point out of pure mischief, but when has mopping out toilets not been in the 'national interest.'

Proud Mary, I've already admitted I was mistaken. I don't have a problem with this. As far as I'm concerned any day that I don't learn something is a day wasted.

I like nothing more than to be proved wrong. I may come over as being a bit confrontational at times, but it's not really intended that way, I just like to get to the bottom of things.

I certainly don't claim to know better than anyone else, I enjoy a good debate and I'm here to learn from the various experts here and to contribute what I can ( I'm more of a mechy than a sparky).

Chris Russell

Tue Dec 14 2010, 12:11AM

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

GluD wrote ...

"We're against corporations and government interfering on the internet," Coldblood said. "We believe it should be open and free for everyone. Governments shouldn't try to censor because they don't agree with it." from:

Yeah right, the internet should be open and free for everyone, except the ones who disagree with wikileaks. Those kids are no better than the goverments they fight.

I don't disagree with you. Attempting to censor corporations via DDoS is, IMO, a very unwise act that will only lead to trouble. They can easily absorb millions of dollars in cyber attacks, and then spend millions more lobbying for new laws and new entities that will compromise the freedoms of others. Clearly these hackers are treading an unwise path.

The point is, Wikileaks isn't behind these attacks, any more than the Dalai Lama was behind the recent violence in Tibet.

GluD wrote ...

"Who are the real criminals here?"
I'd say they're all real criminals, wikileaks broke the law, their sources broke it, those hackers broke it, the goverment broke. They all did. Some to a lesser extent than others but that doesnt make it legal.

Actually, not to be pedantic here, but none of them are criminals. A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime. These entities might be law-breakers in your opinion, but to date, none of them have even been charged with a crime related to the Wikileaks documents, let alone convicted.

GluD wrote ...

Yeah fine lets call it falsehood then. But please not of the worst sort, I think theres worse than that, we dont actually know its false, it could be right we just havnt got the infomation to see it. Why dont they leak that huh.

... why don't they leak that the hackers are not connected to them in any way? What sort of document could they possibly leak to prove a negative like that?

The worst sort of lie is one that is patently untrue, and is told with malice. Claiming that there is any reasonable suspicion that Wikileaks is in any way encouraging or employing these hackers is exactly that type of lie.

For example, I could very well accuse you of being a counter-agent for the US government, paid to visit various websites and bolster the official position that Wikileaks is a dangerous and criminal organization. After all, I don't have any proof that that's not the case. However, if I were to publicly say "GluD is a government agent" that would be a terrible terrible lie, done purely out of malice and with the intent to discredit your arguments without having to take them at face value. I would have not one scrap of real evidence to support this claim. Even if I later found out that you did in fact work for the CIA, that wouldn't change the fact that I lied in an attempt to discredit you unfairly.

GluD

Tue Dec 14 2010, 01:52AM

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

The point of me saying it isnt of the falsehood of
the worst sort is that I dont say it to cause harm to the wikileaks, I say it because I belive they are causing harm to themselves and the rest of us by behaving the way they do.It can only be a lie but not one that is told with malice. Not that it matters that much anyway, I just have a strange humor I guess.

Risking to reveal myself and blow my cover as a secret agent Im gonna have to say that I actually belive that the wikileaks is a dangerous and criminal organisation. Dangerous because they apear to leak things without caring if they might risk our safety (for example the list of targets which could function as a "to do list for terrorists") and criminal because they break the law, yes they havent been convicted so let me change it to "law-breakers". Doesnt really make much diffrence to us since we're just disscussing it, surely we all know they broke the law by leaking the docs, convicted or not.

"...new laws and new entities that will compromise the freedoms of others." Thats what I've been saying all along, they are risking the freedom of all of us for some documents.

"Actually, not to be pedantic here, but none of them are criminals. A criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime. These entities might be law-breakers in your opinion, but to date, none of them have even been charged with a crime related to the Wikileaks documents, let alone convicted." I agree, it wasnt fully thought through to use the word criminal, however I think most if not all of us could agree to that they are then all law breakers, not just in my opinion. Everyone seems convinced the goverment has broken the law, and I dont think its too hard to see the ilegal aspects of leaking classified documents, not to mention the cyber attacks.

"What sort of document could they possibly leak to prove a negative like that?"
None, it was a foolish joke. Even some "law freak" who has "law uber alles" tattooed on the forehead, have a sense of humor. Unfortunanetly it was misunderstood.

Hazmatt_(The Underdog)

Tue Dec 14 2010, 02:21AM

Registered Member #135 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735

The Crime: espionage
The Sentance: Death

Secret Agents Know this!

Chris Russell

Tue Dec 14 2010, 02:53AM

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

GluD wrote ...
Risking to reveal myself and blow my cover as a secret agent Im gonna have to say that I actually belive that the wikileaks is a dangerous and criminal organisation.

You are certainly entitled to that belief, but you should be aware that that's just what it is; a belief. Stating it as fact is at best dishonest.

GluD wrote ...

Doesnt really make much diffrence to us since we're just disscussing it, surely we all know they broke the law by leaking the docs, convicted or not.

I'm not convinced that Wikileaks broke any laws, though it certainly is possible. Remember that Wikileaks didn't obtain the documents themselves; they were provided the documents by an unknown third party. At what point does espionage end, and journalism begin? When Daniel Ellsburg leaked the classified Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, few called for the New York Times to be prosecuted for espionage. The US Government decided not to pursue a case for espionage, so we're without a good legal precedent regarding this case. I think the issue is sufficiently complex that I would be uncomfortable stating for sure who has broken which laws until a trial has been held.

GluD wrote ...

The point of me saying it isnt of the falsehood of
the worst sort is that I dont say it to cause harm to the wikileaks, I say it because I belive they are causing harm to themselves and the rest of us by behaving the way they do.It can only be a lie but not one that is told with malice. Not that it matters that much anyway, I just have a strange humor I guess.

I'm not sure how humor enters into the equation. As for malice, I'm sure you mean well towards humanity and society as a whole. But this statement:

GluD wrote ...

That is not what wikileaks did. They leaked everything and started cyber attacks at the people whom they disagree with.

... is still a lie, told with the intent of making Wikileaks appear dangerous, unfair, or dishonest (ie a malicious lie). If you mistakenly believe that Wikileaks is launching cyber attacks against their detractors, you are at best repeating a malicious lie. There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike Wikileaks, and there are plenty of reasons to dislike what the hackers are doing on behalf of Wikileaks. They are, however, two distinct entities.

As for the rest, I think it is something we will all be debating for some time. A few pages back, I believe Stella rightly points out that only the passage of time will put Wikileaks and Assange in the proper perspective. Whether both are awarded the title of hero, villain, or something in between will likely depend on the outcome of events that have not happened yet.

GluD

Tue Dec 14 2010, 04:12AM

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

Wikipedia informed me that something is malicous if it intends to do harm to somebody/something, I do not intend to harm them. Not directly at least, I intend to inform people that the wikileaks arent necessarily the heros some people apear to think they are. It really bothers me when people portray "law breakers" as heros. So I guess you could say that I intend to harm them by telling you that they are not as nice and awesome as you may think they are. I truely belive they are in some way or another behind the attacks but yes I cant prove it, if I was a cop in a movie I would say I got a hunch.

I dont consider it malicous to say they are dishonest but maybe that is a wrong understanding of the word malicous I dont know, remeber english is my second language. I would consider it malicous if I said they was murderes or something like that. (which I dont think I have said?)

Earlier in this thread Ash asked whom I thought were the real criminals, to that I answered :
""Who are the real criminals here?"
I'd say they're all real criminals, wikileaks broke the law, their sources broke it, those hackers broke it, the goverment broke. They all did. Some to a lesser extent than others but that doesnt make it legal."

Then you, Chris, so kindly pointed out that it was incorrect of me to call them criminals, they are in fact law breakers. But that doesnt really change much, in my opinion it is clear they broke the law. I understand you are in doubt?

(please notice that I seperated people in the following questions, just like i did in my answer to Ash' question)

You dont think its ilegal for whoever stole the documents to steal them?
that its ilegal for wikileaks to leak them?
that its ilegal for the hackers to screw up websites?
and that whatever the documents say the goverment did is ilegal?

Or that it is dangerous for our countries security to have a list telling the terrorists where to put their bombs?
Yesterday a suicide bomber blew himself up in stockholm, sweden, (luckily he failed, only killed himself), maybe the next one will use the lists as a guidance and perhaps we wont be so lucky then.

Maybe Im wrong about the connection between wikileaks and the hackers but the questions above cant possiably be answered with a no. You dont need a convinction before you have broken the law. It just makes the difrence between lawbreaker and criminal aperantly.
Here its ilegal to drink alcohol in a public area, I have done so serval times, as have many others, however I wasnt caught drinking so I am only a law breaker, but I still broke the law, even without a conviction.

By your own definition I dont think I was being dishonest in the first qoute of yours, I explicitly say "I belive" I dont mention the word fact in that qoute, or state it as a fact I dont think. I think its very fair indeed to say they are dangerous and criminal/lawbreakers.

Am I wrong to think that you are holding on to my possiably wrong assumption about the hackers=wikileaks and as such dont see that I may very well be correct in claiming that wikileaks is still a lawbreaking organisation due to the leakage of classified documents. Concluding that they are not a lawbreaking organisation by refering to the hackers not being part of wikileaks isnt correct in my opinion, even if the hackers are not, then wikileaks still broke the law by leaking the documents. It doesnt have to espionage, surely leakage of classified matieral is illegal in itself, no? Even if not obtained by oneself.

"That is not what wikileaks did. They leaked everything and started cyber attacks at the people whom they disagree with." Maybe the last bit isnt being truthful but I think "malicous lie" is abit over the top. Its hardly the time worth argueing more about that, lets just say they arent connected and get over it. Allright?

Better hit the "reply" button now, its past 0500 and my whisky glass is empty

Goodnight or morning, or whatever it is over there in the states.

Hazmatt_(The Underdog)

Tue Dec 14 2010, 05:28AM

Registered Member #135 Joined: Sat Feb 11 2006, 12:06AM
Location: Anywhere is fine
Posts: 1735

Chris, Wikileaks did violate the law.

If you know anything about the process of handling documents, its called dissemination. The responsible party of the documentation has to give approval to disseminate any or all of the information, and they would have to gain approval of, for example the State Department to name one, there are many but I won't go into that.

In short, you, I or anyone reading does not want to come in contact with a document outside of its "happy home" (for those who don't know look up SCIF) or we get to talk to the authorities, and there are many of those from all kinds of departments, with all kinds of ways of asking questions or leveraging information from you.

I would say there is nothing to gain from this thread.

Everyone should be wise enough to know that you don't go around comprimising a nation's security without extreme risk to yourself because they have all the power to hunt you down and toy with you, or make you disappear. Think Interpol.

So again, nothing to gain here.

Ash Small

Tue Dec 14 2010, 07:58AM

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

HazzMatt, I don't believe Wikileaks did break the law.

They published information which was passed to them by someone else who wanted it published. (Why else would anyone pass information on to an organisation like Wikileaks?).

The 'Freedom of the Press' (or whatever equivalent laws exist in your country) allows them to do this, certainly in principle. That is what journalists do.

As for them publishing information that 'may' be useful to terrorists, that is not the way that terrorists work. Terrorists attack 'soft targets', attempting to kill and injure innocent civilians, not 'strategically important' sites that are defended, etc. This is why they are called 'terrorists' in the first place.

This is just another example of the US government attempting to 'twist' the truth so that they can use their 'anti-terror laws' to extradite Assange and lock him up without a trial.

How can we criticise China or North Korea, etc, and turn a blind eye to what the US (and other governments in 'so called free western democracies') are doing?

Whatever happened to the right of 'trial by jury'?. Whatever happenened to 'freedom of information' and 'freedom of the press'?

first previous 7 8 9 10 next last

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