Wikileaks

[Dan]

Interested if anyone else has been following the whole saga?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11928899

What are your thoughts?

[Jonathan]

I don't know what to think yet. I think he does a lot of good for some, embarrasses others, endangers still more. I don't know if he's a tool of the government to show how much more "security" we need to submit to, or if he's just working for his own interests and fame. I'm stunned it took them (whoever "they" may be) to get him on some trumped up charge.

[Dan]

Yeah that's kinda where I am at with the thing, I understand that they are trying to do some good with releasing this information, but I feel that it's not completely constructive in the sense that it already has placed lives at risk. I will be interested to see how the whole sexual accusations go against Julian Assange because the timing was too coincidental. I think at the end of the day that freedom of information is good, but sometimes the truth is to difficult to handle.

[brent]

As long as all of the BS is discovered and governments are called to task and held accountable, then I am all for it. Whatever happened to Obama putting everything on the internet for all to see "five days before he moved on it"? That was a campaign promise.

[CatNamedManny]

I'm not sure WikiLeaks has been particularly altruistic, and I'm fairly convinced that Julian Assange is not a nice guy. On the other hand, the charges against him in Sweden are pretty weak sauce, and I'm worried about what I've seen about the Justice Department looking at using the Espionage Act or other laws to try to charge him with crimes related to the leaks themselves. To me, he's absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Now, if it turns out he helped steal the documents in the first place, as opposed to just being a recipient, that's a whole different story. But WikiLeaks is a media organization, as far as I'm concerned, even if it's something of a shady one, and entitled to the same protections as other media in this country.

[Dan]

The problem is he is a Australian citizen, Australia Govt. wants nothing to do with him, so no one seems to know what to do about him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558

I know if this was any other country being bashed with leaks eg. China, this guy would have been taken out long ago.

Can't comment on his character, but he seems genuine from interviews.

Yes Brent, a lot has been swept under the rug after the "Yes we can rubbish" stopped.


more updates:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11935539

[zak89]

I'm not sure WikiLeaks has been particularly altruistic, and I'm fairly convinced that Julian Assange is not a nice guy. On the other hand, the charges against him in Sweden are pretty weak sauce, and I'm worried about what I've seen about the Justice Department looking at using the Espionage Act or other laws to try to charge him with crimes related to the leaks themselves. To me, he's absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Now, if it turns out he helped steal the documents in the first place, as opposed to just being a recipient, that's a whole different story. But WikiLeaks is a media organization, as far as I'm concerned, even if it's something of a shady one, and entitled to the same protections as other media in this country.

I agree. I have no major issue with WikiLeaks as an organization, they are a media group, albeit a shady one. But I have no respect for Assange. He is on the record as saying he is not interested in "openness" or "transparency" - his goal is to injure the US (or, "the conspiracy", as he calls it). The strategy is to cut off intel-sources for the US, and to cause distrust amongst even internal intelligence agencies, thereby damaging the US's ability to defend itself. It's working beautifully, forcing the US-intel community into the same "intel-ownership" strategy that muted the warning signs of 9/11. Different agencies now fear to share valuable intel with another and risk embarrassment, and foreign intel sources won't share their knowledge or, as Clinton said, "speak candidly". It's a disaster for the US, and that's exactly JA's aim. This ramble about "the truth" and transparency, etc is just a ruse to gain popular support. I like Ron Paul et al, but his comments on "truth/treason" are completely missing the point - it's not "the truth" that's at stake, it's the national security of the US and it's allies.

Do I think much can be done? Nah - he has found a very vulnerable link in the US justice system, (apparently) not being the actual thief (espionage), not being a US citizen (treason), there's not much to go after him on. Bradley Manning easily crosses the treason line, as well as any other internal accomplices. But going after Assange is more of misguided PR stunt than anything else - misguided because it will almost certainly fail.

[zak89]

In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies” and “Conspiracy as Governance.” He sees the U.S. as an authoritarian conspiracy. “To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed,” he writes. “Conspiracies take information about the world in which they operate,” he writes, and “pass it around the conspirators and then act on the result.”

His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—”conspirators” in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, “We can marginalize a conspiracy’s ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment… . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself.”

Berkeley blogger Aaron Bady last week posted a useful translation of these essays. He explains Mr. Assange’s view this way: “While an organization structured by direct and open lines of communication will be much more vulnerable to outside penetration, the more opaque it becomes to itself (as a defense against the outside gaze), the less able it will be to ‘think’ as a system, to communicate with itself.” Mr. Assange’s idea is that with enough leaks, “the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.”


Or as Mr. Assange told Time magazine last week, “It is not our goal to achieve a more transparent society; it’s our goal to achieve a more just society.” If leaks cause U.S. officials to “lock down internally and to balkanize,” they will “cease to be as efficient as they were.”

via

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... Carousel_3

- I know some won't trust this publication, but he's mostly quoting from safely non-conservative sources, so at least give it a fair shake.

[CatNamedManny]

This is really an example of the problem we face as we use increasingly outdated laws and definitions in the complex 21st century world. The debate over whether we're in a war, as defined traditionally, with al Qaeda is one of these facets, the whole question of whether people arrested plotting terrorism in the U.S. -- or American citizens plotting terrorism abroad -- are enemy combatants or "mere" criminals like previous terrorists. The U.S. has simply never faced an organization that has both had the goal of destroying it AND the means to cause a great deal of damage in the effort. It's putting our 18th- through 20th-century ideals of liberty and justice to the test.

Similarly, Assange has as his stated goal a desire to harm American national security, which is far different than, say, the New York Times' stated goal when it published the Pentagon Papers. He's not a citizen, so he can't be prosecuted for treason anyway, but he can still be prosecuted for committing crimes against the United States -- but I'm not sure he should be. We've never had someone set up a media company both with the desire to do harm to the United States AND the means to disseminate his information to such a broad extent. It puts our 18th- through 20th-century notions of free press and transparency to the test.

[zak89]

We've never had someone set up a media company both with the desire to do harm to the United States AND the means to disseminate his information to such a broad extent. It puts our 18th- through 20th-century notions of free press and transparency to the test.

Now that's a good line. Nice.

[brent]

Follow the money......

[knotodiswrld]

If I were president, or director of the CIA, and if things were as they seem, Assange would have already "died of natural causes" or perhaps a freak automobile accident. The fact that he is still doing his work indicates to me that he is more useful to us alive than dead.

It's an old ruse, and dates back Sun Tzu. You discover an enemy spy (which is essentially what Assange is to us) but you realize that while he is leaking lots of information, he's better at getting and reporting intelligence than he is at evaluating it. So, you let him report back to his handlers lots juicy and promising, but not particularly damaging information. At the same time, you deliberately feed him even juicier and more promising information. What he does not know until it is too late is that the information you have fed him is, in fact, misinformation. You let the enemy spy live, pretend he's a huge problem and make lots of noise about a "leak" ... noise your enemies can't help but overhear ... and keep feeding him almost true information.

In fact, the best lies are 95% true. You only have to modify a few minor points.

So, is Assange a threat to National Security ... or a unwitting pawn? If I were President or National Security Advisor, he would certainly be the latter. Once he had outlived his usefulness, like any enemy spy (even one you have ostensibly "turned") he would meet with a terrible accident.


BTW: His intentions are evil. Leaking classified documents to the public is NOT covered under the First Amendment. If it were, then any American Citizen turned Chinese spy could escape prosecution by simply publishing the intelligence he gathers in the paper or on the internet rather than secretly slipping it back to the Chinese embassy.

Would it be covered by the First Amendment to publish the location of every American submarine and nuclear missile on the web? No, that would be treason if you're a U.S. Citizen and espionage if you're not. Publishing classified documents is not "Freedom of Speech".

Assange has every right to rail against the U.S. as some sort of evil empire if that is how he feels. That is Freedom of Speech. He does not have the right to publish classified documents. That is is not Freedom of Speech.

He is an enemy spy. Nothing more. Nothing less. And he should be treated as such. (i.e. Manipulated and utilized until he is all used up. )

[zak89]

BTW: His intentions are evil. Leaking classified documents to the public is NOT covered under the First Amendment. If it were, then any American Citizen turned Chinese spy could escape prosecution by simply publishing the intelligence he gathers in the paper or on the internet rather than secretly slipping it back to the Chinese embassy.

Would it be covered by the First Amendment to publish the location of every American submarine and nuclear missile on the web? No, that would be treason if you're a U.S. Citizen and espionage if you're not. Publishing classified documents is not "Freedom of Speech".

Assange has every right to rail against the U.S. as some sort of evil empire if that is how he feels. That is Freedom of Speech. He does not have the right to publish classified documents. That is is not Freedom of Speech.

Very insightful point - you're absolutely right, he is no different in practice than an enemy spy - he just calls himself a "media organization" and uses that to hide under. Talk about passing the "smell test". As for your speculation of US Gov. counter-ops, I halfway hope you're right - it would be a sensible way to "redeem" the situation. But I have a hard time believing this administration would be that tough on anyone, let alone a non-US citizen.

[knotodiswrld]

As for your speculation of US Gov. counter-ops, I halfway hope you're right - it would be a sensible way to "redeem" the situation. But I have a hard time believing this administration would be that tough on anyone, let alone a non-US citizen.

I understand what you're saying. I hope that we are using Assange in this way. I agree with you that this administration would be unlikely to mastermind such an operation, but there are still some folks left in the NSA and CIA from previous administrations who might have the pull to get such an operation off the ground.

And, even if he is being used this way, don't expect to ever know about it. In fact, the more we are playing him, the more we would publicly fret about the damage he is doing. Perhaps in 50 years, the appropriate documents might be declassified, but don't bet the farm on it.

[separateunion]

Well, it's good to know that some of us are okay with breaking the 6th Commandment. As long as that person is a threat to national security.