31–40 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I don't get it. Are we this desperate for a hero that we'll romanticize the average in order to have one?
If the average person was as interested in exposing the dirty side of government and big business as Mr Assange we wouldn’t be in this position. He most decidedly isn’t average.
I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling. It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for. This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is hi…
Time will tell. Some of the responses from politicians are beyond the pale and what bugs me more is that nobody even thinks of calling them to account over this, or so much as distancing themselves from these remarks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And so it seems that trolls get their just deserts.
How is representing an opinion being a troll? Fact is, I don't like the guy, I don't trust his intentions, and I think Wikileaks is a worldwide disaster. I just don't understand why reasonable objections are so quickly criticized here.
2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation". Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7...
The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what they should do and will continue to have wikileaks as a customer until the court tells them otherwise.
"If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you." --Oscar Wilde
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI... )…
QUESTION: Mr Rudd, just on that question. Do you think WikiLeaks will have a chilling effect on diplomacy, and, you know, back-room talks.
KEVIN RUDD: I think it's having a focusing effect.
QUESTION: As far as, you know, making people more cautious, and making diplomacy [indistinct]?
KEVIN RUDD: I think foreign ministers around the world, from countries of all sorts of political traditions, are scratching their heads about this one at the moment - I'm just being frank with you - and particularly when, if we are dealing with diplomatic communications the content of which, if we are to be consistent with our profession, we then don't comment on.
At the same time this has created real difficulties in various other parts of the world. Let's just put all this in a bit of context. You've had recent reports concerning - heads of government have been accused of corruption, being associated with the Mafia, been urging the United States to go to war against particular countries. I mean this has been happening in recent times. And without commenting, again, on the content or accuracy of any of those reports, it does create a separate and new dynamic.
Now, what's the challenge for all of us? I was actually asked this question in Bahrain yesterday - what now happens? I think, rule number one for our friends in the United States is how do you tighten things up a bit? I think that's a fair old question.
REPORTER: Security [indistinct]
KEVIN RUDD: Well, it's just - you know, maybe two million or so people having access to this stuff is a bit of a problem.
REPORTER: It's not the Lady Gaga CD.
KEVIN RUDD: The - that could be a bit of a problem.
But secondly, I reckon, what I believe to be the professional challenge for all of us, is to get on with the business, because all the big challenges we're dealing with haven't gone away.
I had a question before about the Korean Peninsula, that is real, and live, and contemporary. And diplomacy, and the business of diplomacy, is underway, as we speak, on that. And if diplomacy gets it wrong on that then we all pay a very big price.
So these challenges don't just go into suspended animation while we work our way through this stuff. So my answer, in Bahrain, as it is here today, is all of us to get on with the business, and not to become fundamentally side-tracked by all of this.
But there are deep lessons, in terms of providing proper protection for such a large volume of diplomatic documents.
Quote - "In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."
2.07pm: More financial problems for WikiLeaks: Visa says it has suspended all payments to WikiLeaks "pending further investigation". Earlier MasterCard said: "MasterCard is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us...
Visa has since followed suit. : http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jzXb7... The only corporate entity so far that does not have egg all over its face on this one is the French OVH which went to a judge to establish whether or not wikileaks was illegal according to French law, the judge rejected the first request and asked for more info on the second, pending a ruling OVH says they've done what the…
If all wikileaks was doing was publishing information about illegal or highly suspect acts by the government it'd be one thing. But that isn't all they're doing, and it is these other releases that has really pissed me off. For instance, what legitimate purpose does it serve to release a list of infrastructure that are critical to national security? ( http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jWvPaI6hI... )…
Here's the Australian infrastructure that is listed as critical to US national security: "Australia: Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Brookvale, Australia Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Sydney, Australia Manganese -- battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade Nickel Mines Maybe Faulding Mulgrave Victoria, Australia: Manufacturing facility for Midazolam i…
In the event al-Qaeda wants to prosecute a death-by-rattlesnake strategy in the United States, yes, it could take out Mayne Pharma’s Melbourne plant, in the hope of increasing the number of deaths from snake bite, although most rattlesnake bites are not lethal. Or … maybe that would just increase sales of the other, Mexican-developed antivenin Antivipmyn, which some practitioners regard as cheaper and more effective than Crofab.
Or they could sever the Southern Cross fibre optic cable in Sydney (“Australian link broken — rest of world isolated!”). But then, terrorists would know about that from Wikipedia, rather than WikiLeaks. Or perhaps they’d find out from the website of the cable owner.
In fact if you want the exact spot for that cable, consult ACMA’s handy “Sydney Submarine Protection Zones”, which details the precise location of these important pieces of communication infrastructure.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/07/critical-infrastructure-...