151–160 of 432 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"
As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect? I agree that he had a right to privacy, same as anyone else.
Agreed.
> As an officer of a public corporation, how much privacy can one expect?
So we should violate his rights without repercussion? Lost me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selectively releasing everyone else's dirt except for Russia is a strong indicator of non-neutral stance.
Sorry I must have missed where anyone in this thread-chain has asserted that statement at all.
To use an extreme example, if a reporting organization writes a story about one nation launching missile strikes against another, and leaves out that they were retaliatory strikes from a previous attack, that dramatically changes the perception of those events. If this sort of thing is continually done to benefit one entity, it is reasonable to question the honesty of the reporter.
Even if the released documents are all accurate, the previous lies of omission would cause a reasonable person to question whether or not the released documents provide adequate context.
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…
I'm generally on Assange's side in all of this. I agree he shouldn't be charged and this is all a disgrace. Having said that, I once went to wikileaks and found a PDF of Steve Job's supposed STD test which claimed he was HIV positive. That was a surprise to me as my understanding was that he died of cancer. I looked into it and no one could corroborate the story and the general consensus seemed to be that it was fake…
> Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value.
And I found this reddit thread/comment from 11 years ago (when Wikileaks released it) that contains the same text, so it's not as though they released the document and then corrected themselves after the fact -- they published it alongside a warning that it's probably bogus. [2]
[1]: https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs_purported_HIV_medical_...
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/7qo8n/steve_job...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of journalists, say, in France for example, hurl shit in the face of US every day, with lots of investigations, and they still are more or less protected and the country where they live abide by the law... So, that's what personally I would have expected and hoped about Assange too. The reality is different from what you present: it is not common that journalists opposing to US are (internationally) repressed at…
What do you think would happen if an journalist started trying to help hackers recover secrets from French Intelligence agencies and then published them for the whole world to see? What if the leaked secrets were mostly true? Do you think the French Government would celebrate the journalist? Or would they do everything in their power to stop them?
"Julian Assange Founder"? Headline needs a fix. Though, it may be speaking to that cog association that people have formed: 'Assange=wikileaks'....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HIV can cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, so that could have caused his cancer. It’s actually not that far outside the realm of possibility. Condom use was not very common in the 70s and one can live with HIV dormant for many years.
HIV wasn't around in the 1970s (in Western countries at least) and also Jobs wasn't in the more at-risk demographics for the disease.
> In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack. With respect to one target, Assange asked the LulzSec leader to look for (and provide to WikiLeaks) mail and documents, databases and pdfs. In another communication, Assange told the LulzSec leader that the most impactful release of hacked…
That is a very odd misdirection given the context. He's not accused of lying, he's accused of computer crimes.
I mean, your medical records and browsing history may be 100% true and verifiably copied from original sources, but if I steal and distribute them I'm still going to jail.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, sorry if it was not very clear, I was saying that US treatment of the Assange case was disgusting me. By "American great minds", I was thinking about all the American mathematicians and scientists whose books I passionately devour, and the splendid futuristic projects of some tech corps, which bring sci-fi dreams to reality.
I mean ... the US has not even got hands on him yet. He hasn't been in US custody for a second. There is absolutely no case. Yet. If you want to feel contempt strongly towards someone - the UK, Ecuador and Sweden governments are the ones to blame so far.
It’s not hard to work out what it means, but the headline should probably either be: “Julian Assange Charged...” or the original “Wikileaks Founder Charged...” The current half-and-half is a little strange (who founded Julian Assange?).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's what OP meant. At one point, I also thought WikiLeaks was going to be a new type of internet-era news organization pushing for full transparency, regardless of the target. I was disappointed when it turned out they were aimed solely at discrediting America and would editorialize and time their drops for maximum damage. They decided to become that kind of an organization, and they lost credibility…
Is it not possible that Wikileaks decided it was safer for them to report on the US, given our supposed press freedoms?