Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment • Hacker News Board

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#321

Post by fwklein » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

three_seagrass wrote: post #305

_yt0l wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that Russia would publish self incriminating documents and evidence of their own malfeasance within Ukraine and corruption elsewhere. Really makes you think.

Source? Because the majority of the 'leaks' posted by WL about Russia were outdated/minimal. Meanwhile, Julian Assanage has a television show on RT[1], the state-sponsored media for the Russian government [2], meaning he's literally paid by a Russian propaganda organization. [1] https://www.rt.com/news/456280-julian-assange-rt-show/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Assessments_an...

RT was just one of a dozen media outlets Assange had offered his show to in 2012. His show was produced completely independent from RT. By the way, Larry King had a show on RT. Is he a russian stooge now too?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#322

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

AnHonestComment wrote: post #114

thatlongthrow1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I edited to include a source after you posted: the founder of BLM refers to herself as a trained Marxist. The reason people are speaking about it more now is such Marxist groups seized part of one city (Seattle) and staged riots nationally. Generally speaking, when an ideological group uses their network to stage violent riots, people talk about it. People such as Jordan Peterson or Michael Knowles have been speaking…

Marxism is a basic methodology for societal analysis. Anyone worth their salt in social science is a "trained Marxist" whether they like it or not, because Marx was one of the fathers of social science, and the tools he developed for the analysis of social systems on the basis of interest, class and material reality are foundational to social science being useful at all.

So yes, she is probably a trained Marxist, in that she knows how to do class analysis and material analysis. So are most social scientists worth their salt, it's just that not all of them know that it came from Marx. Jordan Peterson and Michael Knowles for example, are not trained in such methods of analysis because they are extreme fringe kooks.

As far as riots, read what Durkheim wrote on rioting. When a societal need is not accounted for and there seems to be no avenue for change, then rioting is the natural consequence. This was the case for what happened after the killing of George Floyd, where there seemed to be no realistic avenue to stop racist police violence, and so riots arose, as they did throughout centuries again and again. Crime in general follows a similar pattern.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#323

Post by morelisp » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:52 PM UTC

fwklein wrote: post #290

ryanlol wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either, WL did not dump private info of almost every woman in Turkey. This is simply a strange misattribution, the dump came via Emma Best of DDoSecrets, http://web.archive.org/web/20160727193612/https://twitter.co...

Why is this being downvoted? It's true and has been explained by Emma Best herself https://archive.is/0VsQR

The parent says

> Zeynep isn’t concerned with accuracy either

But your link says

> Zeynep Tufekci never lied, exaggerated or retracted her article (which was accurate).

So I don't see how one explains the other.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#324

Post by timsally » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #307

lukifer wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The burden of proof is on state power to justify itself." It seems very plausible that WL/Assange disclosed information irresponsibly, and if so, he should be held to account. The real concern is that I think we all know he isn't going to get anything resembling a fair trial; The Powers That Be are looking to send a message to any other would-be leakers and journalists with the audacity to challenge unaccountable st…

Many of the things he's charged with have nothing to do with whether Assange disclosed information "irresponsibly". On a message board, the entire debate is over whether WL is a good thing or not. But that's not at all the matter that is put before the court.

Your comment is well taken. However, I would point out that with respect to the disclosure counts there is some legal relevance to the frequent message board debate about whether he is a "journalist" or not. The false claim that he is one is made due to the belief it will provide him with a modicum of legal protection against some of the disclosure counts. It wont help him at all when it comes to the computer intrusion count and I also don't think it helps with the conspiracy to obtain NDI (though I am less sure on that one). Either way I would expect to see the journalism issue discussed and ultimately debunked at trail.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#325

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #123

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #107

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.

But the relevant question is "Why should a person's private medical history be public knowledge?"

"Why should a person's private medical history"

Well, it depends on which public person we are talking about.

A random nobody? Yeah, privacy is important for them.

Someone running for president, or someone who is a CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world? I don't really care much about their privacy, in either circumstance.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#326

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

mmcwilliams wrote: post #296

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.

That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

Don't put words in the other person's mouth.

Instead, what people are saying is that if someone has a huge amount of power, then we don't really care about their privacy.

Someone running a blog does not have a huge amount of power.

Someone running a trillion dollar company, or running or president, or whatever, does have a huge amount of power.

Thats the difference.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#327

Post by mindslight » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

timsally wrote: post #281

tptacek wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Never proven false" is an Orwellian turn of phrase, because WL's concern with accuracy is obviously not overriding: https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/757599082928082944?lang=en Also: why would I care that Hammond was prosecuted? Hammond was caught dead to rights.

Thanks for chiming in. I would also add that he put aid workers and activists at risk [1] and caused potential harm, torture, and death to dissidents in Afghanistan and Iraq [2]. Indiscriminate doxing to accomplish a radical agenda is not journalism. My view-- which I admit is broader than the point you made-- is that he is a criminal and should be tried and convicted. It makes me sick to my stomach that he cloaks hi…

> he cloaks his actions in the hard work and bravery of our free press.

What specifically are you invoking here as the "free press" ? There is very little free press in the United States. The overwhelming majority of what is called the press consists of mouthpieces for the ruling power structure, analogous to state media in the USSR.

I agree it would have been better for documents to be reviewed before publication rather than dumped. But I just don't see how that was possible given the limited resources of the non-corrupt press, and the tendency of the government to go after anyone in possession of leaks. Assange being considered a journalist has much to do with the rot of the institution itself.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#328

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

timsally wrote: post #324

tptacek wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the things he's charged with have nothing to do with whether Assange disclosed information "irresponsibly". On a message board, the entire debate is over whether WL is a good thing or not. But that's not at all the matter that is put before the court.

Your comment is well taken. However, I would point out that with respect to the disclosure counts there is some legal relevance to the frequent message board debate about whether he is a "journalist" or not. The false claim that he is one is made due to the belief it will provide him with a modicum of legal protection against some of the disclosure counts. It wont help him at all when it comes to the computer intrusi…

There's an awfully tough hill to climb for any argument suggesting that any kind of intentionality, journalistic or humanitarian or otherwise, might immunize someone for literally dispatching Lulzsec with a list of targets. The law will see the winged monkeys and draw the obvious conclusion about what kind of person dispatches those.

Of course, we're working solely from the indictment, and Assange will make his own case rebutting those claims. But if the DOJ's informant holds up, I'm not sure what the persuasive argument is going to be. Maybe he'll hold out for nullification.

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#329

Post by 34679 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #160

34679 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it not possible that Wikileaks decided it was safer for them to report on the US, given our supposed press freedoms?

It's possible. Has Wikileaks ever stated as such?

Has Wikileaks ever stated "they were aimed solely at discrediting America"?

Re: Julian Assange charged in superseding indictment

#330

Post by 0x8BADF00D » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

mmcwilliams wrote: post #296

0x8BADF00D wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He’s not an officer of a publicly traded corporation, and has no fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. It’s a completely different case from being doxxed.

That wasn't your distinction, though. You used the term "public figure" and I think it's a bit dramatic to say that he was doxxed when he wrote under his full name until 2013, references those writings frequently and used that full name on the blog as recently as last year. Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

> Either public figures deserve a measure of privacy or they don't.

The real answer is that it depends. If a public figure is abusing their position, then yes, it is in the public interest to know about this abuse of power.

Imagine for a second if every politician’s financial history for all of their financial accounts were on an immutable ledger. That is something that is desirable, though it violates those individuals’ privacy. In this case we would say the public interest supersedes their right to privacy.