Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#71

Post by marquis »

__alexs wrote: post #33
marquis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's widely accepted that this was a smear campaign to detract from the release of a massive amount of diplomatic cables. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/julian-assange-wiki...

Oh it's almost certainly disinformation to some extent. He's not really discussed it at all (and definitely not under oath) so it's hard to draw any real conclusions about whether or not he's a rapist. However he's almost certainly a complete cock to people on a regular basis. There's a lot of evidence for that. Just because you are totally awesome at one level of social discourse doesn't mean you aren't also a compl…

Yes, agreed. I do see how it's valid that some might find Wikileaks a lost cause now. I'm hopeful the baton can be successfully been passed on to other groups, regardless of how Wikileaks fares.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#72

Post by steve19 »

skrebbel wrote: post #63

I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…

I am just explaining the reasoning. Don't hate/downvote me for saying it ...

Silencing people's political opinions (even horrible evil people) is considered bad. This is why donations to these evil organizations is tolerated.

Wikileaks is being blacklisted not because of their political opinions, but because these organizations, rightly or wrongly, believe Wikileaks is threatening security of the nation, causing deaths of informers and collaborators in the Middle East. And last but not least, Wikileaks seems to be actively perusing leaks in banks and financial organizations. If you bite the hand that feeds you ...

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#73

Post by marquis »

mseebach wrote: post #55
marquis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's widely accepted that this was a smear campaign to detract from the release of a massive amount of diplomatic cables. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/julian-assange-wiki...

For very narrow values of "wide". FWIW, you're linking to Assanges own assertion that it's a smear campaign. If this was a smear campaign orchestrated by the top echelons of the US intelligence/military complex, they would have done it better. If they're out there twisting arms and making up charges, why not make it a proper rape, not this "well, strictly he should have known she didn't really approve even though she…

>linking to Assanges own assertion that it's a smear campaign.

Good point. I read a lot about this when it was happening so my reflex was the point to the source, who I believe. Looking forward to an actual court case so some facts can become public.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#74

Post by cube13 »

todsul wrote: post #52
cube13 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem that I have with Assange is that he doesn't practice what he preaches. Wikileaks is an organization that promotes government transparency. Assange, on the other hand, does not seem interested in just providing sources. Wikileaks, under what I assume was his direction, has turned into more of an editorial service, cherry picking information that they present to make certain parties look even worse than the…

> he doesn't practice what he preaches. He preaches government transparency. He's not a government. So how can he practice what he preaches? The same happens every day with journalists who fight for media transparency. Should they also be transparent with every aspect of their lives? Of course not. And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour o…

>And you suggest he should be transparent with his sources. If you seriously believe that, you're clearly not in favour of this movement.

No, I don't believe that Wikileaks should be transparent with the whilstlebowers who give them information. I do believe that Wikileaks should provide the information that they give as close to the originals as possible(with limits on whether or not the leak could directly endanger people), and not attempt to editorialize at all. There is a huge need for a place to view these primary sources. There are way too many places that editorialize the sources for their own purposes. It doesn't help transparency if Wikileaks refuses to release information in order to get "more press". Just release it, and let the public decide.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#75

Post by fl3tch »

robfig wrote: post #37

Can someone explain why diplomatic cables should be free and open?

A functioning democracy requires transparency. We shouldn't have to justify why we want to see government documents. That is the default position. Rather, they should justify why they want to keep them secret. Of course, in practice, if they want to keep something secret, they can't tell us why either. This little loophole allows them to abuse secret-keeping to suppress anything that is embarrassing or paints them in a negative light, and that is extremely dangerous.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#76

Post by cube13 »

notatoad wrote: post #59
robfig wrote: post #37

Can someone explain why diplomatic cables should be free and open?

can you explain why they shouldn't be? i can't think of any reason why a government should expect a right to privacy from their own citizens. the government should work for the people, and they should have a responsibility to provide full disclosure to their citizens. the only reason the government should want to keep things secret from their own people is if they aren't working in our best interests.

It's more to keep the cables from everyone else. They were intended as context-sensitive commentary from diplomats to the US. They were not intended for general release, and as such, contain information and observations that were intended to give the US an advantage over their counterparts at a later time.

That is why they're "secret". They're not supposed to be viewed by any other country. If they are freely available to citizens, there is nothing stopping them from being freely available to everyone.

This is the shell game that has been played by all diplomats since the beginning of time. There wasn't really anything all that interesting about the cables, and all it really gave was a good look at how our diplomatic services work.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#77

Post by nir »

pconf wrote: post #27
gldalmaso wrote: post #3

It impresses me just how much combined effort is being put towards boycoting transparency, just on the grounds that the powers that be are embaressed by their ugly operations.

Also impresses me by how many posts here believe the media coverage of Assange. Just goes to show, Americans are the most naive consumers of commercial news on the planet, by a considerable margin. All I want to know is where I can send a check. Long live government transparency.

I think it's very wrong for banks to disallow money transfers to WikiLeaks, and I think Americans are often naive but "Americans are the most naive consumers of commercial news on the planet" is highly exaggerated.

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#79

Post by forensic »

steve19 wrote: post #72
skrebbel wrote: post #63

I'm impressed by the amount of comments here that point out some (perceived) hypocrisy in the actions of Wikileaks or Assange. This isn't the point. I myself don't really know what to think of Wikileaks. I, however, do know that major banks and financial institutions find it perfectly okay for you to send money to all kinds of horrible organisations (say, the Ku Klux Klan, clubs that campaign for underage sex, Westbo…

I am just explaining the reasoning. Don't hate/downvote me for saying it ... Silencing people's political opinions (even horrible evil people) is considered bad. This is why donations to these evil organizations is tolerated. Wikileaks is being blacklisted not because of their political opinions, but because these organizations, rightly or wrongly, believe Wikileaks is threatening security of the nation, causing deat…

I thought banks are only concerned with profit. Since when did they start defending the nation?

Re: Wikileaks Is Running Out Of Cash

#80

Post by rimantas »

mrleinad wrote: post #53
skeptical wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They shouldn't. Everyone seems to be ignoring that, so you get my upvote. We should be aware that wikileaks actions are indeed crimes. That said, some cables put it crystal clear, some politicians are really corrupt and are using their privileged position to their own advantage. Do the goals justify the means?

Provided that the goals are: 1) Exposing corrupt politicians. 2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of people over and over again. And the downsides are: 1) Some politician loses his/her reputation, and the people of his/her country know who he/she really is. 2) Some frictions between countries, for example when an embassador is just a mean for creating a corporations' lobby. I'd say yes, the means are well just…

  > 1) Exposing corrupt politicians.
Were there any cables discussing how big a bribe should one bring?

  > 2) Stop politicians from screwing millions of people over and
  over again.
Common content of the diplomatic cables, for sure. I heard disclosing those cables let us know who do politicians nickname each other. I guess I can do without that info.

The thing is — if there is anything worth knowin in those cables it will become visible through the actions of the officials sooner or later. If it will not — I don't care.

Post reply on HN