91–100 of 132 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought banks are only concerned with profit. Since when did they start defending the nation?
You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning down around your ears, now can you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"you guys should be aware that giving away such information will simply generate a lot of attack vectors by those who want to take down wikileaks" Same as governments, then.
The key difference of course is that they are not a government. If you knew the slightest about Assange you would realize that he has always been a campion of individual privacy, while he at the same Itime attacks the privacy of nations and nation sized organizations. It takes some seriously warped logic to see hypocrisy in this, but hell, americas seem to think corporations are people, so I guess I shouldn't be that…
By the way, even if (ii) is correct, it makes little matter, because of the power balance. As Chomsky often points out, when the powerful obtain information about the powerless, they gain even more power over them than the powerless would have gained over the powerful from similar information. Which means that a more "open" society, with less privacy for individuals and less secrecy from trusts and governments, will inevitably tip the power balance even further.
It is just unreasonable to treat state (and corporate) secrecy and individual privacy the same way. Assange may be a hypocrite, but on this particular issue, he's clean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning down around your ears, now can you?
Unfortunately, you can. There is money in nearly any societal state. The ruination of a country just presents different opportunities, not necessarily fewer.
It'd be better to say that there is potential value (as opposed to 'money', which is a term with overloaded definitions), but yes - as long as there is scarcity, opportunities for trade will exist.
Can Wikileaks simply release the leaks via BitTorrent? Sign the distribution with a crypto certificate and let BT take care of the distribution.
Anybody know why they haven't gone this route?
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 can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront I can, in spirit, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term "evil" as the comparator. Stormfront generates bigotry and hate speech. Distasteful and contempible. But Wikileaks spreads as widely as possible information which can pose real security risks to people (such as US soldiers). As a Jew, I'd rather see people supp…
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance??
I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not much of an issue, but take a look at North East-Germany for instance. There's whole villages occupied by neo-nazis after they chased away the population that wouldn't salute the swastika flag. Yes, in the 21st century. And yes, they do assault and/or kill Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, Blacks, you name it (the ones not in those villages, obviously nobody goes there willingly).
They just don't happen to affect the lives of the super-rich and powerful very much.
Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself.
Skrebbel is pretty much spot-on in his assessment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought banks are only concerned with profit. Since when did they start defending the nation?
You can't very well make a healthy profit if the nation in question is burning down around your ears, now can you?
Except that's exactly what they've been doing for about the entire world history of banking.
They're not protecting the nations, they don't care. They're protecting their own hides. You know Wikileaks got dirt on the banks too, right?
Funny thing is, when they release it (and they already have, parts of it), everybody will be like "everybody already knows this". Tickles me mad, that :-D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront I can, in spirit, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term "evil" as the comparator. Stormfront generates bigotry and hate speech. Distasteful and contempible. But Wikileaks spreads as widely as possible information which can pose real security risks to people (such as US soldiers). As a Jew, I'd rather see people supp…
> I'm assuming they're all talk You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not m…
How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken?
>This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance??
No, I think they make posts on the internet about Jews controlling the world economy, sell racist bumper stickers, etc. Offensive and stupid, but not dangerous.
>Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself.
As I said in my original comment (which you don't appear to have read very carefully), I'm Jewish and I find Stormfront offensive. I also said that evil wasn't the relevant way to compare Stormfront with Wikileaks. But, given the information I have, I think the standard position of supporting free speech so long as it doesn't endanger people is consistent with blocking donations to Wikileaks but not to Stormfront.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can see how someone who has not spent significant time living outside of the US could be of this opinion, but every US resident I know who has lived outside of the country for any significant period of time is also of this opinion. You don't need to spend much time reading European or Asian newspapers, listening to or watching BBC, DW, then be insulted by FOX and Clearchannel to see exactly what the issue is.
Of course there's some poor reporting in the US, like anywhere else. I don't know of any European/Asian newspaper that does a better job than the NY Times or WaPo (or for that matter any good regional US paper), for all their faults, and those who are comparable are usually less widely read than the American ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wil…
"The U.S. bargained with other nations on moving prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to other countries. In one case, U.S. officials allegedly offered Slovenia a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, if the country accepted one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.[24][25] Offers to other countries include economic incentives or a visit from Obama"
"In 2009, the U.S. manipulated — via spying, threats, and bribes — the Copenhagen global climate change summit to coerce reticent participants into supporting the treaty. The U.S. punished countries such as Ecuador and Bolivia, which were deemed "unhelpful" for not signing the Copenhagen Accord, by cutting off millions of dollars in necessary funds;[27] while, the U.S. relieved Saudi Arabia, the world's second-biggest oil producer and one of the twenty-five-richest countries in the world, of any kind of obligation.[28] The U.S. used funds in millions of dollars to recruit the Maldives to sign the Copenhagen Accord, after it has relentlessly took a stand against it"
The above is a sliver of things I've personally learned, and am glad I know, from the leaks. It may not be pleasant or happy information, but I want to know what the Governments and corporations are doing. You may not care or want to know, but some of us do care what is happening.
(used wikipedia's listings to find what I was looking for, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_d... )