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

Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

theaustralian.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#71

Post by sachitgupta »

rzitex wrote: post #63
swombat wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to TFA: * Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and har…

swombat, just to add a little humor to that. "hunted down like Osama bin Laden" When exactly did the US of A actually manage to hunt down Osama bin laden? If Assange is hunted the same way, he is sage until around 2030.

Haha Relevant: http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/11620256778821632

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#72

Post by jacquesm »

nhangen wrote: post #65
jacquesm wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oversimplification does not benefit anybody. > He is simply exposing America's secrets in order to hurt America. That is criminal. Assuming he is - which I really think misses the point - by what law is this criminal ? He's not an American citizen, nor is he in America. Why do you feel this is criminal ? Do you think it would it be criminal if an American did it ?

In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?

Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow.

There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies.

The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such.

Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#73

Post by jacquesm »

lkjhgfvhjk wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's entirely fair because if they are aware of a merchant doing such a thing they'd be shut down in a heartbeat. That said I really don't think they have any business shutting down the flow of funds between parties that have not actually been sentenced (or even accused) of a crime of sorts.

It's a great 'operation ore' defence though. If a web site was offering payment by Visa/Mastercard then I assumed it was all legal when I signed up to download the pictures - because MC/Visa vet their customers. Note to foreigners: operation ore was a UK police sweep to arrest pedophiles solely on the evidence that their credit card numbers had been used on child porn sites in the US. The judge rejected claims that t…

> The judge rejected claims that the credit cards could have been stolen because of the strenuous efforts credit card companies put into security.

Man I would have liked to be an expert witness in that case.

That judge ought to be thrown off the bench for talking out of his honorable ass. Credit card fraud with stolen numbers is so rampant it's not even funny, we reject probably around 40% of the charges (and the users don't complain, right?).

Typically it is not the credit card companies (or the banks) that go to great lengths to protect the card holders but it is the IPSPs and the merchants that try to do the best they can, only to find out that they're holding the bag if a charge is ever contested because VISA, MC and other card companies/issuers do not do anything whatsoever.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#74

Post by [deleted] »

nhangen wrote: post #41
mquander wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, look at the comment you originally replied to. It's a "reasonable objection" about Wikileaks. It also has actual content and a point that it makes, as opposed to, say, being a one-line opinion with no support. Now look at your comment.

I replied to a comment in the thread, re-enforcing that commenters opinion. I'm sure people don't like it, and that's fine, but to consistently be downvoted every time I post a negative reaction to Assange is absurd. I wish we, as a community, could elevate ourselves above the infighting reminiscent of an MSNBC or FOXNews.

[deleted]

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#76

Post by lkjhgfvhjk »

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #47
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes me wonder what is in the leaks that we haven't seen yet. After all if highly placed officials are getting their panties in a twist based on what we've seen so far then they are over-reacting to put it mildly. 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 f…

It honestly wouldn't shock me that the restarted attacks on North and South Korea weren't because of Wikileaks. Or for that matter, I'd be surprised that the US isn't having setbacks on many diplomatic processes.

You think Kim Jong-Il was shocked to discover that he wasn't a towering international statesman and decided to attack S Korea because of it?

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#77

Post by khafra »

lkjhgfvhjk wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's entirely fair because if they are aware of a merchant doing such a thing they'd be shut down in a heartbeat. That said I really don't think they have any business shutting down the flow of funds between parties that have not actually been sentenced (or even accused) of a crime of sorts.

It's a great 'operation ore' defence though. If a web site was offering payment by Visa/Mastercard then I assumed it was all legal when I signed up to download the pictures - because MC/Visa vet their customers. Note to foreigners: operation ore was a UK police sweep to arrest pedophiles solely on the evidence that their credit card numbers had been used on child porn sites in the US. The judge rejected claims that t…

Holy crap. A simple trip to Wikipedia will reveal that there was over 500 million pounds worth of credit card fraud per year at last count; I can only hope the judge was immediately impeached.

edited to correct 3 order of magnitude error (thanks, jacquesm); but at least I was much closer than a judge, and not using that figure for binding decisions ruining many peoples' lives.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#78

Post by moxiemk1 »

jacquesm wrote: post #50

Bail was refused: "Let down by the UK justice system's bizarre decision to refuse bail to Julian Assange. But #cablegate releases continue as planned." http://twitter.com/wikileaks

Is it bizarre to refuse bail to someone who has been constantly on the move and clearly knows how to evade detection to a fair degree?

He seems to be a perfect example of a fleeing risk.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#79

Post by nhangen »

jacquesm wrote: post #72
nhangen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In doing business with criminals, you become one IMO. Sure, technically he's not violating any laws, but I think that points to flaws in the justice system (worldwide, not just the US) more than it does to his nobility. If someone illegally sells/steals/shares confidential information, then where does the chain of responsibility/legality stop?

Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow. There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the…

I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today.

The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes.

Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it.

It's meant to prevent government censorship.

And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.

Re: Don't shoot the messenger for telling the truth

#80

Post by jacquesm »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #78
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Bail was refused: "Let down by the UK justice system's bizarre decision to refuse bail to Julian Assange. But #cablegate releases continue as planned." http://twitter.com/wikileaks

Is it bizarre to refuse bail to someone who has been constantly on the move and clearly knows how to evade detection to a fair degree? He seems to be a perfect example of a fleeing risk.

That must be why he turned himself in.
Post reply on HN