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

91–100 of 141 posts

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

#91

Post by jacquesm »

joshuaheard wrote: post #86
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you apply to the government for a job and in your job application, you put your address, social security number, telephone number, your personal references, etc. Then the government does a background check on you including your credit history, transcripts of interviews with your friends and family, copies of sealed court records, and copies of medical records obtained to qualify for employer insurance. One country…

You are conflating the right to personal privacy with the need for government transparency, they are two entirely different subjects.

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

#92

Post by nhangen »

lincolnq wrote: post #68
nhangen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please consider the possibility that you haven't learned to post your negative reactions in a thoughtful way, rather than that the community is simply downvoting opinions they don't like.

It's thoughtful to me. I believe in being clear and concise. We're dealing in subjectivity here, it's as simple as that.

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

#93

Post by jacquesm »

nhangen wrote: post #89
nhangen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.

> I'm referring to enemies of the West.

Oh my!

> If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.

I guess I will have to take your word for it.

> I've met them.

In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ?

> They don't like us.

Did they specify any reasons ?

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

#94

Post by anonymous246 »

jacquesm wrote: post #73
lkjhgfvhjk wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 use…

What business do you run? Is the stolen CC # problem greater with certain kinds of businesses than others?

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

#95

Post by moxiemk1 »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
moxiemk1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards.

Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.

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

#96

Post by _b8r0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #80
moxiemk1 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That he turned himself in is (mostly) irrelevant in the UK legal system. Here we don't have laws that cover what the swedes have supposedly charged him with, instead he's being charged with rape. If he successfully fights to be tried here he'll walk because what they're claiming in Sweden doesn't constitute rape in the UK.

He was unable to give an actual physical address. Under the UK legal system you have to be bailed to an address. A PO box isn't enough. The chances of flight are high if the shit does hit the fan (compared to most people bailed) and (for example) the US decides to invoke the extradition treaty we signed in 2003 on the grounds of the espionage act 1917. That would be my move if I was a really stupid American FBI Director looking to alleviate political pressure from the senate and executive.

The other thing as well is that a rape charge generally doesn't get bail here, so he was already on shaky ground to start with.

Personally I think him being in the UK was a bad move to start with, this is probably the last country you want to be apprehended in if you're on the run from the states, just ask Gary McKinnon.

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

#97

Post by gasull »

ErrantX wrote: post #22

I'm not Assange's biggest fan (r.e. how he controls Wikileaks) but some of the nonsense coming from the US establishment (and elsehwere) is appalling. It probably even vindicates what Wikileaks stands for. This is one of those cases where damage limitation is the sane and sensible response; they've lost those cables, we are going to see them. Deal with it. They need perspective; in the grand scheme of things it is hi…

There are plenty examples of corruption in the cables, but most of them are about other countries, not the US. But still, some examples:

- The US spied on the UN, including credit card numbers and frequent flying numbers of its leaders.

- The US wrote Spanish new IP law.

- The US pressured Spain not investigate the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad by US forces.

The leak degrades the image of the US government, but not as much as it degrades the images of almost any other government (at least so far).

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

#98

Post by jacquesm »

moxiemk1 wrote: post #95
jacquesm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That must be why he turned himself in.

Just because he turned himself in doesn't mean that he wouldn't flee afterwards. Wikileaks is in a very large part about influencing perception. Everything has a purpose. Again, someone who has been trekking around the globe because many government are after him is hardly not an escape risk.

The 'risk' would be that he would flee abroad, and last I checked England was an island.

Also, fleeing would make him look pretty bad in the eyes of many and I personally don't think he would be stupid enough to do so (that's not much of a guarantee, I'll give you that), since capture (see 'island') is almost inevitable.

I wonder if anybody has access to what those maximum penalties of the charges brought are (under Swedish law), and how they relate to being jailed pending an extradition hearing. That would be interesting because I read in one uncorroborated source that the punishment for the circumstances described is actually a fine, rather than jail time and it would seem that if that is really the case that any jail time at all (such as pending this hearing) would be excessive. If Assange fights extradition do they plan to hold him in custody during the whole time ? And if so how is that different from using this as a ploy to simply lock him up because he's a 'risk' ?

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

#99

Post by nhangen »

jacquesm wrote: post #93
nhangen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I've met them. They don't like us.

> I'm referring to enemies of the West. Oh my! > If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken. I guess I will have to take your word for it. > I've met them. In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ? > They don't like us. Did they specify any reasons ?

When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.

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

#100

Post by jacquesm »

anonymous246 wrote: post #94
jacquesm wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 use…

What business do you run? Is the stolen CC # problem greater with certain kinds of businesses than others?

> What business do you run?

I run a web service with a subscription component, friends of mine run an IPSP.

> Is the stolen CC # problem greater with certain kinds of businesses than others?

Yes, absolutely. If you run a service targeted at businesses or teachers or other 'nice' people you're likely not going to see much, if any of this. If you run a site that sells physical goods you'll get plenty but you will be able to do some pretty good checks before shipping the goods and you'll have a signature from a recipient. You will likely also have a list of destinations you do not serve.

If those are not your target markets then all bets are off and you will likely get bitten badly before you learn the rules by which the game is played.

Post reply on HN