Where does WF stand on WikiLeaks?

[xmcp123]

The article goes into detail on Assange's notion of a conspiracy.

Using Assange's definition of conspiracy and applying it to WikiLeaks, the result is a perfect fit.

But that's not even the end of it.

Going further down, under "How do we dismantle conspiracies", we look at Assange's ideas relevant to attacking conspiracies.



...which is exactly what happened when Pfc Manning was arrested...

Going further down this path, we see Assange pondering the effects of a conspiracy under attack:



After the cyber attacks on WikiLeaks, the website was "split", losing its primary domain and having to spread out to several mirrors and domains.

Capturing Assange put WikiLeaks in chaos, leading to a mutiny in their own ranks. (reduce or eliminating important communication between a few high weight links or many low weight links...). The result is, clearly, a less powerful network, that nevertheless exists.

Another perfect fit. You couldn't make this stuff up. Here's another one:



WikiLeaks got started on this long ago. Fearing for the security and anonymity of criminals like Manning, they put in place some pretty comprehensive infrastructure to preserve anonymity. Why? Because of fear and paranoia. :xmas-smiley-016:

Why did Assange go into hiding for so long? Why did he resist extradition to Sweden? Why is he blackmailing any country that tries to imprison him? What would the leakers and workers behind WikiLeaks feel if their work was brought into the light from behind the screen of anonymity?

You guessed it, fear and paranoia.

Seeing these parallels, it's amazing. Assange's WikiLeaks has transformed into exactly the kind of organization he has despised. The great irony is that he doesn't even realize it.

I'm tired of reading his two bit philosophies. So let's end it with this one



For example, a plan to release American documents without the consent or wish of the American public or the government to whom it rightfully belongs? Is that authoritarian enough? Bwah!

Assange is a goldmine of contradictions.

Ok. I have some more time, so I'll actually reply to this one:

Assange fully understands that Wikileaks matches up with the definition he gives of "conspiracy". But he doesn't hold them to be inherently bad. It's not "conspiracy' in the NWO sense. It's been described as "any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders." But you managed to read the article while missing the point.

So acknowledging that Wikileaks fits within that definition, and not all are inherently bad:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

They are as subject to this as anyone else. But it's something that only works if there's inherent corruption and untruthfulness in the organization. By being (ideally) more just and more truthful than the other groups, they make themselves less vulnerable. It's a universal control on any type of organization you could create, not something they're saying is inherent to the 'bad guys'.
And even though you don't take this odd merger of political philosophy and realpolitik seriously, a growing number of people are.

They are rightly afraid, but not for the reasons discussed in the entry.

If this still went over your head, I can probably knock a few syllables off some of the words for you.

 

[Rexibit]

This makes me LOL.

Of course, which is why Assange broke no law and will not be vulnerable to prosecution. Hmmm, how to address that quandary? Accuse the government of corruption and illegal charges? Beautiful, it wraps everything up with a little bow.

You finally admit he's legally justified and broke no law. Awesome.

What he did was illegal and he's gonna pay the price.

Wait, what? You just said he didn't.

Exactly what I predicted, i.e. the government is corrupt and these are trumped up charges. In other words, a discussion that goes nowhere.

So you're basically saying he's innocent, again, and the charges against him are unjustified. Cool.

Never gave up anything, I said there was no difference between what he did and espionage. Looks like my viewpoint was vindicated - again. He'll be prosecuted and convicted for espionage.

But you just said, twice, that he was innocent.

I don't blame you, there really isn't any other argument left but to wildly accuse the government of illegal actions and corruption. It's a clearly weak position, but there's nothing left. My position was correct all along, I win, you lose. Goodbye.

So you're admitting that your position, and argument, is weak? I'll quote your position again.

Exactly what I predicted, i.e. the government is corrupt and these are trumped up charges.

Anyway, now that I pointed that out. I'd like to point out something else that makes this a lot funnier, but I think this is where logic will really blow your mind.

Under the Espionage Act, of the WWI era, which is probably how you're assuming he's guilty of it, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF ESPIONAGE. Yes, even you, Hellblazer.

It makes no distinction between the person who took the classified documents, the person they handed them off too, all the way down to the person who just happened to hear about what was in the document and discussed it.

In other words, you even talking about items in the documents (i.e. just discussing the word "cables" or the type of content they contain) makes you guilty of espionage because the documents are still considered classified.

That would make all the news reports, people tweeting the links on twitter, owners of the RSS aggregator sites, etc. guilty of espionage because they are all carriers of the information.

That's why Shady showed you the Supreme Court case, it better defines the very loosely worded Espionage Act. Otherwise we'd all be thrown in jail.

 

[Ar Scion]

Ok. I have some more time, so I'll actually reply to this one:

Assange fully understands that Wikileaks matches up with the definition he gives of "conspiracy". But he doesn't hold them to be inherently bad. It's not "conspiracy' in the NWO sense. It's been described as "any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders." But you managed to read the article while missing the point.

So acknowledging that Wikileaks fits within that definition, and not all are inherently bad:


They are as subject to this as anyone else. But it's something that only works if there's inherent corruption and untruthfulness in the organization. By being (ideally) more just and more truthful than the other groups, they make themselves less vulnerable. It's a universal control on any type of organization you could create, not something they're saying is inherent to the 'bad guys'.
And even though you don't take this odd merger of political philosophy and realpolitik seriously, a growing number of people are.

They are rightly afraid, but not for the reasons discussed in the entry.

If this still went over your head, I can probably knock a few syllables off some of the words for you.

Here's quoting the HuffPo article referencing Assange's ideology

Why conspiracies are necessarily harmful

What's wrong with conspiracies? In a certain sense closed networks are ubiquitous. Problems arise when they become extremely powerful, because whatever the intentions of the individuals within the network, the network itself is optimized for its own success, and not for the benefit of those outside of the network. Again, this is not by design, it is just an emergent property of such systems that they function in this way.

If, (p1) according to Assange, WikiLeaks is a "conspiracy", and (p2) according to Assange conspiracies are necessarily harmful due to their nature,

then (C) _____________

Fill in the blanks.

Now, I know you are committed to supporting transparency and holding the government accountable, but you gotta admit that his own theory skewers WikiLeaks as harmful.

Simple logic, using Assange's own words to test his worldview.

By the way, this is not a critique of transparency or a critique of holding the government in check. It's a critique of WikiLeaks specifically as an extension of Assange's worldview.

 

[xmcp123]

Here's quoting the HuffPo article referencing Assange's ideology



If, (p1) according to Assange, WikiLeaks is a "conspiracy", and (p2) according to Assange conspiracies are necessarily harmful due to their nature,

then (C) _____________

Fill in the blanks.

Now, I know you are committed to supporting transparency and holding the government accountable, but you gotta admit that his own theory skewers WikiLeaks as harmful.

To the extent that any organization is going to match the definition, yes. But in terms of "badness" - judged as a quantity, they are far below most.
But their goal isn't to end all of them, or even most of them. Their goal is to introduce a system that limits the ability of corrupt ones to communicate and expand, and that leaks are more likely to spring up within those rather than the more docile/less damaging ones.

When the idea(that they themselves are an organization subject to the same influences) was tested and their own donor list was leaked to them, they responded as they would if it were about another organization: they leaked the information. I think that yes, this shows that they consider themselves subject to the same philosophy, and the same types of problems that can spring up.

Simple logic, using Assange's own words to test his worldview.

By the way, this is not a critique of transparency or a critique of holding the government in check. It's a critique of WikiLeaks specifically as an extension of Assange's worldview.

I never said it was. I said it was an explanation of how wikileaks as a social "moral tax" of sorts - that tax being the decreased ability to communicate within a corrupt organization. And yes, that idea is part Assange's worldview, no question. The debate is about whether or not he's correct(which I believe he is).
On a sidenote, my original source was this, but I couldn't find it when I was posting.

 

[nickster]

Under the Espionage Act, of the WWI era, which is probably how you're assuming he's guilty of it, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF ESPIONAGE. Yes, even you, Hellblazer.

It makes no distinction between the person who took the classified documents, the person they handed them off too, all the way down to the person who just happened to hear about what was in the document and discussed it.

In other words, you even talking about items in the documents (i.e. just discussing the word "cables" or the type of content they contain) makes you guilty of espionage because the documents are still considered classified.

That would make all the news reports, people tweeting the links on twitter, owners of the RSS aggregator sites, etc. guilty of espionage because they are all carriers of the information.

I went away and read about this and you are exactly right. According to the espionage act that they say they may try to prosecute Assange with actually makes everyone who reads or talks about the cables just as culpable as those who stole them or printed them.

I ask Hellblazer and Ar Scion to comment on the fact that if Assange is actually guilty of espionage then they could also be arrested and prosecuted under the same law as they are discussing the leaked cables. Sound good to you?

 

[Ar Scion]

To the extent that any organization is going to match the definition, yes. But in terms of "badness" - judged as a quantity, they are far below most.
But their goal isn't to end all of them, or even most of them. Their goal is to introduce a system that limits the ability of corrupt ones to communicate and expand, and that leaks are more likely to spring up within those rather than the more docile/less damaging ones.

When the idea(that they themselves are an organization subject to the same influences) was tested and their own donor list was leaked to them, they responded as they would if it were about another organization: they leaked the information. I think that yes, this shows that they consider themselves subject to the same philosophy, and the same types of problems that can spring up.

I never said it was. I said it was an explanation of how wikileaks as a social "moral tax" of sorts - that tax being the decreased ability to communicate within a corrupt organization. And yes, that idea is part Assange's worldview, no question. The debate is about whether or not he's correct(which I believe he is).
On a sidenote, my original source was this, but I couldn't find it when I was posting.

The "badness" assessment you make is subjective, based on your opinion that the system is irreconcilably corrupt and needs WikiLeaks to fix it. Which is fair, you are allowed to have your opinion.

But it's not objective. You can't assert this as incontrovertible truth.

Here's another look at how similiar WikiLeaks is to the conspiracy it's trying to unfurl:

WikiLeaks doesn't believe they are a bad organization. Just like the government doesn't believe the government is a bad organization.

Some people outside WikiLeaks think WikiLeaks is a bad idea, just like some people outside the government think the government is a bad organization.

But listen, I'm not against all media organizations of this kind.

In fact, I was supportive of WikiLeaks before these cables came out. With the Iraq War leaks before this, I thought they were doing a public service by exposing unethical behavior in the military that would legitimately lead to reform.

It's only after these latest cables were leaked, with no potential of reform, serving merely as tabloid fodder, resulting in damage to American diplomatic efforts and threatening to harm even more that I turned against WikiLeaks.

It's motives were clearly to harm the US Government, whether publicly acknowledged or not.

I don't know if you've heard of OpenLeaks, but it was started by a WikiLeaks defector. If OpenLeaks sticks to its claimed principles of being apolitical and democratically run, if it exposes corruption and opportunities for reform without harming legitimate national interests, you just might see me advocating OpenLeaks.

Transparency is important, but not at the expense of the interests of the American people.

 

[lukep]

are you some kind of john madden for political threads?

Only when I don't have time to jump in the fray myself... The pay isn't good enough for it to be a full-time gig.

 

[nickster]

I went away and read about this and you are exactly right. According to the espionage act that they say they may try to prosecute Assange with actually makes everyone who reads or talks about the cables just as culpable as those who stole them or printed them.

I ask Hellblazer and Ar Scion to comment on the fact that if Assange is actually guilty of espionage then they could also be arrested and prosecuted under the same law as they are discussing the leaked cables. Sound good to you?

Hmm, no opinion? Guess you wouldn't like to live in a country where you can get locked up for debating these things out in the open.

 

[hellblazer]

This makes me LOL.

You finally admit he's legally justified and broke no law. Awesome.

Wait, what? You just said he didn't.

So you're basically saying he's innocent, again, and the charges against him are unjustified. Cool.

But you just said, twice, that he was innocent.

So you're admitting that your position, and argument, is weak? I'll quote your position again.

Anyway, now that I pointed that out. I'd like to point out something else that makes this a lot funnier, but I think this is where logic will really blow your mind.

Under the Espionage Act, of the WWI era, which is probably how you're assuming he's guilty of it, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF ESPIONAGE. Yes, even you, Hellblazer.

It makes no distinction between the person who took the classified documents, the person they handed them off too, all the way down to the person who just happened to hear about what was in the document and discussed it.

In other words, you even talking about items in the documents (i.e. just discussing the word "cables" or the type of content they contain) makes you guilty of espionage because the documents are still considered classified.

That would make all the news reports, people tweeting the links on twitter, owners of the RSS aggregator sites, etc. guilty of espionage because they are all carriers of the information.

That's why Shady showed you the Supreme Court case, it better defines the very loosely worded Espionage Act. Otherwise we'd all be thrown in jail.

Sigh... Rexibit, you're cool man, but I hope I don't need to put sarcasm disclaimers every time I write something. Suffice it to say those statements that clearly contradict my official position could be, shall I say, sneering at those making that position.

And to say that we're the same as Assange is absurd. Assange published sensitive information. Once it's out there, it's done and nobody can be blamed for what's in the public domain. But the crime occurred with Assange and Manning; common sense obviously dictates it's not confidential anymore and no one can be blamed for that. Justice may be blind, but it's not retarded.

 

[Rexibit]

Sigh... Rexibit, you're cool man, but I hope I don't need to put sarcasm disclaimers every time I write something. Suffice it to say those statements that clearly contradict my official position could be, shall I say, sneering at those making that position.

Lol, no. I usually pick up on sarcasm, but your post for #115 was missing an eye-rolling smiley, LOL, or a later sentence to reverse the statement. I figured it might have been a typo where you were going to be sarcastic, and just forgot to remove that first sentence, but the rest of the post was about it, so I felt I needed to point it all out.

I wasn't aiming to be a dick, but it was just too funny to pass up.

And to say that we're the same as Assange is absurd. Assange published sensitive information. Once it's out there, it's done and nobody can be blamed for what's in the public domain. But the crime occurred with Assange and Manning; common sense obviously dictates it's not confidential anymore and no one can be blamed for that. Justice may be blind, but it's not retarded.

Yes, if common sense were applied, this entire thing wouldn't be an issue. Hell, if common sense were applied, nearly all lawsuits, laws, etc. wouldn't have even been created.

Under the Supreme Court ruling, Assange, and any reporter that publishes classified documents given to them, should be protected. However, that's probably not going to happen with how transparency has been going over the last decade.

Since the US will push Sweden to extradite Assange to the US, they'll probably bring up that Espionage Act in order to use it to prosecute him. If that happens, then you will see a lot more people getting hit with charges than just Assange, as it is a very broad and sweeping document. In order to use it, they'll have to not show favoritism or it'll go right back to the Supreme Court, where they already have a president set.

Prosecuting Assange will cause a lot more backlash than just him being prosecuted for espionage, if it gets that far. It'll limit our freedom on the Internet, and give the government the foothold they have been shooting for in order to pass that bill about the two separate Internet blacklists, which they have full access to put sites on one with no approval from us, and can be petitioned by lobbyists to put sites on the other.

So yes, while on the surface, people will think it's just about espionage, in reality, they will have the ability to put any site they deem as a threat into a blacklist, and their lobbyists can push for sites they also want on there (i.e. corporations killing their competitors).

 

[nickster]

Sigh... Rexibit, you're cool man, but I hope I don't need to put sarcasm disclaimers every time I write something. Suffice it to say those statements that clearly contradict my official position could be, shall I say, sneering at those making that position.

And to say that we're the same as Assange is absurd. Assange published sensitive information. Once it's out there, it's done and nobody can be blamed for what's in the public domain. But the crime occurred with Assange and Manning; common sense obviously dictates it's not confidential anymore and no one can be blamed for that. Justice may be blind, but it's not retarded.

Common sense is not relevant, this is the law you believe he should be prosecuted with, and you and I and everyone else who read or discussed those cables have broken it.

Really simple, if Assange is guilty of espionage then so are you, common sense or not.

 

[faceblogger]

Truth is good. Lies are bad.
Freedom of the press is good. Censorship is bad.

I do believe those 4 statements make my position clear.

^^^^^^^
This

 

[Ar Scion]

Common sense is not relevant

Sums up your posting history on this topic.

 

[nickster]

Sums up your posting history on this topic.

Guess you are happy to avoid the issue that you have broken your country's espionage laws too.

 

[Ar Scion]

Guess you are happy to avoid the issue that you have broken your country's espionage laws too.

I haven't read the cables. I've only read what was reportedly in the cables.

 

[nickster]

I haven't read the cables. I've only read what was reportedly in the cables.

Irrelevant.

If you are not "authorized" personnel, but you have read, written about, commented upon or otherwise discussed "classified" information disclosed from WikiLeaks, you could be implicated for crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act.

Also, how can you have a strong opinion upon something that you haven't even read any of? Now you are clearly admitting that the ONLY information you have on Wikileaks (and base all of your opinions on) comes from the biased news channels that you watch! What a waste of our time debating with someone so under informed.

 

[Ar Scion]

Irrelevant.

If you are not "authorized" personnel, but you have read, written about, commented upon or otherwise discussed "classified" information disclosed from WikiLeaks, you could be implicated for crimes under the U.S. Espionage Act.

Also, how can you have a strong opinion upon something that you haven't even read any of? Now you are clearly admitting that the ONLY information you have on Wikileaks (and base all of your opinions on) comes from the biased news channels that you watch! What a waste of our time debating with someone so under informed.

I could be implicated? Does that mean that I also could not be implicated?

Come on now broski.

 

[nickster]

I could be implicated? Does that mean that I also could not be implicated?

Come on now broski.

Whether your government chooses to prosecute you or not is up to them, not you, not me

 

[Ar Scion]

Where are you from, nickster?

 

[nickster]

All around. Am Irish, live in Spain, married to Bulgarian, u?