For all you lefty WIkileaks supporters...

[EnderJE]

Wow... maybe I should reserve the name: "www.Wikiabortionleaks.org". I bet I could make some serious dough on the click-through advertising.

Please don't lose your zeal for dishing-out "tough lucks" when people scream.

I shall call this Plunkey and RS2.

 

[nimbus]

And yet I would be sued to hell and back.

And I would lose.

Do a little research on the subject. Just because someone hands you a stolen apple means you get to eat it. Consider the consequences of the system working any other way -- it would be anarchy.

who decides what is too confidential to be posted online and what isn't?

 

[mrplunkey]

who decides what is too confidential to be posted online and what isn't?

It doesn't just apply to posting. Working with stolen data (or stolen items) simply isn't allowed. It exposes you to criminal and civil penalties which should apply to Assange.

 

[nimbus]

It doesn't just apply to posting. Working with stolen data (or stolen items) simply isn't allowed. It exposes you to criminal and civil penalties which should apply to Assange.

how is Assange working with it in any way other than publishing the content on his website?

 

[mrplunkey]

how is Assange working with it in any way other than publishing the content on his website?

First of all, he's openly soliciting and using stolen information. The name "WikiLeaks" says it all.

Second, he's not a legitimate news source. Simply owning a printing press or a web site doesn't make you a first-amendment protected publisher.

 

[75th]

Good summation.

And few of the free personality assessments offered by the cables contain any surprises — Berlusconi parties hard, Kevin Rudd’s a control freak, Russia’s run by crooks. But it’s hard to read about, say, Shell boasting of knowing everything the Nigerian Government does courtesy of its operatives embedded in that government, or US military involvement in Yemen, and declare it to be “old news”.

This credibility gap —  ya’ll know the origin of that phrase I’m sure — as much as loose security and over-classification within the US government and military, is what needs to be addressed as a result of WikiLeaks. Why didn’t US taxpayers know from their own government that their armed forces were deeply involved in action in Yemen? Why do Australians have to rely on leaked cables to find out just how pessimistic both politicians and bureaucrats are about a conflict that is costing the lives of our young men? Why do Nigerians need to rely on WikiLeaks to find out their government has been extensively infiltrated by agents of oil companies? No reasons of statecraft or national security could justify the gaps between publicly-stated positions and privately-held beliefs among decision-makers.

All politicians and senior officials face a clear decision in the wake of WikiLeaks  — either they can gamble that never again will such material make it into the public domain — beyond, um, the other quarter-million cables yet to be released — or they can start closing the gap between what they tell the public and what they actually think.

None of this will fade away. It will continue, for however many months or years it will take for these cables to be released. This isn’t a news event, it’s an entirely new environment for political leaders. Their best bet is to start adjusting.

 

[nimbus]

*meant to edit but just posted again so see below for the actual post lol*

 

[nimbus]

First of all, he's openly soliciting and using stolen information. The name "WikiLeaks" says it all.

Second, he's not a legitimate news source. Simply owning a printing press or a web site doesn't make you a first-amendment protected publisher.

what is he using it for?

the bottom here for me is that Assange is not creating an extra incentive to leak information, so there is no point in going after his operation. A billion people can publish and republish stolen data, but only a select few can actually steal it. It seems pretty obvious to me where the efficient place to focus prosecution efforts is

 

[mrplunkey]

what is he using it for?

the bottom here for me is that Assange is not creating an extra incentive to leak information, so there is no point in going after his operation. A billion people can publish and republish stolen data, but only a select few can actually steal it. It seems pretty obvious to me where the efficient place to focus prosecution efforts is

He's using it for fame. I'm sure he's got a plan for monitoring it as well. Perhaps advertising or speaking fees.

And don't get me wrong. I want those who steal the information shot. But this is something that has to be addresed on multiple fronts.

 

[nimbus]

He's using it for fame. I'm sure he's got a plan for monitoring it as well. Perhaps advertising or speaking fees.

i don't see how that's much worse than news outlets writing stories about wikileaks and drawing attention to the site.

as a fellow engineer i'm sure you are familiar with root cause analysis. the crux of the problem here is people willing to leak confidential information. If you eliminate that, there is no more problem. Like you said earlier, charge the sources of the leaks with treason. Get serious about keeping government information secure and Wikileaks becomes a lame ass site that if it's lucky gets to post colonel sanders' secret herbs and spices. Going after 3rd parties who publish content is going to achieve almost nothing, because there are a zillion other ways to disseminate stolen information