Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

god help us

“I used to defend WikiLeaks all the time on the grounds that they were not indiscriminate dumpers of information,” Greenwald told Slate. “They were carefully protecting people’s reputations. And they have changed their view on that—and no longer believe, as Julian says, in redacting any information of any kind for any reason—and I definitely do not agree with that approach and think that they can be harmful to innocent people or other individuals in ways that I don’t think is acceptable.”

wow, that's kind of big

I feel really bad that I keep mixing up WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden in my mind. Snowden seems like such a better dude than Assange.

ha yeah not even close

the lrb piece that kinder posted above is p much the most thorough dismantling of assange imaginable, a really ridiculous pos:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/02/21/andrew-ohagan/ghosting

Snowden did what he did to show how little control we have over our private data. Assange leaks everyones private data left and right for no good reason. They're kinda pretty much diametrically opposed at this point.

Also, Assange is a rapist. So there's that.

snowden pointedly gave the info he compiled to journalists who he trusted to sift through it all and reveal only the most pertinent stuff

he did the right thing

he seems a million times smarter and more decent than assange; there's no comparison.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html

Drudge + Roger Stone + Assange...if anyone can swift boat, it's them as a team.

holy shit - assange seems genuinely, worryingly unhinged these days

Guy is a rapist. He has been worryingly unhinged for years. He is constantly digging himself lower these days. Shame on Jill Stein for calling him a hero, and saying his rapes were his own personal business.

I don't disagree with Greenwald's comment.

Frederik B, star chamber judge

At one point wikileaks was pro-transparency. Know they use their own secrecy ("we don't comment on who our sources are") to fan conspiracy theories.

Has Greenwald commented on this? I can't find it.

Dude

Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

Yeah, sure. I meant the Seth Rich allegations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html

I’ve had my own run-ins with Mr. Assange. During the making of my 2013 film, “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” I spent an agonizing six hours with him, when he was living in an English country house while out on bail. I was struck by how insistently he steered the conversation away from matters of principle to personal slights against him, and his plans for payback. He demanded personal “intel” on others I had interviewed, and dismissed questions about the organization by saying, “I am WikiLeaks” repeatedly. (Later, Mr. Assange and his followers attacked both me and my film.)

NYTimes, a name you can trust

the author is alex gibney, not the nyt. gibney made such films as we steal secrets: the story of wikileaks & enron: the smartest guys in the room. the NYTimes is not the author, merely the publisher.

also basically everyone who has spent time with assange thinks he's a pos, including former colleagues.

read the lrb piece from Andrew O'Hagan that I reposted upthread 2 weeks ago.

Alex Gibney is also the maker of the recent documentary Zero Days, which relates the US-Israeli creation of the Stuxnet cyberwar virus.

I haven't seen all of Gibney's documentary work, but being in the business of constructing documentaries and doing the requisite interviews seems like a career that would help develop your sense of character

Alex Gibney is also the maker of the recent documentary Zero Days, which relates the US-Israeli creation of the Stuxnet cyberwar virus.

― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:24 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what is your point?

ginbney's films aren't groundbreaking experiments in form but they are excellent both in their detective work and in telling stories. the james brown documentary was surprisingly meaty. but apparently he made a doc about israel so he can't be trusted.

my point is Mordy will love it

and stop addressing me, you prick.

are we on a playground?

xxp also could not figure out what his pt is but if it was really just a film recommendation i will check it out

it does sound interesting!

judging by the 16-year history of your posts, yes, nitwit

xxp

STUXNET

for a putatively left-wing gay shut-in, you sure act a lot like biff tannen online

idk I thought it was pretty obvious Morbs was just providing that as a point of information before getting oddly accosted for it

I get oddly accosted for breathing by board 'regulars'. too old for this shit.

given his history of reflexive anti-semitism zionism and baiting mordy, you can understand how we might have taken it as a jab

if you're too old for this shit, then stop doing it. don't blame us for "addressing" you. you have the power to step away from the board.

i guess this is why all the experts say that bullies are essentially filled with self-loathing...

^ban this fucker for life NOW.

you're a ridiculous self-parody.

anyway, sorry for derail. back to julian assange....

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1151/877040314_a4a912d946_o.jpg

NPR really knows their listeners expect whoring for the Dems

@theintercept
NPR host demands that Assange do something its own reporters are told never to do

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/17/npr-cant-accept-assange-protect-sources/

David Greene is an ass.

They did it again, this time exposing Saudi Arabian rape victims and doctoral records. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WIKILEAKS_COLLATERAL_DAMAGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-03-30-45

"giant library of the world's most persecuted documents."

persecuted documents

persecuted documents

the clintons have some kind of bizarre superpower: everyone who hates them turns into an idiot or a liar at some point.

i mean look at this quoted email

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/768076098555023361

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html

i have some problems w/ this article -- on occasion they seem to take smoke for fire -- but it's still worth a read.

The Wikileaks response is here fwiw:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sp2gj0

this strikes me as indefensible, and draws a sharp line between assange and e.g. snowden

And public spats with would-be allies are not uncommon.

One involves Mr. Assange’s insistence that document troves should be published in their entirety, not curated by journalists who might have agendas.

In his interview with The Times on Wednesday, Mr. Assange criticized the Panama Papers consortium for not making all the documents in its possession public, calling it censorship. “It is not the WikiLeaks model,” he said. “In fact, it is the anti-WikiLeaks model.”

WikiLeaks did collaborate with journalists on the war logs and diplomatic cables. But Mr. Assange’s decision to abandon that approach in the name of total transparency is what led Mr. Snowden to work with Mr. Greenwald and another journalist on the N.S.A. revelations. Mr. Snowden felt openness should be balanced with concern for people’s privacy and safety.

After the release of the Democratic Party documents this summer, Mr. Snowden criticized WikiLeaks on Twitter for not redacting the Social Security numbers and credit card information of private individuals named in the trove.

lol the moment am posted that link i thought how long until SV posted the apologetic

I am critical of Wikileaks - including in this thread - but thought it was worth noting their response given that they challenge a lot of the assertions on factual grounds.

x-post

interesting response. he's right about some of the article's insinuations, but he also seems to have misread the article on some counts. for example the article doesn't say assange "has not produced critical material on the Assad government."

i do agree w/ assange that some of the more dubious reporting in the article involves questions of "timing." there are def. some times when the time of assange's tweets about subjects seems oddly coordinated with the priorities of the russian gov't, but there are times in the NYT article where assange's comments /months/ after some russia-related event are taken as evidence that he's sympathetic to russia. that kind of thing seems like a stretch at best and doesn't help the article's argument, such as it is.

though i don't think assange should be lecturing anyone on what "journalism" is, since he doesn't do it. he refuses to do it on principle.