Author Topic: Wish Julian Assange was super rich, then he could just walk free easily .....  (Read 28614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AntiProtonBoy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 770
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
Well, there goes the pizza guy theory. Bummer.
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
id say this, all too often governments justify silly intrusive laws that infringe on our liberties
they justify it by saying 'if you have done nothing wrong what do you have to worry about' simplistic, flawed i know

The argument that "Only if you're doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don't deserve to keep it private," stems from faulty assumptions about privacy and its value, writes Daniel Solove in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Privacy can't be reduced to one simple idea, and people, courts and legislators often have trouble acknowledging certain privacy problems because they don't fit into a "one-size-fits-all ," Solove writes. The "nothing to hide" argument assumes that privacy is about hiding bad things, without taking into consideration the freedoms privacy infringements erode, such as free speech and association. "In the end, the nothing to hide argument...has nothing to say


but ill turn there bull shit around to them

if they have done nothing wrong what do they have to worry about 

here some footage from out side the embassy from a reformed banker who now promotes free speech
eecs guy
 

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au
Here's a good read that addresses the simpletons statement "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide"
 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=998565
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Greetings EEVBees:

--Now, Poptones has said and I quote:

"If Wikileaks is dedicated to free information, and Wikileaks starts censoring themselves, doesn't that defy their own mission? Wikileaks provides valuable service. It's like network security: security through obscurity is not security. If state dept secrets are being leaked, the state dept needs to plug those holes."

--I take the point. Poptones is correct that revealing the leaks was a service. However, revealing the names of "undercover Muslim" sources in Afghanistan who were trying to prevent Taliban Jehadis from the wholesale slaughter of Afgani girls, who committed the unpardonable sin "according to the Taliban Elders" of trying to obtain literacy, is just "collateral damage", and is really Bush's fault for intervening. Do I have that right? The fact that these "joes" were subsequently subject to real torture (I.E. not water boarding, caterpillars and nutrition drinks), but the most painful torture to the death, imaginable, is not the fault of the Jehadis who performed them, but Bush, who made the Taliban Jihadis angry.

--I mean after all if Wikileaks redacted two or three words from one or two cables out of 250 thousand USA State Department cables in order to protect some despicable Taliban turncoat who is working for the hated "Bush" it would completely undo Wikileaks stand against censorship, that is, if I understand the thrust of Poptones argument. Ralph Waldo Emerson said something about "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

--Seems to me more likely that Assange, being confronted with 250 some thousand State Department Emails that might be confiscated at any moment, chose to publish them and, if that resulted in the death of innocents, well then that was just tough titty.

--Once again I must thank DJ. He and I often disagree, but I am not subject to censorship merely for my minority opinion.

"Get ready, little lady. Hell is coming to breakfast."
Chief Dan George 1899 1981

Best Regards
Clear Ether
« Last Edit: August 20, 2012, 02:00:06 pm by SgtRock »
 

Offline SgtRock

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1200
  • Country: us
Greetings EEVBees:

--RCMR has stated and I quote:

"I recall the very sage advice my mother gave me when I was just a little fella:
Never say anything behind someone's back that you're not prepared to say to their face.
It's served me well (although it has created a few enemies because some people don't like my forthright opinions) -- it's a shame that the USA and others don't follow the same simple rule -- then nothing Wikileaks published ought to bother them -- unless they're doing something they ought to be a shamed of (which so often, seems to be exactly the case).
What is it that we're so often told when we are forced (under threat of imprisonment) to surrender yet another freedom by "the powers that be" in the name of national security and the "War against Terror"...???
Oh, that's right "Only those with something to hide have anything to fear".
It's obvious that the word "hypocrisy" has been expunged from the dictionaries used by our politicians."

--While I must agree with the sentiment, expressed by RCMR of opposing the further growth of government power against the individual as shown (in my opinion) by government efforts to maintain dossiers on native citizens and further efforts to prevent ownership of firearms by the law abiding public, I must disagree with the notion that governments never have a legitimate need for secrecy. To my mind this is a silly and naive statement. Virtually everybody maintains privacy of their conversations and communications. Because they are doing things wrong? Don't be stupid. While it is no doubt laudable that RCMR lays claim to standards of Honesty, Forthrightness and (may I add ) Humility that would make George Washington blush, I should point out that we have only RCMR's word for these vaunted virtues, and that, the contention, that he has never said anything he does not want repeated is open to dispute. I myself, have both good and bad reasons for keeping my conversations private, and if you invade my privacy, or the privacy of anyone under my protection, you do so at you own peril.

"I don't know what the term is in Austrian ..."
Barack Obama 1961 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3698
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
On these issues I agree with Sgt Rock. There is no justification of publishing government documents for the sheer sake of publication, If you go by the standard that every thing should be in the public domain you had best put your tax returns on the forum along with your bank details. The only time that there is justification of bringing private information into the open for public perusal  is when there is patent wrong doing either by a private individual, an official or member of the representative. or government department. To just garner documents to publish for the sake of publishing or self glory is both reprehensible and criminal.
 

Offline digsys

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Country: au
    • DIGSYS
... The only time that there is justification of bringing private information into the open for public perusal  is when there is patent wrong doing either by a private individual, an official or member of the representative. or government department ....
Not taking sides here : how do you propose we find "these" people ??? Wait for them to fess up ? Wait for someone to occidentally "see" a private
document ? Appoint a fair and honest independent adjudicator ? Rely on whistle blowers ? Oh wait, disclosing a serious breach that you come
across, doing YOUR job, is regarded as "treason" and you end up an outcast. Isn't this the mess we're in now ? So I ask, how do we find these people ??
Hello <tap> <tap> .. is this thing on?
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
It's rather a point of limits: if I am dedicated to the free release of otherwise "secret" government or corporate information, and you come to me with some of this "secret" information, where do I draw the line? Do I say I won't release this infromation from Russia because I support Putin's line in the sand against invasions of western ideals? Do I say I won't publish  this stuff from the US because I am from the US? Do I start going over every document and picking out only what I think should be shared?

I realize there are many on this board who are not from the US and may not suffer many of our ideals, but let me provide you an example" in the US we have a law that was, in the beginning, very controversial. Geeks all over the world cried out how it was going to be terrible for the internet, our freedom was at peril, etc. That law was the DMCA, and it arrived under Clinton's regime. That law gave all sorts of power to copyright holders, who could send out notices to have things taken down without trial and so forth. And yes, it has been and is abused every day. But what it also did was shield internet providers from enforcement duties. That is, an ISP cannot be held libel for the actions of their subscribers. This strips ISPs of the desire (or need) to perform packet sniffing, packet throttling and countless other enforcement activities. Does this mean the internets are abused? Of course - but it provides a clear separation of responsibility and function.

Wikileaks mission is to disseminate information. That information can be used or abused a thousand ways - but that is not Wikileaks function to decide. Wikileaks is to "level the playing field" so to speak, which I contend is better than an alternative where secret information is STILL leaked but only to certain other secret and unknown identities. Wikileaks is dedicated to the destruction of secrets, and in that I contend they perform a valuable service to the world. If governments or corporations wish to keep these things secret, then they need to find better ways of doing so.
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31388
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
--While I must agree with the sentiment, expressed by RCMR of opposing the further growth of government power against the individual as shown (in my opinion) by government efforts to maintain dossiers on native citizens and further efforts to prevent ownership of firearms by the law abiding public, I must disagree with the notion that governments never have a legitimate need for secrecy. To my mind this is a silly and naive statement. Virtually everybody maintains privacy of their conversations and communications. Because they are doing things wrong?

Yes, but there needs to be protection for whilstleblowers and the journalists and media who expose them in the interests of the public.
You can argue about what info should and should not be released until the cows come home, there will never be any consensus on that, ever.

If the media didn't agree with what wikileaks released, then they wouldn't have republished it. But republish it they did, with gusto.
If the public didn't agree with what wikileaks released, then they would have been hounded for. But it seems that overall, the majority now seem to be saying that it was not a bad thing to do. Or at the very least it's split fairly closely, depending on which country and part of the population you poll, and when. And governments (are supposed to) serve to represent the opinion of the people.

Dave.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 12:59:22 am by EEVblog »
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31388
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
It's rather a point of limits: if I am dedicated to the free release of otherwise "secret" government or corporate information, and you come to me with some of this "secret" information, where do I draw the line? Do I say I won't release this infromation from Russia because I support Putin's line in the sand against invasions of western ideals? Do I say I won't publish  this stuff from the US because I am from the US? Do I start going over every document and picking out only what I think should be shared?

The public release of "whilstleblower" material will always ultimately be upon the discretion of the individual whilsteblower, and there own moral code etc. Their actions will then be judged by the court of world opinion.
With the communications revolution (and wikileaks et.al) comes the ability for anyone to widely publish any information they wish. Try as governments might, there is no stopping this, ever.

Dave.
 

Uncle Vernon

  • Guest
Yes, but there needs to be protection for whilstleblowers and the journalists and media who expose them in the interests of the public.
You can argue about what info should and should not be released until the cows come home, there will never be any consensus on that, ever.

Too true. Governments thrive on "need to now" while I'm no fan of Assange and his circus, I do see the need for disclosure and for freedom of speech and right to diversity of opinion. We don't need crap like http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373  Would politicians be prepared to be judged by the same criteria? Gibbons and Conroy and all the other jerks in favour of such censorship are the ones who need locking up.
 
 

Offline AlfBaz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2030
  • Country: au

Too true. Governments thrive on "need to now" while I'm no fan of Assange and his circus, I do see the need for disclosure and for freedom of speech and right to diversity of opinion. We don't need crap like http://m.theaustralian.com.au/media/convergence-review/fine-journalists-for-misleading-reporting-says-labor-mp-steve-gibbons/story-fndfo21g-1226454067373  Would politicians be prepared to be judged by the same criteria? Gibbons and Conroy and all the other jerks in favour of such censorship are the ones who need locking up.
 
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.

The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias. Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.

Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event. This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.

 

Uncle Vernon

  • Guest
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.
Not at all. We have politicians who see it as fair cop to twist the truth, provide deliberate misinformation and produce mass propaganda in favour of their particular slant. How is it ok for them to apply bias and yet expect other parties not to?

Quote
The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
This is exactly where free speech is most important!

Quote
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias.
Shouldn't that apply to politicians? What about lobby groups?

Quote
Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts
What determines a fact as biased? Wont every reader/view/listener form their own bias anyway?

Quote
and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?

Quote
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.
Yes and you've spotted this already, did you also spot the self serving and bias from the various political forces.
Don't yo see the Hypocrisy when political organisation bay about media bias? What they are baying about really is lack of sympathetic media bias.

Quote
Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event.
What like a PM claiming that tax assistance should somehow be perceived as tax assistance for all?

Quote
This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.
Oh this is the bit where moral superiority is claimed, is it? You can see bias but we have to protect the uneducated? What are we doing to protect those same uneducated from political propaganda?

Any politician demanding truth, accountability and balance from the media should be prepared to stand up to the same levels of accountability. If Journalists should be jailed for twisting the truth then so too should politicians. Let's see how many of them want to pass a bill like that.
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
not all uk mp are corrupt

eecs guy
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3698
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
Comrade Galloway is as bent as he is red, Just ask Col. Qaddafi. Oh yes you will now have ask comrade Castro or comrade Mugabe.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 05:33:40 pm by G7PSK »
 

Offline vk6zgo

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5373
  • Country: au
It appears to me you are mixing ethical rights.
Not at all. We have politicians who see it as fair cop to twist the truth, provide deliberate misinformation and produce mass propaganda in favour of their particular slant. How is it ok for them to apply bias and yet expect other parties not to?

Quote
The right to an opinion or free speech have nothing to do with delivering news content.
This is exactly where free speech is most important!

Quote
The facts should be disclosed in their entirety and not presented with bias.
Shouldn't that apply to politicians? What about lobby groups?

Quote
Its the job of the reader/view/listener to form an opinion based on all the unbiased facts
What determines a fact as biased? Wont every reader/view/listener form their own bias anyway?

Quote
and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?

Quote
They either have a political agenda, or try to sensationalise the story to get better ratings.
Yes and you've spotted this already, did you also spot the self serving and bias from the various political forces.
Don't yo see the Hypocrisy when political organisation bay about media bias? What they are baying about really is lack of sympathetic media bias.

Quote
Complex matters are far too often shown in shorthand leaving out important information leading up to an event.
What like a PM claiming that tax assistance should somehow be perceived as tax assistance for all?

Quote
This leaves viewers, especially uneducated ones, coming away with an incorrect point of view.
Oh this is the bit where moral superiority is claimed, is it? You can see bias but we have to protect the uneducated? What are we doing to protect those same uneducated from political propaganda?

Any politician demanding truth, accountability and balance from the media should be prepared to stand up to the same levels of accountability. If Journalists should be jailed for twisting the truth then so too should politicians. Let's see how many of them want to pass a bill like that.

"quote] and journalists should never put their spin on a story, which is what happens nearly all of the time, especially on commercial news outlets.[/quote]
But isn't that balance? Haven't the politicians put a spin on it from the beginning? Don't we have a range of media with a range of bias and opinion. And if you want to rid commercial organisations from a right wing bias wont it also be necessary to remove the opposing bias from government funded news outlets?
[/b]

I just want to comment on this bit,Unc!
When it comes to TV outlets,I think the bias is more perceived than real.
Having been,in my employment,exposed to many hours of both ABC & Commercial news,I haven't seen a lot of slanting in either,when it comes to actual news reporting,or that much on things other than actual "opinion pieces".
Obviously if you have things like dear old departed B.A. Santamaria's  "Point of View",you have to expect a right wing slant,but most people know that it isn't necessarily that of the Station.

Some years back,during John Howard's term as PM ,after the delivery of  the Budget Speech,both the CH7 Network & the ABC had in depth reviews on it.(Obviously so did everybody else,but I only watched these two).

The ABC said it was "a reasonable Budget,all things considered".
CH7,on the other hand,lambasted it.

Several days later,a senior member of the then Government blasted the ABC for their "biased reporting" of the Budget!
I wonder if they watched the wrong channel!

The print media are another matter,though,as they do tend to play favourites.
Back in the day,the "West Australian" used to hit the Coalition with numerous "niggles" up to the last minute,then flop back to the Coalition party line on the last day.
As for the dead but unmourned "Bulletin"---I think that rag was edited in the Liberal party room.

The "West" has mellowed these days,& doesn't show its political bent too obviously,whereas the "Sunday Times"is too busy getting  week-old news wrong to bother anyone.
TVW7 had  only a few hours to get its news straight,but was right more often than the "Sunday Times"!

I don't know of many Sandgropers who get the "Australian" which pretends to be a national paper,& the other ES papers which don't,but the numbers may be increasing with all the "'Tothersiders" who think they are going to work on the mines!

On another but related matter.
As a unreconstructed "lefty" from way back,it annoys me when other lefties talk crap about how "The Commercial stations won't say anything against their major advertisers".
That may have been the case many years ago,but these days,the Commercials regularly "bite the hand that feeds them!"
And get away with it!
At the end of the day,if you push a political point of view,or show that you are "wishy-washy"under pressure from big advertisers,the viewers will flip to another channel.





 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
Former UK Ambassador has "private confirmation from within Foreign Office" that UK action follows US pressure

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/
eecs guy
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
lets not forget why this happened in first place wikileaks uncovered major war crimes committed by USA

Who Are The Real Monsters ?

On July 12, 2007, the trigger happy US military shot several Iraqi civilians in Baghdad, an event that shocked the world when footage of the attack was later released by Wikileaks.

"The attack took place on a Thursday, when residents of the area had gone to a local market," explains filmmaker Shuchen Tan. "When they saw helicopters hovering over, they ran to their houses, thinking they'd be safe in there but it was those very houses that were blown up."

Permission to Engage traces the people involved in that fateful day and hears their versions of what happened.

Those killed included a young Iraqi photojournalist and his assistant, a father out with his children and some neighbours who were caught in the attack while trying to help the wounded.

Soldiers NOT heros
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/08/2012823616123717.html
eecs guy
 

Offline G7PSK

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3698
  • Country: gb
  • It is hot until proved not.
That footage would have surfaced without wiki leaks, almost any TV station would have broadcast it, there was no need to publish all the chit chat from embassy's around the world.
Every one knows that the Americans are trigger happy. Who killed the most British soldiers during the invasion of Iraq the Iraqis or the Americans, it was the Americans by a long margin  with so called friendly fire.
 

Offline EEMarc

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Country: us
Big Coloring Books Inc is making a 9/11 coloring book with terrorist trading cards. Among the "True Faces of Evil" is Julian Assange as one of the terrorists.

http://www.coloringbook.com/NeverForget9/11pdq.aspx

 

Offline HardBoot

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Country: ca
'Ecuador stands by Assange' - president Correa


Not many presidents talk like he does, not a puppet.
 

Offline poptones

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 711
  • Country: 00
How do you embed those?
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
Met police embarrassed as Assange arrest plan revealed
A policeman has accidentally revealed a secret plan to seize Julian Assange “under all circumstances” if he steps outside the Ecuadorian embassy, in an embarrassment for Scotland Yard.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/9498115/WikiLeaks-Met-police-embarrassed-as-Assange-arrest-plan-revealed.html
eecs guy
 

Online EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31388
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
How do you embed those?

Just post the Youtube URL, the form software automatically embeds it.

Dave.
 

Offline Poe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 219
That footage would have surfaced without wiki leaks, almost any TV station would have broadcast it, there was no need to publish all the chit chat from embassy's around the world.
Every one knows that the Americans are trigger happy. Who killed the most British soldiers during the invasion of Iraq the Iraqis or the Americans, it was the Americans by a long margin  with so called friendly fire.


"so called freindly fire"

There on to us, Uncle Sam! 

American's oldest rival is on to our snuke counter-offensive. 

I told you we should have 'accidentally' detonated more than one bomb during the invasion. 

I told you eighteen deaths wasn't enough.  Sure that's like half their army, but it's just not enough DAMNIT!

....Note, the above was in jest. 
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf