Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:

Ahtman wrote:This whole scenario is going to be hilarious when all it really leads to more security and more controls on the internet.

Next talking point on the docket: net neutrality jeopardizes national security.

Apparently PayPal has closed their account so they can no longer get donations through it, which was the easiet and most prevelant way to donate. Paypal said they violated the "our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity" part of having an account. I guess getting people to turn over stolen documents falls under that category. Of course Wikileaks says it is the US putting pressure on PayPal.

This is really sad. I can understand Amazon giving into pressure of public opinion, but I'd have expected a bit more confidentiality and neutrality from Paypal. Private business has a right to make their own choices of client though.

Kilkrazy wrote:PayPal are feths anyway.

Everyone hates them, whatever any connection or not to the US government.

I've never had any problems with PayPal. Sounds personal, where on the wallet did they touch you?!

agroszkiewicz wrote:This is really sad. I can understand Amazon giving into pressure of public opinion, but I'd have expected a bit more confidentiality and neutrality from Paypal. Private business has a right to make their own choices of client though.

How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.

What amuses me so much about the "its just the US pressuring others" line of commentary is that, if it is true, then its completely self-evident.

The most powerful government in the world is going to use its clout in order to ensure that its secrets stay secret?



Hell, I'm just a graduate student and I use my clout, such as it is, to ensure that my secrets stay secret. That's basically part and parcel to having secrets.

Ahtman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:PayPal are feths anyway.

Everyone hates them, whatever any connection or not to the US government.

I've never had any problems with PayPal. Sounds personal, where on the wallet did they touch you?!

On the bad place.

Everyone I know who uses PayPal hates them. You must be one of the few people in the multiverse who hasn't had some crap from PayPal.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.

The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.

They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone I know who uses PayPal hates them. You must be one of the few people in the multiverse who hasn't had some crap from PayPal.

I'm also one of those lucky few, I suppose. I don't use it often, but when I do it's fine. I do hate eBay though.

Multiverse.

I know a guy from Baator who fething hates paypal, so I guess you're probably right.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.

The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.

Read the legal agreement again before getting all government conspiracy. They don't have to steal the documents themselves to fall under the agreement they made. The only way the site can exist is if people break the law to give them illegally obtained documents. To 'promote and encourage' they don't have to explicitly state they want people to do it (which is why I left incite off), they just have to create an atmosphere that would get people to do such things. They traffic in stolen goods even though they don't steal the goods themselves.

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.

The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.

Yeah...that's not the "only criminal activity" involved. Sorry.
Receipt of known stolen goods(documents do actually count in this, by the by), possession of stolen goods, and refusal to surrender stolen goods and/or (in this case at least) classified government property upon notification of status of goods. I'd assume, however, if the US were to prosecute him for espionage it will be for reciept of classified government documents without proper security clearances and mishandling of said documents(both of which carry relatively lengthy sentences with them, at least if it can be established that it wasn't accidental).
Those are all crimes.
Scenario for you here:
Say Dave steals a plasma TV. You, an unwary buyer, purchase said TV from Dave. The police arrest Dave for his thieving ways, and he fingers you as the buyer. Upon matching the serial number of the TV from the place where it's stolen, it becomes painfully obvious that you in fact are in possession of stolen goods.
Police tell you to give the TV over, since it's evidence in the case against Dave. You refuse, because hey "I paid for it!". Too bad. Obstruction of justice charge if you don't hand the TV over.

Situation becomes something totally different if you knowingly buy the stolen TV from Dave and they can prove that you bought it, with the full knowledge that it's stolen. Then you can be charged with possession of stolen goods and receipt/purchase of stolen goods...which will put you, on levels of how serious the charges are, about on par with Dave.

They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?

PayPal is an international company. I doubt they closed it "just" because of public opinion in the West.

dogma wrote:What amuses me so much about the "its just the US pressuring others" line of commentary is that, if it is true, then its completely self-evident.

The most powerful government in the world is going to use its clout in order to ensure that its secrets stay secret?



Hell, I'm just a graduate student and I use my clout, such as it is, to ensure that my secrets stay secret. That's basically part and parcel to having secrets.

Kanluwen wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
How is it sad? They have people giving them illegally obtained information all the time and one of the agreements made when the account is created is that the account will in no way be associated with criminal activity. They made the agreement and broke it, not PayPal. It is kind of hard to deny it when you put it all out for the public to see you have illegal activity in your vicinity. They didn't steal the documents but they certainly promote and encourage the activities.

The only "criminal" activity involved in this whole scenario is Assange's (maybe) sex crimes which are a personal matter in cases of discrimination by financial institutions, and the actions of the Pfc who is under military jurisdiction.

Yeah...that's not the "only criminal activity" involved. Sorry.
Receipt of known stolen goods(documents do actually count in this, by the by), possession of stolen goods, and refusal to surrender stolen goods and/or (in this case at least) classified government property upon notification of status of goods. I'd assume, however, if the US were to prosecute him for espionage it will be for reciept of classified government documents without proper security clearances and mishandling of said documents(both of which carry relatively lengthy sentences with them, at least if it can be established that it wasn't accidental).
Those are all crimes.
Scenario for you here:
Say Dave steals a plasma TV. You, an unwary buyer, purchase said TV from Dave. The police arrest Dave for his thieving ways, and he fingers you as the buyer. Upon matching the serial number of the TV from the place where it's stolen, it becomes painfully obvious that you in fact are in possession of stolen goods.
Police tell you to give the TV over, since it's evidence in the case against Dave. You refuse, because hey "I paid for it!". Too bad. Obstruction of justice charge if you don't hand the TV over.

Situation becomes something totally different if you knowingly buy the stolen TV from Dave and they can prove that you bought it, with the full knowledge that it's stolen. Then you can be charged with possession of stolen goods and receipt/purchase of stolen goods...which will put you, on levels of how serious the charges are, about on par with Dave.

They closed the account because of fear of public opinion. Financial freedom is a cornerstone of real freedom in the modern age, so thats why it makes me sad. Make any sense?

PayPal is an international company. I doubt they closed it "just" because of public opinion in the West.

Do you really want to try and debate semantics with me again?

What semantics?
Your post was stupid. I ignored it.

There's no "semantics" about receipt of stolen goods and illegally obtained documents.

If they were not given to WikiLeaks by the government...then they're illegally obtained.

agroszkiewicz wrote:Do you really want to try and debate semantics with me again?

This isn't a semantic argument so I don't know why you would say that.

Ahtman wrote:

agroszkiewicz wrote:Do you really want to try and debate semantics with me again?

This isn't a semantic argument so I don't know why you would say that.

Really?

Semantics (from Greek sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós)[1][2] is the study of meaning.

Pretty sure I know wtf it means, did you?

If you knew what it meant, then why did you misuse the word?

No one is arguing about the meaning of words here.

In fact, Kanluwen was basically mocking your statement based on the explicit meaning of it; ie. your indication that it was only (just) public opinion that inspired PayPal to close the account.

If anything, you were the one to take us all down the rabbit hole of a semantic argument by calling Kanluwen's comment one which turned on semantics, which it wasn't.

dogma wrote:If you knew what it meant, then why did you misuse the word?

No one is arguing about the meaning of words here.

In fact, Kanluwen was basically mocking your statement based on the explicit meaning of it; ie. your indication that it was only (just) public opinion that inspired PayPal to close the account.

If anything, you were the one to take us all down the rabbit hole of a semantic argument by calling Kanluwen's comment one which turned on semantics, which it wasn't.

Misinterpretation of my statement was a fallacy on his part that led to the debate of the meaning of differing laws etc. IE this entire thread is literally debating the semantic component of the ethical and legal ramifications of the whole leak incident.

Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>

agroszkiewicz wrote:
Misinterpretation of my statement was a fallacy on his part...

At the very least you are both equally responsible for the issue. You don't get to abdicate responsibility for your own words.

agroszkiewicz wrote:
...that led to the debate of the meaning of differing laws etc. IE this entire thread is literally debating the semantic component of the ethical and legal ramifications of the whole leak incident.

That's not a semantic argument. A seamnatic argument would be one that disputes the meaning of a given word like, say, "realism". What this thread is about is what a given thing, the leak incident, is best described as; which is sometimes known as a substantive argument. You can tell the difference between the two quite easily because semantic arguments, like this one, usually include phrases like "that's not what that word means".

Though really that dichotomy is misleading, because semantic disputes are perfectly legitimate.

agroszkiewicz wrote:
Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>

Or simply clarified your meaning.

dogma wrote: You can tell the difference between the two quite easily because semantic arguments, like this one, usually include phrases like "that's not what that word means".

Though really that dichotomy is misleading, because semantic disputes are perfectly legitimate.

agroszkiewicz wrote:
Perhaps I should have worded things differently. <shrug>

Or simply clarified your meaning.

Ok ok, I give up....I misused the word! lol

Interesting, now the government is issuing a statement that these documents are still considered classified and that contractors and unauthorized employee's aren't to access the site on their home computers. I can see where they are coming from, but it sticks in my craw to have a government tell certian people that they cannot view what is now essentially public record.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/03/wikileaks.access.warning/index.html?hpt=T2

Kilkrazy wrote:My understanding is that much of the current batch consists of private diplomatic cables, which were not classified secret, though they would be protected by diplomatic immunity and the diplomatic service's normal standards of behaviour. I don't there has been much to surprise any moderately well-informed observer of the international scene. The shock is merely the embarrassment of such plain speaking being made public.

So I agree these leaks don't have much of a "public interest" defence.

Earlier leaks have included genuinely disturbing material that implicated US forces in various questionable incidents and in cover ups about them. These are matters that it is in the public interest to lay bare and investigate, IMO.

The diplomatic leaks have actually revealed US cover up, where a failed US op killed a bunch of Yemeni civilians, but Yemen agreed to take the blame in exchange for some US weapons. So in amongst the stuff about diplomats not liking world leaders there's some pretty important leaks as well.

The problematic issue is that the great bulk of these leaks are "anti-American" in the sense that they are leaks of information the US would have preferred to keep secret, which are embarrassing. The relatively innocuous nature of the latest batch makes it look like Assange has got it in for the USA. However the reaction from some US commentators makes it look like the US wants to use the excuse of the recent release to stop him leaking the really important stuff.

Yeah, I really wish most of the harmless but sometimes funny diplomatic leaks had been left out, and only the really messed up stuff like I mentioned above were released. It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:You can just as easily worship at the alter of civil disobedience. CD can be a good thing, just as sometimes a state having some authority can be a good thing. The problem is when one just assumes that one is right by virtue of being what it is without looking at the context. CD just for the sake of CD is hollow and meaningless.

Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, I work at a university so I see that everyday and it's exactly like you describe it, hollow.

The trick is finding that balance between the two, but for too many people it's too easy to pick an extreme.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:At this point he is almost bullet proof becuase whatever he does or doesn't do, it can all be explained away as a conspiracy against him.

Heh, at this point Assange is almost free to do whatever he wants. Run naked through the US embassy yelling 'I am the God of all your children'. If it was reported everyone would just assume it was a CIA plot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Your attitude is a very rare one. Screw-ups that happen in war don't necessarily have to "demonize the troops". They can also break public opinion of supporting the war, with people thinking "This is why our soldiers are dying?!". Look up the US embassy siege in Saigon during the Vietnam War and the effects of it being broadcast on TV.

If the public will is broken because the public learns things about a war and no longer wants to support it, then that is the democratic process in action. The alternative, that you appear to be implying, is to keep the realities hidden from the public, is a really, really dangerous course of action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:I am not buying this.

No means no, beforehand.

No meaning no during is a bit harder to prosecute on.

There are instances of successful conviction, though (there was a case here in Australia of a guy given the very unfortunate nickname of the '30 second rapist', who was convicted for continuing sex for 30 seconds after consent was withdrawn. The girls accusing him of the crime later admitted they made the whole thing up, but the legal principle is still there, if consent is withdrawn you need to stop.)

But it is, like you said, extremely difficult to prosecute. Assange should still comply with police and give them his statement, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:Apparently PayPal has closed their account so they can no longer get donations through it, which was the easiet and most prevelant way to donate. Paypal said they violated the "our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity" part of having an account. I guess getting people to turn over stolen documents falls under that category. Of course Wikileaks says it is the US putting pressure on PayPal.

All of which seems pretty reasonable. I mean, I'm sure the US is leaning on Paypal, which only makes sense from the POV of the US (I'd think most other countries would do the same, to the extent that they have any power to influence proceedings). But Paypal is only being sensible in closing the account, whether Assange is doing good or not, what he's doing is illegal and Paypal really shouldn't be offering to collect money on behalf of an organisation dedicated to breaking the law.

I wonder what other dirty little secrets Julians has stashed away that he has willingly not published yet.

It could only mean bad things that he would consider dumping out the contents of his bag of secrets at one time.

WarOne wrote:I wonder what other dirty little secrets Julians has stashed away that he has willingly not published yet.

It could only mean bad things that he would consider dumping out the contents of his bag of secrets at one time.

He's said they're preparing a release of documents from the banking sector that'll destroy a couple of banks. It's unlikely that'll be true and the guy has oversold his leaks before, but given what's been going on in banking in the last decade, no doubt there'll be some really bad stuff in there.

It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.

I agree, the nature of these leaks is very vindictive and petty. It's somebody trying to screw over the US, it's not somebody who happened across an event that simply HAD to be exposed. This isn't noble whistleblower activity, this is just somebody getting any and all laundry they can put hand to, and hoping some of it is dirty.

The fact that Assange is publishing it all indicates to me that he's in that same vindictive, childish mindset. That said, I don't think he's really breaking any laws. There's talk here of "receiving stolen goods," and perhaps that type of charge could be made to stick, but it seems that precedent in these sorts of matters is that once the law was broken and security breached, the information is now public. After all, the major news outlets are happily distilling Assange's data down to the choice bits and replaying it.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that the people doing the actual leaking should be found and executed. Some people might think that's draconian or McCarthyism, but stop to think about it... We can be pretty certain that at least a few Afghans/Iraqis/others who cooperated with us, who stood with America, have been killed as a result of these leaks. The act of leaking this information cost our allies their lives.

So, do we really think an American life is worth more than an Afghan's life? Truth: yes, we totally do. But if we want to have any degree of moral fortitude, we'd realize that the leaker is responsible for the death of another human being, and that their punishment should fit that crime. This isn't a funny little game. This is serious. We should put an American gravestone on this so that people don't forget that their petulant little outbursts cost REAL lives. If they can't be bothered to notice Afghan blood, then let it be American blood.

The problem is when one just assumes that one is right by virtue of being what it is without looking at the context. CD just for the sake of CD is hollow and meaningless.

QFT. And step 1 of making CD mean something is to put a consequence on it. If people want to stand up in the face of death, I'll take them a lot more seriously.

The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting. It confuses people. They hear about injustice in Iraq, and all they can come up with is "oh, right, like the time my poli sci teacher, like, TOTALLY didn't like my paper? That sort of injustice?"

No, the sort of injustice where the Ba'athists kill your family, and torture you for four years, then let you out and laugh at you because you can't get a job since you have no fingers.

Sometimes I think that the best thing "the terrorists" could do for us, is to seriously damage our way of life, inject a little pain into our world, to the point that we realize that it actually does matter what you do, what you say, what you value and what you're willing to fight for.

He's preparing an "insurance package" of documents from the banking sector and "classified military operations" in case he's ever arrested.

I love that he doesn't say what specifically he should get arrested for in order for the documents to be leaked. Just "arrest and I leak!". What a tool.

He's said they're preparing a release of documents from the banking sector that'll destroy a couple of banks.

Ut oh. The US government might not assassinate the guy, but if he starts messing with big banks...

Honestly, I hope somebody kills him. I just would not want it to be officially sanctioned by our government (or unofficially). I just wish the guy the worst possible fate, I don't feel morally justified in demanding it.

I love that he doesn't say what specifically he should get arrested for in order for the documents to be leaked. Just "arrest and I leak!". What a tool.

And, obviously, of questionable morals. If his information is so dire, then it needs to be exposed. This is clearly not "bigger than him" something he's doing simply because he has to. He's obviously a self-serving profiteer, whatever the form he chooses to take his profits.

sebster wrote:
Yeah, I really wish most of the harmless but sometimes funny diplomatic leaks had been left out, and only the really messed up stuff like I mentioned above were released. It would have focussed the debate more on government poor practice, and less on Assange himself.

+1000000000000000

Phryxis wrote:I agree, the nature of these leaks is very vindictive and petty. It's somebody trying to screw over the US, it's not somebody who happened across an event that simply HAD to be exposed.

If you read Assange's writings on the wikileaks site, you'll see he's pretty much got a hate on for all governments, out of some interesting, but kind of silly and completely impractical ideas about how governments and large organisation should operate.

I'm kind of intrigued by this growing idea that the leaks are aimed at some kind of anti-American drive. Is a person anti-American if he acts in a way that makes the US government look bad? Even if he's also making other governments look bad? I mean, the civilian government of Pakistan came out of these leaks looking about as stable as two legged dog.

That said, I don't think he's really breaking any laws.

I don't really know the law that well, but I'd be shocked if publishing secret documents wasn't illegal in most countries. I think what might save him is jurisdictional weirdness, an Aussie citizen who's in the UK, publishing in servers listed in all kinds of countries, the secrets of many countries, would be a hard case to give jurisdiction to.

Not that Australia is going to go in to bat for him. We don't do squat to protect our citizens overseas, and our Prime Minister has already called Assange a criminal, but the jursidictional weirdness in and of itself might see people reluctant to push for conviction.

I tend to agree with the sentiment that the people doing the actual leaking should be found and executed. Some people might think that's draconian or McCarthyism, but stop to think about it... We can be pretty certain that at least a few Afghans/Iraqis/others who cooperated with us, who stood with America, have been killed as a result of these leaks. The act of leaking this information cost our allies their lives.

Do you think that Scooter Libby (or Rove, or Cheney or whoever actually authorised the leak) should be killed? By some reports the outing of Valerie Plame, and thereby the outing of her workplace as a CIA front, exposed many, many contacts, and by some reports resulted in deaths.

The fundamental problem of the first world these days is that we have almost no connection at all to real consequence. We just flounce through our lives in total safety, total freedom, total divorcement from anything unsafe or upsetting. It confuses people. They hear about injustice in Iraq, and all they can come up with is "oh, right, like the time my poli sci teacher, like, TOTALLY didn't like my paper? That sort of injustice?"

So it's a good thing when leaks show people the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, then?

sebster wrote:I mean, the civilian government of Pakistan came out of these leaks looking about as stable as two legged dog.

New national animal?

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:I mean, the civilian government of Pakistan came out of these leaks looking about as stable as two legged dog.

New national animal?

Same irrational animal:

dogma wrote:New national animal?

Did you see that two legged dog that only had it's front legs? It could only walk in little bursts, but it was kind of impressive it could do it at all.

That actually describes Pakistan pretty well.

I've got to say that there is no way that the most recent leak could be considered "in the public interest".

This one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

the only thing that that leak is useful for is giving a shopping list for terrorist organisations.

As you say, there isn't any "public interest" defence of this set of leaks.

OTOH any intelligent enemy could come up with a target list on their own initiative, so it isn't a serious leak from that viewpoint. So it seems a bit pointless.

It reinforces my impression that the purpose of the leaks, more than anything, is to embarrass the US and boost Assange's profile.