Ok now right there is one of the places where I really have to question what Mr. Assange's motives really are. That seems to me more like blackmail and extortion.

While on the other hand if the purpose is only to disseminate information then you'd do that all at once, not hold some back for a club in case you get caught.

.[/QUOTE]

Correct, if he was just in it to like expose everyone, why does he hold back, why did he not leak it all at one time? And if you are such a hero why the need for the poision pill file? See below:

Assange's 'poison pill' file impossible to stop, expert says

WIKILEAKS

December 08, 2010|By Ashley Fantz, CNN


The Poison Pill. The Doomsday Files. Or simply, The Insurance.
Whatever you call the file Julian Assange has threatened to release if he's imprisoned or dies or WikiLeaks is destroyed, it's impossible to stop.


"It's all tech talk to say, 'I have in my hand a button and if I press it or I order my friends to press it, it will go off,'" said Hemu Nigam, who has worked in computer security for more than two decades, in the government and private sector.


"Julian is saying, 'I've calibrated this so that no matter how many ways you try, you're never going to be able to deactivate it,'" Nigam said. "He's sending a call to action to hackers to try it. To the government, he's also saying, 'Try me.'"

There's a reason Assange specifically announced -- on the Web -- that there is a 256-bit key encryption code that only a few trusted associates know that will unleash the contents of the 1.4 gigabyte-size file.

"He's saying don't even bother trying. It will take you so long to succeed that by that time, it will be too late," Nigam said. "Most of the time, you see a 56-[bit]key encryption. That's considered secure. When you are using 256, you are sending a message: 'I'm smart enough to know that you will try to get in.'"

 

Speaking of 'real time' Old Tool I cannot even keep up with the onslaught of information, theories, moral stands, and developments that are stacking up on this.

But here's a new wrinkle.

Yes Mr. Assange you want to jump on a plane or boat to get to Sweden to face sex crime charges you can probably beat more than stay in a country that might extradite you to the US.

Now I don't even know what we would charge him with. I have not heard a specific violation of US law yet that I'm aware of. But I'm sure we could come up something if we could get our hands on him. And one idea is Sweden will not let that happen if they get him first.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/julian-assange-extradition-hurdles_n_794754.html

And in the meantime I don't think the same thing is going to be true for the hacktivists. There are god damned sure laws against fucking with money and business and I bet the US DOJ will have no trouble coming up with laws against cyber attacks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/holder-doj-wikileaks-cyber-attacks_n_794760.html

But this is as fascinating as a train wreck to watch as far as I'm concerned. I don't know what's going to go flying off the rails next.

 

From what I understand, could be wrong. But he could be charged with espionage under the US Espionage Act, although he did not actually steal the documents, he did receive them, and he distributed and or published them, and there is no way in fucking hell he can possibly say "Oh I did not know these were stolen" I do not believe there is anyone on the forum and or any member who is stupid enough to buy that shit from this guy. Come on, someone hand you a bunch of stuff that says secrete on it... You know that shit was stolen.... Especially as like they say.. He is not an American citizen, with direct access to American data systems.

He is as much a glory seeking terrorist as Osama... Why else make these threats:

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says a cache of unfiltered government files containing the names of spies, sources and informants is his "insurance" policy, and his lawyer warns the documents will be released if he's killed or brought to trial".

 

Ok but I'd have to say from my personal experience if you're in the business of distributing information, like a news reporter, you have to essentially do two things every day.

The first is decide to report the news in an unbiased and objective way or be a player. You cannot be both. You're either someone just reporting developments and following those developments where ever they go or you're in some way one of the people trying to influence the outcome of those developments.

And that brings up the second decision which is to let the chips fall where they may no matter who gets hurt; including you.

I don't see that in Mr. Assange and actually believe he's more of a player and the poison pill kind of helps me think that about him.

 

Good point but notice something here. Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks is not the one who leaked the information. They distributed it. There is a huge difference in this country because of our constitutional freedom of the press that results in someone leaking the secrets perhaps being convicted of a crime but not the outlets that distributed those secrets like newspapers and press organizations.

No one I've seen for example is threatening to charge the New York Times with anything. So the legal question is what's the difference betweeen WikiLeakes and the New York Times. And I can't see a legal distinction there.

 

Oh, and I need to correct myself.... Manning was not with the State Department..... My mistake. I rechecked. I don't want to be leaking misinformation
"Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of being the source of the WikiLeaks documents, was arrested by the military this year".

 

True Stumbler, honestly I do not know what they can really do, more than likely nothing, hell they would have to go after every news organization in the world. The Attorney General from what I have read is looking into what they can charge him with, I know they can charge the thief, but more than likely will not go further than that. But I would think, if his publishing's can be tied directly to any actions that cause the death of any one person anywhere in the world, then he should be charged with those deaths.

But that is only my opinion.

 

"I rechecked." You're my hero.

And you please stick around if you can because this is getting interesting.

No, let me hit that first. The depth of our first amendment rights to freedom of the press have already been tested and upheld with people already killed over the deal but I'd have to look for the specific example. But they could go after anyone who was in charge of the records and it was part of their job to keep them secret or people who acquired them illegally (which is already proven if they were classified to begin with).

That's why the press never goes after the secrets themselves but are often happy to publish the ones they get from outside sources.

But your opinion is refreshing and bold so don't stop talking now.

I'm personally really mixed on this. From my old reporting days and liberal philosophies I'm like hell yeah this amazing.

But then on the other hand I'm like "I don't know about this. The only thing I do know is I ain't never seen anything like this. And that's kind of scary."

PS I needed to add that despite all my talking about freedom in the press in the US if Assange ends up in Sweden their laws are so pro freedom of the press there is no violation of law by their standards in acquiring the information or distributing it.

 

Well it is interesting how it will all play out. I was just reading a couple articles on the now emerging cyber war. Which is another factor that will now make this even more interesting.

 

Ok any you're right about that and I'm wondering how the kids are going to stack up against the establishment.

And the term kids is an obvious violation of any kind of objectivity but I admit I've come to see this as basically a struggle between the older generation and the younger generation on scales never even contemplated before.

With the outcome less assured. In the past I'd say experience and treachery would overcome youth and enthusiasm any day. But I have to admit the kids appear to be putting up a damned good fight.

 

True, and many are out there screaming about what does this say of freedom of speech and democracy, and then they turn around and attack the likes of Visa and MasterCard and any site that wants to stop doing business with Wikileaks, tell them that if they do not continue to do business and process transactions for Wikileaks, they will continue their attacks against them and anyone who is not for Wikileaks.

Business is business, and most business's do not want to be tied to anything that can hurt their stocks and shit. Yes the government contacted paypal, that I even agree was out of line. But many of the others are backing off, because they know it will hurt their bottom line.

Especially when he is threatening to publish financial records for such companies. Would you and or anyone hand some one a gun, knowing damn good and well the guy was going to shoot you.

Unfortunately they are not truly ready for the ol chips fall where they may freedom they so scream about. Because when the chips do not fall their way, they result to being what they are, common criminals.

 

WikiLeaks hackers threaten British Government

An army of computer hackers is planning to bring down British government websites if Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is extradited to Sweden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...eaks-hackers-threaten-British-Government.html

 

Is it true, because of the success of Wikileaks that the Xnxx forum is thinking of starting one called.....Diki-leaks?

 

Here's a nice piece on the bogus framing of this issue.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/9/927372/-Top-5-Lies-About-Wikileaks

Top 5 Lies About Wikileaks

Share149 25
by david mizner

Thu Dec 09, 2010 at 02:53:58 PM PST

With a big assist from the corporate media, the government has done a good job pushing its anti-Wikileaks propaganda, to the point where many progressives are parroting it. Time to set the record straight.



Lie 1. Wikileaks is "indiscriminately" posting material.
Fact: It's published less than one percent of the State Department cables it possesses, 1203 out of 251,287. What's more, it makes an effort to redact info that could harm innocent people, an effort appears to be growing more comprehensive. And it's asked the U.S. government to help redact information from each collection of documents. The U.S. governmentrefuses to help.

Lie 2. People have been killed as a result of Wikileaks' actions.
Fact: There's no evidence that anyone's been killed. (If there were, we'd never stop hearing about it.) In fact, there's no evidence that anyone's received so much as a wedgie as a result of these releases.

Lie 3. The information released by Wikileaks is "nothing new."
Fact: The documents contain dozens of major scoops -- not just support for things we already knew but brand new, important stories that could be and should be front page news. For example, we've learned that the U.S. military had an explicit policy of ignoring torture by Iraqi troops and that Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on U.N. officials, a blatant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention, and that the United States supported the coup in Honduras.

Lie 4. Wikileaks aren't journalists.
Fact: First, the charge -- made by people attempting to distinguish Wikileaks from "reputable" outlets -- is irrelevant. You don't need credentials to be a journalist, and you don't have to be considered "reputable" by "reputable" people to be entitled to First Amendment protections. Second, the notion that all Wikileaks does is post documents is simply false; it posts news stories and analysis based on the documents. In terms of function, there's no meaningful difference between Wikileaks and conventional news outlets.

Lie 5. Julian Assange is threatening to release info to protect himself from a rape prosecution.
Fact: the "poison pill" he's threatening to release has nothing to do with the rape charge. He's using it to protect himself from the U.S. government and other governments, which could arrest him, or worse, in retaliation for releasing the documents. This isn't a far-fetched possibility, what with American politicians calling for his arrest and with the frontunner for the GOP nomination (and possible future president) saying he should be "pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

 

This actually made me very afraid. In fact I said to myself; I was afraid of that" about five times.

 

Ok guys and Old Tool especially what do you make of this. Forget the source. Is this a revolt, a coupe, or a total sale out and takeover and the powers that be win after all.

I can't really get a bead on what this story is trying to say but a shit load of WikiLeaks wanna be sites is something I never even contemplated. What if this is the latest fad?

IF this keeps up we might even find out what TJ REALLY does for a living.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/openleaks-wikileaks-rival_n_794939.html

 

This guy is one of Assange's former co workers at Wikileaks, and he is one of the first copycat sites that is taking shape. Essentially just another guy looking to cash in on the coattails of Wikileaks, just in case Wikileaks is silenced.

So be prepared for the flood now, all the Wikileaks wanna be's and copy cat sites, that will spur the craze for info, and with that will come the wholesale hacking and stealing of sensitive data by pretty much anyone.

So just watch... All your personal information will soon be coming to a website near you.

 

Who would have thought; Information Armageddon, Nope never saw that coming. This could be one rough ride for sures,

Thanks for your input but the way of what I should have said first,

 

Ahh yes, a rather old and tiresome trick. You prove someone's innocence by cutting down charges against them which never existed to begin with. And thus we learn "facts," like: "no one has been killed because of wikileaks." Yet who has accused wikileaks of having a hand in death? Opponents are saying the actions of wikileaks, especially as of recently in their posting of strategical sites within and without the U.S., could lead to deaths.. He then states a very revelatory fact that wikileaks employees could be considered journalists, when I have never heard a single person bother to argue about whether or not these people are journalists to begin with. And of course, not to be outdone, he states at the end a "fact" about Mr. Assange's motivations, which, unless he is privy to Mr. Assange's thoughts, is only an "opinion."

The whole thing is a wonderful example of arguing with oneself in order to discredit the other side. He ignores their major gripes, focuses on their minor gripes, or makes up his own gripes with which to argue, and acts as if he has made a revolutionary discovery and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the innocence of his charge. By defeating his trumped up charges, he acts as if he has defeated all charges; and in the magic of wordplay, a few rather blind people are then convinced that they were wrong about the issue all along. When, in reality, his article has not addressed the major points of the issue. Only an intellectual mishap could lead one to take such an article seriously.

For the record though, as far as Kimiko is concerend, I have some very interesting facts about her. I simply wish to set the record straight.

Lie 1: Kimiko is a guy.
Fact: Kimiko is not a guy

Lie 2: Kimiko has killed people.
Fact: it has not been proven that Kimiko has killed anyone.

Who made those accusations to begin with? I'm not sure, but as you can see, I have soundly defeated them.

 

Damn I thought someone had something to say on this thread,

Might as well try to go to sleep I guess,