Wikileaks.org is now closed down

[Torurot]

Absolutly none of the worlds "terrorits" would be smart enough to make the following query. Degree of difficulty..... 'off the scale'

only >9k possibles
https://encrypted.google.com/search?....+Search

[guydesavoy]

How did you crack that google encryption code

[Road Runner]

I'll give you a clue.



RR.

[Torurot]

I don't ever use Paypal and as a business, if that's the only way you do accept payments..... time to reconsider and find an alternative more ethical service.

Paypal shut my account today because my business donated money to wikileaks.
http://www.reddit.com/r....usiness

There is a list of alternative payment services at the link

[azza33]

(Torurot @ Dec. 12 2010,05:29) ..... time to reconsider and find an alternative more ethical service.    

I hope you do see the irony in your comments

[f0xxee]

Does anyone not see that what Assange has doen to an extent is to give freedom of choice to get news from a source that is not:

1. An Empire with a political bias (lefties from CNN. righties from Murdoch)
2. News that is delivered without bias from advertising revenue pressures
3. News that is internationalist: without borders
4. News without editorial policy or spin.

It has been noted previously that many of the "leaks" had been published prior to wikileaks: Newspapers such as the Guardian etc, the Fairfax press in Australia and others had printed the same documents.

What wikileaks delivered was the evidence without the editorial. That is quite a pure notion of what news is.

And really, now that its been a week, lets have a quick cause and effect check:

Has K.Rudd in Australia caused a war between Skippy and Kung Fu Panda? No.
Has he caught some flack? Yes. Has he got over it and moved on? Yes.

Has the news that China would like to disengage from Nth Korea and would be happy to see the South and North reunite and be governed from Seoul made Korea more stable, or less stable? My answer is more stable becuase it suggests that China is thinking with its capitalist wallet rather than its communist dick.

Do the yanks as usual look like monsters with their requests to collect DNA etc from fellow diplomats in the UN? Yes. Will it change anything? No. The paranoia and fear that shapes US policy will never change until they learn that might is not always right.

Will the terrorists blow up the anti-venom (or what the fuck ever it is called ) factor in Aus because of wikileaks? No. Same for the underwater optic fibre links etc etc. FUCK ME! Most of that shit is available on Googe Earth anyhow.

Will various diplomats around the world ignore the many slights, insults and asides regarding their bosses, their foibles and their habits? Yes. They are diplomats. Its called being diplomatic.

SO really, besides the fact that the world as a whole is better informed and less easily led by the nose, where is the problem?

The problem is the US yet again ends up looking like fools abroad, But no problem, they have proven for 150 years that they are "not real good" with international policy. (With the notable exceptions of the rebuilding of Germany and Japan.)

No. The US as usual these days decided to send in air strike to deal with an unruly mouse. A massive over-reaction and a poorly thought out knee-jerk one at that. And the Aussie government should hang its head in shame, expecially one J. Gillard, who is as much a fore-lock tugger as Howard was juding by her behaviour last week.

They will not win this one: If JA happens to fall in front of a train, or be the tragic victim of a deer hunting accident in the forrests of London, the response from the plebs (us) will be a stink I think not heard of since the heady days of 100 years ago. I think people are generally sick of being so cynically used by those in power.

The fact is that the US has a massive credibility problem abroad. Wikileaks has only accentuated that. But the typical response from the US these days seems to be massive retaliation for no other reason than revenge, pure and simple.

JA did not hack or steal or blackmail anyone to get this information. It was passed, generally speaking by disgruntled whistle-blowers. He simply published it. How many governments DO hack and steal and blackmail for the same information?

He is not guilty of anything more than showing the corruption and the cynicism so profoundly ingrained in those we vote for and pay to protect us.

[strocube]

YES! Brilliant post, Foxxee. Well said, here, here, and harrumph.

[azza33]

All interesting points foxee...

Just an observation given

He is not guilty of anything

I'd suggest this guys morals are a long way off.

Take the post about VIP disclosing information... by these standards is it fine? What the difference? We can ban him or her... but have they done wrong?

How about the forum member mentioning your prior LB relationship in one of threads? Fair game if you are ok with morals of JA. You are happy for other personal information & conversations to be disclosed, why not your own? I see it as somewhat hypocritical.

I personally think people need to consider it a little more than what they have...
This is not ALL about the information and potential backlash it could cause...

It is about decency and privacy.. something JA clearly knows nothing.

[strocube]

(azza33 @ Dec. 12 2010,07:24) I'd suggest this guys morals are a long way off.

It is about decency and privacy.. something JA clearly knows nothing.

Right, and the U.S. and its imperial machine are paragons of moral virtue, FFS.
The dude is exposing institutional hypocrisy at the highest levels of government. This is very different from a forum member outing someone else. There is no moral equivalency here because, in the case of Assange, we're talking about state players on the world stage whose actions affect the lives of millions of people. This is very different from some horny middle aged dude who wants to keep his, um proclivities under wraps.

[azza33]

No its not.... and this is why your compass is off as well. It doesn't matter at what level its at - the point is the same.
You are just being a hypocrite to say one is ok and not the other.

  Right, and the U.S. and its imperial machine are paragons of moral virtue, FFS.

You need to dissociate your dislike of the US to the underlying issue.

[strocube]

We're clearly not going to agree and that's fine with me.
You've got your reality and I've got mine.

[azza33]

(strocube @ Dec. 12 2010,07:50) We're clearly not going to agree and that's fine with me.
You've got your reality and I've got mine.  

Least we have some common ground ... LB

[f0xxee]

(azza33 @ Dec. 12 2010,07:24) All interesting points foxee...

Take the post about VIP disclosing information... by these standards is it fine? What the difference? We can ban him or her... but have they done wrong?

How about the forum member mentioning your prior LB relationship in one of threads? Fair game if you are ok with morals of JA. You are happy for other personal information & conversations to be disclosed, why not your own? I see it as somewhat hypocritical.

Azza,

You are a BM whose intelligence has always been apparent to me, but in this instance I think you are missing the point:

Wikleaks deals with duly elected government officials and their correspondence. These people are either directly elected (politicians) or are paid from the public purse (diplomats, undersecretaries, advisers etc) They take an oath in most cases to uphold the relevant laws of the land from which they originate. Therfore they should be open and transparent in their dealings, and are subject to scrutiny by the media (and Wikileaks is part of the media.)

TMZ, Enews, National Enguirer, Hello! Womens Day etc etc deal with celebrities and the like. The people who are subject to their scrutiny have made a deal with society: they have surrenderd privacy for a celebrity life of riches and fame and fortune. For them to then scream "I want my privacy" is ludicrous. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

Me and you and Strocube: we are mere plebs. Generally speaking, the media above have no interest in us unless:
We fuck some one important
we kill some one important
we kill a few someones not important
we get caught doing somthing taboo.

By you and me and Stocube deciding to just be good old fashioned plebs we have a right to privacy. It is not at all the same thing.

The people involved in wikileak leaks were very much supposed to be in the employ of the people like us. Our taxes pay them. And they have in instances abused that privledge.

PS: Wikileaks is not about "K.Rudd fucked H. Clinton or likes TS" its not gossip. It is not personal or editorialised.

[azza33]

Therefore they should be open and transparent in their dealings, and are subject to scrutiny by the media (and Wikileaks is part of the media.)

Its a reasonable point, but privacy is privacy in my book- government appointed or not.

Just for example the US assessment of Rudd, whilst true, is best left private and not aired publicly. It will do harm to the relationship... despite what may be said publicly.
It's important for people to assess others so when dealing with them they can understand how to interact  to obtain the best results.

To digress, I watched an interesting documentary on NK and Madeleine Albright was talking about Kim Jong il and the briefing she was given about his persona. In reality, she said he was very very switched on person... totally opposite to the image portrayed by the media and the internal US assessment.

Anyways... time will tell but i think the loser in it all will be JA.

[f0xxee]

(azza33 @ Dec. 12 2010,08:22)

Therefore they should be open and transparent in their dealings, and are subject to scrutiny by the media (and Wikileaks is part of the media.)

Its a reasonable point, but privacy is privacy in my book- government appointed or not.

Fair enough. That is your opinion and its hard to argue against it.

Please note that K.Rudd "leaked" the conversation that he had with Dubya where Dubya asked what the G-20 was all about. He did this purely to bolster his image in the domestic market, where bush was thought (well, actually, know) to be a fucking moron.

Note that the same polititians that are crying foul are not adverse to "leaking" material to the media when it suits their purpose.

One Ms. V. Plame springs to mind.