I heard Glenn Greenwald being interviewed the other day and he said that Wikileaks were at odds with him, Snowden, and The Guardian. Wikileaks wanted to just dump the entire document set onto the internet without editing it. The route The Guardian/Greenwald took was to meticulously go through it and edit out/censor any information that might compromise innocent people (intelligent agents, assets, etc.).
I didn't know this, and it made me think far, far, far worse of WikiLeaks. It's a good illustration of the difference between journalism and whatever WikiLeaks/Assange is.
That sounds like an interesting interview, I've often wondered whether The Guardian have any regrets over their initial involvement with JA/WL. His actions are completely at odds with even his own proclaimed beliefs, let alone The Guardian's.
I'm not quite sure what "makes Governments transparent" about having 400gb of confidential data that you're using as your own personal safety net and cloak of immunity. Of course that 400gb is only the share of his safety net which pertains to John Kerry, the U.K. FCO and Ecuador, I'd love to know what else he's got for his own security - I'd hazard a guess that the 400gb is only a very small share. I'm not entirely sure how a man who proclaims to be on a mission to make governments transparent, and to ensure the truth is known, can defend hoarding such a vast amount for his own gains.
You touch on another important issue, whilst people claim that Assange personally ensures the integrity of the data - he certainly doesn't conduct anything akin to a risk assessment. He spent weeks hyping up a leak during the Turkish Coup, and ultimately it was of nothing other than spam emails and the private emails of innocent citizens asking for assistance. One major claim that has arisen out of that particular leak was that it had placed a number of civilian correspondents under vast risk.
I never liked, nor appreciated to be honest, Edward Snowden. However I've recently began to respect him a great deal, and I've even enjoyed his commentary on a few current affairs issues. I've always been perplexed by his Russian asylum but lack of direct involvement in Russian PR, especially when contrasted with JA/WL.
To use your contrast between Wikileaks and Journalism, I'd definitely look up the processes employed by the team behind the Panama Papers leak. Those guys were incredible, did a huge amount of due diligence, were all team players despite their competitive backgrounds, and were ultimately the antithesis of what Assange is. Wikileaks represents a very anarchistic and immature form of "journalism" to be honest, one where ethical obligations are non-existent and consequences are given as much thought as "how much press coverage and disruption is this going to cause?".
I certainly feel for you in America though, the amount of hypocrisy within the campaigning, and the sheer amount of data being injected in to the debate from external parties is very concerning.
Agree with you about Snowden, I've definitely changed my viewpoint on him.
I heard Glenn Greenwald being interviewed the other day and he said that Wikileaks were at odds with him, Snowden, and The Guardian. Wikileaks wanted to just dump the entire document set onto the internet without editing it. The route The Guardian/Greenwald took was to meticulously go through it and edit out/censor any information that might compromise innocent people (intelligent agents, assets, etc.).
I didn't know this, and it made me think far, far, far worse of WikiLeaks. It's a good illustration of the difference between journalism and whatever WikiLeaks/Assange is.
That sounds like an interesting interview, I've often wondered whether The Guardian have any regrets over their initial involvement with JA/WL. His actions are completely at odds with even his own proclaimed beliefs, let alone The Guardian's.
I'm not quite sure what "makes Governments transparent" about having 400gb of confidential data that you're using as your own personal safety net and cloak of immunity. Of course that 400gb is only the share of his safety net which pertains to John Kerry, the U.K. FCO and Ecuador, I'd love to know what else he's got for his own security - I'd hazard a guess that the 400gb is only a very small share. I'm not entirely sure how a man who proclaims to be on a mission to make governments transparent, and to ensure the truth is known, can defend hoarding such a vast amount for his own gains.
You touch on another important issue, whilst people claim that Assange personally ensures the integrity of the data - he certainly doesn't conduct anything akin to a risk assessment. He spent weeks hyping up a leak during the Turkish Coup, and ultimately it was of nothing other than spam emails and the private emails of innocent citizens asking for assistance. One major claim that has arisen out of that particular leak was that it had placed a number of civilian correspondents under vast risk.
I never liked, nor appreciated to be honest, Edward Snowden. However I've recently began to respect him a great deal, and I've even enjoyed his commentary on a few current affairs issues. I've always been perplexed by his Russian asylum but lack of direct involvement in Russian PR, especially when contrasted with JA/WL.
To use your contrast between Wikileaks and Journalism, I'd definitely look up the processes employed by the team behind the Panama Papers leak. Those guys were incredible, did a huge amount of due diligence, were all team players despite their competitive backgrounds, and were ultimately the antithesis of what Assange is. Wikileaks represents a very anarchistic and immature form of "journalism" to be honest, one where ethical obligations are non-existent and consequences are given as much thought as "how much press coverage and disruption is this going to cause?".
I certainly feel for you in America though, the amount of hypocrisy within the campaigning, and the sheer amount of data being injected in to the debate from external parties is very concerning.
Agree with you about Snowden, I've definitely changed my viewpoint on him.
The difference for me is that Snowden does (appear to) have a principle behind his actions, whilst it's becoming more likely that Assange is essentially on some sort of power trip causing trouble for the sake of causing trouble. The allegations against him I am ambivalent on - no smoke without fire, but on the other hand there are lots of influential parties with a vested interest in getting him locked up.
Ecuador confirmed the rather unexciting news that they simply denied him access to their embassy WiFi network on the pretence of his attempts at gaining influence over the US Election:
Once again, this is turned around to suggest Ecuador are the bad guys. He really is unable to accept that they may just be doing him a favour by giving him asylum. Although it's quite clear he doesn't understand the concept of gratitude, apparently he fails to understand what asylum is either; I'm not sure it's quite the "freedom to do whatever you like" that he feels it is.
I think this is another one of my issues with the guy: he seems completely unable to comprehend the concept that he should be grateful to the people who - by his own accounts - he currently owes his life too.
I can accept the exaltation of someone based upon their supposed desire for a world whereby absolute power answers to the people it represents, and where transparency provides a surety over the decisions that shape the world, and I do believe his original idea was based around such principles.
What we have now is a man devoid of humility, and one who rolls the dice more haphazardly than the apparent opponents he's attempting to "straighten up". He has openly called for a "Wikileaks Army" to correct (and, between the lines, harass) those who make statements about Wikileaks that are not correct. I should clarify, he is the man directly behind Wikileaks and seems to identify Wikileaks as part of his own persona: he is in essence demanding volunteers sign up to be his own personal army online, policing articles that don't fit his personal narrative.
...and there we have it, we come 180 degrees and see he is made out of the same mould of those he condemns. Whereas he condemns democratic states and elected governments for partaking in such activities on one scale, he's only far too keen to do so for his own personal brand and appearance. He will gladly roll the dice and gamble with the lives of innocent citizens, he will give his opinions on Russia Today and keep loyalty to its own particular party line, and he will knowingly ask people to act as moderators and censors of free expression online.
The banner he does this under? One of fighting against governments who gamble with innocent lives, make deals with untrustworthy figures and attempt to cripple the right to freedom of speech.
I find the situation absolutely fascinating for its bizarre contradictions and peculiar doublethink that's required to really examine what his position is.
really like and agree your last post (glad you have recovered from yesterday's Tourettes attack :-))
I think the Guardian has more or less admitted it regrets its initial co-operation with Wikileaks. I have exactly the same feelings as you re Snowdon; jury is still out, I feel, because of where he chose to take refuge. And it's my privilege to know the local journalist who is part of the Panama Papers team. I got the impression that they are increasingly embarassed by Assange and seek to quietly distance themselves from him in the public mind; their difficulty is that it's always possible that Wikileaks can release something which helps their investigations. "America" frustrates me too, but I guess we have to try and tell ourselves that just because we share a language it doesn't mean we share a cultural outlook. Personally I think we have far more in common with Germany but that's thread creep. It's difficult to reconcile that an intelligent, reasonable and moderate bloke like @SDAddick could end up being represented in the world by Donald Trump.
Perplexing world, but it's Putin's tactic to persuade people that it is more perplexing than it really is. We should resist that tactic.
Thanks Prague, I must say that yesterday's little outburst was due to the sheer mind numbing frustration of reading Twitter during peak US hours when something vaguely related to Trump was being discussed!
I find it completely infuriating how people who would traditionally despise the likes of Assange - with Trump claiming that Snowden should be executed! - currently cling on to him like a messiah. I honestly think it makes even our Brexit debates in the UK look quaint, civilised and logical..
I feel sorry for your local journalist though - the work behind the Panama Papers was absolutely perfectly executed in my mind, an exemplary demonstration of responsible disclosure and valuing the quality of their work over the timing. In contrast, I can see why they may want to keep an awkward distance with Wikileaks.
Once again, this is turned around to suggest Ecuador are the bad guys. He really is unable to accept that they may just be doing him a favour by giving him asylum. Although it's quite clear he doesn't understand the concept of gratitude, apparently he fails to understand what asylum is either; I'm not sure it's quite the "freedom to do whatever you like" that he feels it is.
And of course, he completely stiffed people who put up his bail money.
Ecuador confirmed the rather unexciting news that they simply denied him access to their embassy WiFi network on the pretence of his attempts at gaining influence over the US Election:
Once again, this is turned around to suggest Ecuador are the bad guys. He really is unable to accept that they may just be doing him a favour by giving him asylum. Although it's quite clear he doesn't understand the concept of gratitude, apparently he fails to understand what asylum is either; I'm not sure it's quite the "freedom to do whatever you like" that he feels it is.
I think this is another one of my issues with the guy: he seems completely unable to comprehend the concept that he should be grateful to the people who - by his own accounts - he currently owes his life too.
I can accept the exaltation of someone based upon their supposed desire for a world whereby absolute power answers to the people it represents, and where transparency provides a surety over the decisions that shape the world, and I do believe his original idea was based around such principles.
What we have now is a man devoid of humility, and one who rolls the dice more haphazardly than the apparent opponents he's attempting to "straighten up". He has openly called for a "Wikileaks Army" to correct (and, between the lines, harass) those who make statements about Wikileaks that are not correct. I should clarify, he is the man directly behind Wikileaks and seems to identify Wikileaks as part of his own persona: he is in essence demanding volunteers sign up to be his own personal army online, policing articles that don't fit his personal narrative.
...and there we have it, we come 180 degrees and see he is made out of the same mould of those he condemns. Whereas he condemns democratic states and elected governments for partaking in such activities on one scale, he's only far too keen to do so for his own personal brand and appearance. He will gladly roll the dice and gamble with the lives of innocent citizens, he will give his opinions on Russia Today and keep loyalty to its own particular party line, and he will knowingly ask people to act as moderators and censors of free expression online.
The banner he does this under? One of fighting against governments who gamble with innocent lives, make deals with untrustworthy figures and attempt to cripple the right to freedom of speech.
I find the situation absolutely fascinating for its bizarre contradictions and peculiar doublethink that's required to really examine what his position is.
I've always viewed Julain Assange as essentially a narcissist.
Ecuador confirmed the rather unexciting news that they simply denied him access to their embassy WiFi network on the pretence of his attempts at gaining influence over the US Election:
Once again, this is turned around to suggest Ecuador are the bad guys. He really is unable to accept that they may just be doing him a favour by giving him asylum. Although it's quite clear he doesn't understand the concept of gratitude, apparently he fails to understand what asylum is either; I'm not sure it's quite the "freedom to do whatever you like" that he feels it is.
I think this is another one of my issues with the guy: he seems completely unable to comprehend the concept that he should be grateful to the people who - by his own accounts - he currently owes his life too.
I can accept the exaltation of someone based upon their supposed desire for a world whereby absolute power answers to the people it represents, and where transparency provides a surety over the decisions that shape the world, and I do believe his original idea was based around such principles.
What we have now is a man devoid of humility, and one who rolls the dice more haphazardly than the apparent opponents he's attempting to "straighten up". He has openly called for a "Wikileaks Army" to correct (and, between the lines, harass) those who make statements about Wikileaks that are not correct. I should clarify, he is the man directly behind Wikileaks and seems to identify Wikileaks as part of his own persona: he is in essence demanding volunteers sign up to be his own personal army online, policing articles that don't fit his personal narrative.
...and there we have it, we come 180 degrees and see he is made out of the same mould of those he condemns. Whereas he condemns democratic states and elected governments for partaking in such activities on one scale, he's only far too keen to do so for his own personal brand and appearance. He will gladly roll the dice and gamble with the lives of innocent citizens, he will give his opinions on Russia Today and keep loyalty to its own particular party line, and he will knowingly ask people to act as moderators and censors of free expression online.
The banner he does this under? One of fighting against governments who gamble with innocent lives, make deals with untrustworthy figures and attempt to cripple the right to freedom of speech.
I find the situation absolutely fascinating for its bizarre contradictions and peculiar doublethink that's required to really examine what his position is.
I've always viewed Julain Assange as essentially a narcissist.
If the regime tried it they'd probably end up downloading all their secrets right onto his computer! There's incompetent and there's incompetent... and then there's the Regime.
Happy with both outcomes, Manning did nothing wrong in my opinion. Unlike Assange.
Looking at it cynically, this must be a last-gasp attempt to finally capture Assange before Trump is in power.
Glad others beat me to this.
SELR, technically she did, she leaked Classified materials which is illegal. I think her punishment was ridiculously harsh, particularly given the types of materials that were leaked (and the careful manner in which they were leaked with respect to not harming any individuals--reportedly against Assange's wishes). There's also a conversation to be had in the States about the fact that we drastically over-Classify things, but all of that is for another day.
What she did was very brave, and contrary to how things were portrayed over here (including condemnation from then Secratary of State Hillary Clinton), a lot of them actually showed a very knowledgable and articulate diplomatic corps.
It is a good day for democracy and a good reminder of the role whistle blowers play in our society (this is not intended as an allusion toward anything going on in Washington DC right now, just an overall statement).
Can someone clarify the cost to the UK taxpayer of guarding Assange on the basis of issues from foreign countries Sweden and USA? And given that despite 7 years in captivity the Met still want to arrest him for spurious reasons which may lead to his extradition to Trumpland. Who signs off this waste of our taxes? Who was Home office minister at the outset? More Austerity Yes
My respect goes out to brave whistleblowers such as Navalny, Politkovskaya, Nemtsov, Kara-Murza, Litvinenko and Sergei Magnitsky, and many others, who have stood up to the corrupt regime in Russia. Strangely enough I don't have much respect for those that hide away in the Ecuador embassy, whose organisation hardly ever publishes leaks critical of Putin and who takes the Putin shilling for making regular programmes on his propaganda channel RT and to top it all did his own little bit for the nut job in the White House.
If you get a chance, I highly recommend this interview with Assange by The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill. Scahill is more friendly to Assange than most, but it's an interesting interview. Assange, for as much as he plays the pantomime villain very well, can also be an incredibly articulate and thoughtful person. That is not to say I agree with him or find him significantly less annoying in the grand scheme of things, but I think it's good to listen to people you don't agree with (sometimes the "Intercepted" podcast is incredibly frustrating, but I do appreciate their nuanced perspective, which is pretty unique in American journalism).
But he's not in captivity, is he? He's an alleged sex offender and fascist fellow-traveller, hiding to avoid justice.
Well Sweden no longer see him as a sex offender. Where did fascist come from? His whole ethos is anti-fascist. However I'm not a supporter, just anti the shysters against him.
But he's not in captivity, is he? He's an alleged sex offender and fascist fellow-traveller, hiding to avoid justice.
The sex offence was emabrrasingly weak and it's strange that a fascist has repeatedly attacked the country that many on the left routinely call a fascist state. I think the Apache footage release was his finest hour.
Comments
Once again, this is turned around to suggest Ecuador are the bad guys. He really is unable to accept that they may just be doing him a favour by giving him asylum. Although it's quite clear he doesn't understand the concept of gratitude, apparently he fails to understand what asylum is either; I'm not sure it's quite the "freedom to do whatever you like" that he feels it is.
I think this is another one of my issues with the guy: he seems completely unable to comprehend the concept that he should be grateful to the people who - by his own accounts - he currently owes his life too.
I can accept the exaltation of someone based upon their supposed desire for a world whereby absolute power answers to the people it represents, and where transparency provides a surety over the decisions that shape the world, and I do believe his original idea was based around such principles.
What we have now is a man devoid of humility, and one who rolls the dice more haphazardly than the apparent opponents he's attempting to "straighten up". He has openly called for a "Wikileaks Army" to correct (and, between the lines, harass) those who make statements about Wikileaks that are not correct. I should clarify, he is the man directly behind Wikileaks and seems to identify Wikileaks as part of his own persona: he is in essence demanding volunteers sign up to be his own personal army online, policing articles that don't fit his personal narrative.
...and there we have it, we come 180 degrees and see he is made out of the same mould of those he condemns. Whereas he condemns democratic states and elected governments for partaking in such activities on one scale, he's only far too keen to do so for his own personal brand and appearance. He will gladly roll the dice and gamble with the lives of innocent citizens, he will give his opinions on Russia Today and keep loyalty to its own particular party line, and he will knowingly ask people to act as moderators and censors of free expression online.
The banner he does this under? One of fighting against governments who gamble with innocent lives, make deals with untrustworthy figures and attempt to cripple the right to freedom of speech.
I find the situation absolutely fascinating for its bizarre contradictions and peculiar doublethink that's required to really examine what his position is.
I find it completely infuriating how people who would traditionally despise the likes of Assange - with Trump claiming that Snowden should be executed! - currently cling on to him like a messiah. I honestly think it makes even our Brexit debates in the UK look quaint, civilised and logical..
I feel sorry for your local journalist though - the work behind the Panama Papers was absolutely perfectly executed in my mind, an exemplary demonstration of responsible disclosure and valuing the quality of their work over the timing. In contrast, I can see why they may want to keep an awkward distance with Wikileaks.
Looking at this Wikipedia page, I'd say the Signs and Symptoms section can be fairly easily linked to his personality (as we know it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder.
Home broadband failed; phoned BT - "pls call back in a few hours because our diagnostic systems have crashed". Time to cut grass, evidently.
— Rick Everitt (@airmanbrown) October 19, 2016 " />and he is not blaming the regime...
and he is not blaming the regime...
If the regime tried it they'd probably end up downloading all their secrets right onto his computer! There's incompetent and there's incompetent... and then there's the Regime.
and he is not blaming the regime...
Gotta love it when both the network AND diagnostic systems are down.
I have many thoughts on this. Many great posts from LR and Prague as always. Traveling all day yesterday so my brain is mush but more later.
Looking at it cynically, this must be a last-gasp attempt to finally capture Assange before Trump is in power.
SELR, technically she did, she leaked Classified materials which is illegal. I think her punishment was ridiculously harsh, particularly given the types of materials that were leaked (and the careful manner in which they were leaked with respect to not harming any individuals--reportedly against Assange's wishes). There's also a conversation to be had in the States about the fact that we drastically over-Classify things, but all of that is for another day.
I teared up when I saw this. Very happy for her. Solitary confinement is a nasty thing and Human Rights Watch has declared that in prolonged doses it can be equivalent to torture.
What she did was very brave, and contrary to how things were portrayed over here (including condemnation from then Secratary of State Hillary Clinton), a lot of them actually showed a very knowledgable and articulate diplomatic corps.
It's also worth remembering that they helped to spur on the Arab Spring.
I hope she can lead a normal life now.
how tall is he ?
Chesea Manning is a free woman today.
It is a good day for democracy and a good reminder of the role whistle blowers play in our society (this is not intended as an allusion toward anything going on in Washington DC right now, just an overall statement).
My respect goes out to brave whistleblowers such as Navalny, Politkovskaya, Nemtsov, Kara-Murza, Litvinenko and Sergei Magnitsky, and many others, who have stood up to the corrupt regime in Russia. Strangely enough I don't have much respect for those that hide away in the Ecuador embassy, whose organisation hardly ever publishes leaks critical of Putin and who takes the Putin shilling for making regular programmes on his propaganda channel RT and to top it all did his own little bit for the nut job in the White House.
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/19/intercepted-podcast-julian-assange-speaks-out-as-trumps-cia-director-threatens-to-end-wikileaks/
Is he going to pay his supporters back who stumped up bail for him?