Anonymous Declares "Infowar" on Wikileaks Opponents
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Why is the world mad at Julian? The rape charges are clearly a smear campaign. Don't get mad at the person telling you who the man behind the curtain is, get mad at the man behind the curtain. Governments will use this as an excuse to put major sanctions on websites.
Unfortunately for Anonymous, this is WAY too big for them. Assange and WikiLeaks have pissed off powers beyond anyone's ability to hinder, and filled them with a terrible resolve. My response to Anonymous' posturing is "*deranged laughter* You can't stop this! And you should probably learn from Assange, who has been on the run for years, never staying anywhere for more than a day, using assumed names to avoid detection, and recently got picked up by Interpol, that you aren't truly safe either!"
Nevertheless, I do not like what this says about the U.S. government. WikiLeaks exists/existed as a way to ensure a modicum of transparency, in an age where even the most mundane documents are labeled "Top Secret" in order to keep anyone from figuring out what the fuck is going on in their own elected government! Seeing as there has been no documented cases of deaths resulting from leaked information from WikiLeaks, I can't help but think that that claim is a smokescreen for the true motive, which seems to be to keep the public in the dark about pretty much everything!
I don't mean to sound like a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but recent events has made a certain amount of paranoia about the U.S. gov't sound REALLY appealing.
Nevertheless, I do not like what this says about the U.S. government. WikiLeaks exists/existed as a way to ensure a modicum of transparency, in an age where even the most mundane documents are labeled "Top Secret" in order to keep anyone from figuring out what the fuck is going on in their own elected government! Seeing as there has been no documented cases of deaths resulting from leaked information from WikiLeaks, I can't help but think that that claim is a smokescreen for the true motive, which seems to be to keep the public in the dark about pretty much everything!
I don't mean to sound like a tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but recent events has made a certain amount of paranoia about the U.S. gov't sound REALLY appealing.
I love it, awesome line!Andy Chalk said:
I fully agree. WikiLeaks was heralded when it was going after warlords and dodgy Russians, but it hangs out the West's dirty laundry and all of a sudden it's 'death to Assange. Bloody hypocracy, if you ask me. Deal with it, be accountable to your people, don't hide those things in the first place, be responsible and act in the best interests of your people, not some corporate interests and you'd not be worried about this happening! The way they're hounding Assange (and especially Sweden's weird demands made with regards to the hearing) makes me wonder how bad the stuff he's yet to release will be!Blind Sight said:
Whenever I visit anonymous, it's countless threads of trying to get doubles, hookup threads or just outright trolling (like trying to get the reader to kill themselves with chlorine gas). I'm amazed that they ever really get anything accomplished.
Didn't happen.qbanknight said:
Don't know where you're getting your information but what you've described is not what's going on. He first contacted the US department of defense and asked them to cooperate in ensuring that none of the information he released could harm any lives but their response was understandably: release nothing.
He now has a team of journalists checking the information to ensure it's not dangerous before releasing it. Assisting with this are a number of international, reputable news providers, most notably, the UK Guardian. Look up what's been released so far, nothing dangerous except to the careers of some politicians, particularly Hilary Clinton who broke international law by instructing diplomats to spy at the UN.
Now the "rape" charge is not a rape charge at all. It's a charge of sexual misconduct, apparently in Sweden this is a very loose definition, in this case he's being charged for sex without a condom, apparently, this is so bizarre I'm not sure of my facts.
Oh he was already cleared of this crime but they decided to re-open the case after the wikileaks controversy heated up.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-cleared-of-sex-charge-in-sweden/
This paragraph is particularly interesting:
If any of these bozos did twenty minutes of research, they might have found Ardin?s blog? "my feminist reflections and comments on animal rights, swedish politics and cuba from a political scientist, christian left and long distance runner" - and read her post, with the help of a Scandinavian comrade or Google Translate, "Våldtäkt en del av mäns makt" ? rape [is] a part of men?s power. Or they would have seen this article from Ardin?s days at Uppsala University, where she, in her role as some sort of equality watchdog, denounced the tradition of singing ribald student songs, which included "references to genitalia and serious sexual content," as "offensive and stereotypical." She is, in other words, rather sensitive on gender issues. Or this blog post on how one can exact "legal revenge" on men who have been ?unfaithful.? According to The Guardian, sources close to the investigation claim that she filed a complaint because Assange didn?t wear a condom during sex. So the boring truth is that Assange didn?t come up against a CIA conspiracy, but the rather broad Swedish conception of what constitutes a sexual crime.
From this article:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/25/the-boring-truth-about-those-j
If that's true, one of the women accusing him is clearly nuts.
I don't see how this is helpful. Ok, so Anon takes down a couple of sites for some time. All that says is that there are some people upset over Asssange's treatment. It's not really doing anything but causing a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things. Not only that, but usually this stuff is a small group out to make a name for themselves and not really caring either way.
On the Wikileaks thing, I think there are some good and bad aspects to it. There shouldn't be so much of this "veil of secrecy" attitude where everything is covered up and hidden from the general public. As long as the information isn't too sensitive or dangerous, then I don't see the huge problem here. I may be shortsighted about it, but that's just how I see it.
On the Wikileaks thing, I think there are some good and bad aspects to it. There shouldn't be so much of this "veil of secrecy" attitude where everything is covered up and hidden from the general public. As long as the information isn't too sensitive or dangerous, then I don't see the huge problem here. I may be shortsighted about it, but that's just how I see it.
I'm amazed how the unabashed proliferation of a nation's sensitive info is no longer defined as 'treason'.
Hell yeah anon. You stick it too em good. This is a matter of free speech and justice. This is big. If Assange goes down for this then shits gonna get real. People will not be happy, inc me.
Personally, I won't judge the man himself. As far as the leaks go, I'm tentatively positive. While I dislike some of the content, I agree with the idea and some of what this has caused. Our governments do need more transparency, not less. Having this gigantic outburst when this happens only strengthens that conviction. Admittedly, from what I could tell, most of what has been released has yet to seriously endanger anyone. If it had, well, everyone would have heard about it.
As for Anonymous, well, I don't know what to think any more. They can do some amazing things. Anti-ACTA information, finding and identifying rather evil people, throwing birthday parties for an old guy, etc. Then again, there's also the massive desensitization and general insanity. I'd put this more on the good side, but people will definitely disagree with me on that one.
So. Tentatively positive, I can definitely see why this happened. We shall see how long this "infowar" will go on. Anon makes a lot of claims, and doesn't exactly live up to all of them Probably 3/4 of the "call to arm"s that Anon makes are completely ignored. The ones that aren't can gain a lot of stream.
I'll stop typing now, maybe come back later. That's what I think. Any opinions similar to this? Different?
As for Anonymous, well, I don't know what to think any more. They can do some amazing things. Anti-ACTA information, finding and identifying rather evil people, throwing birthday parties for an old guy, etc. Then again, there's also the massive desensitization and general insanity. I'd put this more on the good side, but people will definitely disagree with me on that one.
So. Tentatively positive, I can definitely see why this happened. We shall see how long this "infowar" will go on. Anon makes a lot of claims, and doesn't exactly live up to all of them Probably 3/4 of the "call to arm"s that Anon makes are completely ignored. The ones that aren't can gain a lot of stream.
I'll stop typing now, maybe come back later. That's what I think. Any opinions similar to this? Different?
Viva Anon!
Seriously. Aside from the occasional exposing 12 year olds to porn, what they do is borderline superhero
Seriously. Aside from the occasional exposing 12 year olds to porn, what they do is borderline superhero
oh god this stupid argument again
i hate how this very serious problem is not being solved because afew people think its facist to stop confidential leaks to the entire world that could mean companies go bankrupt, goverments collapse, riots etc. who cares about ONE moment of facisim.
.......stupid new age hippies
i hate how this very serious problem is not being solved because afew people think its facist to stop confidential leaks to the entire world that could mean companies go bankrupt, goverments collapse, riots etc. who cares about ONE moment of facisim.
.......stupid new age hippies
My thoughts on the subject are complicated.
I'm a believer in free speech, but as I understand this we're dealing with Wikileaks basically having engaged in intenational espianage to steal classified information and divulge it publically. That's something else entirely. Where I believe you have the right to say anything you want (barring martial law), even if I disagree with it, I believe goverments do need to keep secrets, and that full transparency is a bad thing.
Now, before anyone laughs or misunderstands this, I will say that if Wikileaks somehow got this information legitimatly that is something else entirely. I get the impression that this is not the case however.
I remember back when Tom Clancy first released "Hunt For Red October" there was a story going around about how he was approached by the goverment due to his possession of "classified" information about sub operations, and it turned out that the supposedly classified information was obtained from publically availible sources at the Library of Congress and he simply came accross it while doing research for the book.
If wikileaks obtained this information legally, from public sources, then it's a free speech issue. If the goverment(s) messed up, that is on them, not on wikileaks. If on the other hand these guys were breaking into classified systems, stealing documents, and/or finding ways to leverage and gain information from inside sources, then they are involved in criminal activity.
As far as the US calling for the deaths of those involved, I'll point out that it's not uncommon for the death penelty to be the punishment for spying and/or treason. All liberal rants aside, I don't consider this akin to a third world country putting a hit out on guys for writing and/or publishing books like "The Satanic Verses", this is a legitimate national security matter.
I support Anonymous on a lot of what they do, but in this case I just can't agree with them. Also I can't imagine Wikileaks was unaware of the risks when they decided to do this.
The sexual garbage is more or less irrelevent.
I *DO* understand how people in favor of full goverment transparency are going to disagree with me here. There are plenty of people who believe there should be no such thing as "top secret" or "classified" documents. I am not one of those people. In a perfect world such things would not be nessicary, but this isn't a perfect world. Outing military and spy operations, especially during a war, is not a good thing. You do that to any nation and you should expect some nasty backlash.
It's a matter of a lofty principle that our reality doesn't allow for.
I'm a believer in free speech, but as I understand this we're dealing with Wikileaks basically having engaged in intenational espianage to steal classified information and divulge it publically. That's something else entirely. Where I believe you have the right to say anything you want (barring martial law), even if I disagree with it, I believe goverments do need to keep secrets, and that full transparency is a bad thing.
Now, before anyone laughs or misunderstands this, I will say that if Wikileaks somehow got this information legitimatly that is something else entirely. I get the impression that this is not the case however.
I remember back when Tom Clancy first released "Hunt For Red October" there was a story going around about how he was approached by the goverment due to his possession of "classified" information about sub operations, and it turned out that the supposedly classified information was obtained from publically availible sources at the Library of Congress and he simply came accross it while doing research for the book.
If wikileaks obtained this information legally, from public sources, then it's a free speech issue. If the goverment(s) messed up, that is on them, not on wikileaks. If on the other hand these guys were breaking into classified systems, stealing documents, and/or finding ways to leverage and gain information from inside sources, then they are involved in criminal activity.
As far as the US calling for the deaths of those involved, I'll point out that it's not uncommon for the death penelty to be the punishment for spying and/or treason. All liberal rants aside, I don't consider this akin to a third world country putting a hit out on guys for writing and/or publishing books like "The Satanic Verses", this is a legitimate national security matter.
I support Anonymous on a lot of what they do, but in this case I just can't agree with them. Also I can't imagine Wikileaks was unaware of the risks when they decided to do this.
The sexual garbage is more or less irrelevent.
I *DO* understand how people in favor of full goverment transparency are going to disagree with me here. There are plenty of people who believe there should be no such thing as "top secret" or "classified" documents. I am not one of those people. In a perfect world such things would not be nessicary, but this isn't a perfect world. Outing military and spy operations, especially during a war, is not a good thing. You do that to any nation and you should expect some nasty backlash.
It's a matter of a lofty principle that our reality doesn't allow for.