bassoferrol on 29/5/2019 at 21:40
Glad to know that that bitch has been finally arrested.
One less idiot to please many evil-ignorant morons like him.
Nicker on 30/5/2019 at 02:16
Thank you. Can you help me explain this to Tony because he totally doesn't get it?
icemann on 30/5/2019 at 02:24
The charge justifications against Assange, used similarly could be used against upload storage sites for hosting pirated content, even though they themselves did not pirate it.
Starker on 30/5/2019 at 04:45
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
How on earth do you justify a hacking charge?
Ask your current administration that. Obama's eventually opted not to charge him, after a long deliberation.
heywood on 30/5/2019 at 15:47
Quote Posted by icemann
The charge justifications against Assange, used similarly could be used against upload storage sites for hosting pirated content, even though they themselves did not pirate it.
It's different because upload sites don't directly control what their users upload and make public. Suppose one of their users uploaded an archive of US classified information and the site was ordered to take it down. If they refused, they would be charged. If they complied, they presumably would not. Wikileaks is not an upload site. They work with leakers to obtain material and choose what to post.
SubJeff on 30/5/2019 at 22:46
Aren't the methods the same for all investigative journalists? Isn't that, and the 1st, going to be what this hinges on?
icemann on 31/5/2019 at 01:30
Which as the thread topic says, opens the door to higher risks for whistle blowers.
demagogue on 31/5/2019 at 02:53
What's interesting is that there has never been more internal leaks from the US government than what's happening right now under Trump's administration. Most US agencies have a rogue Twitter account where they're leaking information, and a lot of leaks have been making their way into the newspapers. There's also whisleblower friendly case law like the Pentagon Paper's Supreme Court decision.
I haven't looked at the (
https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/23/18637655/julian-assange-criminal-indictment-17-counts-wikileaks-national-defense-justice-department) new charges against Assange in depth. It looks like one of them is conspiring with Manning for the actual taking of the data, and Manning has already been convicted of that of course. At least a claim like that would turn on the extent which Assange's cooperation amounts to conspiracy with the charge Manning was already found guilty of, which any future court can just inherit as a matter of law.
It's a mixed bag for whistleblowing in the US. I think if one is going to do it, they're much better leaking it through the NYTimes or WaPo than an outside entity like Assange. Go with an outlet that has better resources, expertise, a good reputation, and a successful history of actually protecting their sources. That's my advice.
Tony_Tarantula on 4/6/2019 at 11:52
Quote Posted by Starker
Ask your current administration that. Obama's eventually opted not to charge him, after a long deliberation.
I didn't vote for Trump. If that was your best shot you aren't nearly as intelligent as you think you are.
If you go back to 2015 I specifically stated that I found his views on policing and “war on terror” policies abhorrent while noting that they're also the same as everyone else in DC. During the debates him and Hillary spent most of their time trying to out do each other in agreement on these issues.
****
Also, leaking to WaPo or NYT is RETARDED. You have their reporters openly bragging on Twitter about tattling on leakers and they've been caught multiple times collaborating directly with US agencies to help those agencies disseminate the ideas they want put out. Plenty more reasons why but those are the two that come to mind.
Besides which Snowden didn't go to WikiLeaks first. He went to the Guardian. I'm
It's a safe bet that NYT wouldn't have any interest. After all the domestic spying program (and other things like Harvey) were well known and major papers declined to report on them. Hell I warned this was happening well ahead of the leak and most of you guys just insisted I was watching too much Alex Jones. If I knew I guaran-damn-tee the major media outlets knew.
That's the equivalent of going to the police to complain about police corruption.
the kicker:
Manning was actually exposed by a mainstream reporter. Wikileaks did successfuly protect Manning's Identity. Manning confessed what he'd done to a reporter from the stress of that and the reporter immediately ran to sell him out.
Starker on 4/6/2019 at 15:39
WaPo and NYT know how to protect their sources, as opposed to amateurs like The Intercept. As for their reporters "tattling on leakers", at this point I can pretty confidently just assume you don't actually know what you're talking about, either by misreading something or by misrepresenting something, as you have consistently proved time and time again.
And as for the supposed kicker, Manning was actually exposed by a hacker and a self-described friend of Wikileaks, not a mainstream journalist. How many mainstream journalists do you know who hack into the NYT? And you know why Manning chose to trust this person? Because they were on a donor list of Wikileaks. This last one alone exposes that you're either deliberately misrepresenting what happened or simply don't know any better, and neither of these possibilities is exactly flattering.