Reply With Quote
Shouldn't the le read:
"Evading a shutdown, WikiLeaks mobilizes Twits"
Some have openly wondered why the US government "allows Wikileak" to do what it does, and have suggested, ironicly, that the US government was actually behind the leaks.
This is giving the US government too much credit for omnipotence. It is powerful, but its ability to act hardly approaches that mark, and it is faced with many constraints on the use of its power.
Something happened this weekend that illustrates to me the limits of that power, and why I think the above notion is more than a little preposterous.
---------------------------------------------
Evading a shutdown, WikiLeaks mobilizes Twitter supporters
Posted By Blake Houns Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 1:58 AM
In a bid to stay one step ahead of the governments, companies, freelance hackers trying to shut down its operations, WikiLeaks mobilized its vast base of online support Saturday by asking its Twitter followers to create copies of its growing archive of hundreds of classified State Department cables.
By late afternoon Eastern time, more than 200 had answered the call, setting up "mirror" sites, many of them with the name "wikileaks" appended to their Web addresses. They organized themselves organically using the Twitter hashtag #imwikileaks, in a virtual show of solidarity reminiscent of the movie V is for Vendetta. In that 2005 film, a Guy-Fawkes masked vigilantee inspires thousands of Londoners to march on the Parliament similarly disguised -- while it blows up in front of their eyes. Presumably, many of these people believe they are facing the same sort of tyranny that V, the film's protagonist, fought against.
Critics of WikiLeaks have called on the Obama administration to shut down the site, but now it's clear that doing so would be a difficult task indeed. The New Yorker's recent profile of Julian Assange, the organization's mysterious founder and front man, said that "a government or company that wanted to remove content from WikiLeaks would have to practically dismantle the Internet itself." WikiLeaks has also posted a massive, heavily encrypted "insurance" file on The Pirate Bay, a sympathetic website, which presumably contains also 250,000-plus cables and would be released into the wild if anything happens to Assange.
As my FP colleague Evgeny Morozov warns, aggressive action like arresting or killing Assange could spawn the rise of a vast, permanent network of radicalized hackers "systematically challenging those in power – governments and companies alike – just for the sake of undermining 'the system'." That could prove an extremely dangerous threat to the global economy and diplomatic sphere.
Evgeny offers the sensible suggestion that governments try to steer WikiLeaks into a more productive direction. "It is a choice between WikiLeaks becoming a new Red Brigades, or a new Transparency International," he writes, arguing that a responsible version of the organization could pose more of a challenge to closed regimes than to the West. "Handled correctly, the state that will benefit most from a nerdy network of 21st-century Che Guevaras is America itself."
----------------------------------------------------------
http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/p...ter_supporters
Shouldn't the le read:
"Evading a shutdown, WikiLeaks mobilizes Twits"
WC, I thought you and other nutcase right-wing extremists would love Wikileaks exposing the hated US federal government's lies.
Are you socialist/anti-establishmentarian now?
First off, I'm not a nut case. You are. As for exposing secrets... not these ones that I have read about. Only globalists and kool-aid drinkers, who want to see the USA and our allies knocked down like such leaks.
And Richard Nixon assured us he wasn't a crook.
The imperial, predatory USA needs to have its balls kicked in. The USA and world would be better off.
Why don't you move to some other country, where you have other people who hate the USA as much as you do?
What if they expose Russian secrets, or Chinese? Would they then be in your good book?
.They organized themselves organically using the Twitter hashtag #imwikileaks, in a virtual show of solidarity reminiscent of the movie V is for Vendetta. In that 2005 film, a Guy-Fawkes masked vigilantee inspires thousands of Londoners to march on the Parliament similarly disguised -- while it blows up in front of their eyes. Presumably, many of these people believe they are facing the same sort of tyranny that V, the film's protagonist, fought against
Obviously, the author has never heard the name "Spartacus"...
The global term "US government" doesn't do justice to reality. In reality, there are many untouchable fragments within that government that operate without oversight, and with completely independent agendas. RG, you should know better than most how this might work if it did at all.
From the ones I've read, diplomats from all over the world have been exposed as a bunch of pussies too afraid to handle business the way it needs to be handled so they gossip and talk to each other like a bunch of Jersey housewives. Obviously, I agree with the State Dept that this is dangerous, mostly because it exposes the world's governments and power brokers as less cowards that shouldn't be leaders of anyone or control anything.
imho
And if defending Bristol Palins 'pug voting parties for DWTSs riggin doesn't make this case, nothing will.
You betchya.
Did you shoot your TV?
No, the internet connection in my city was not shut down due to overuse by redneck pug parties voting for Bristol Palin as many times as they can.
"Christian" hate group AFA says, what would Jesus say?, that Wikileaks was caused by gays in the military.
When Sarah tells you that Weapons of Mass Destruction are inside your t.v. set in the form of judges who did not collude to give Bristol all "10s", who will hold the gun and who will pull the trigger between you and Wild Cobra?
Both.
Repeatedly.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/gover...ks2_11-29.html
JUDY WOODRUFF: Dr. Brzezinski, what do you think the fallout is going to be?ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, former adviser, U.S. National Security: ...
The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue -- Wiki -- Wiki -- WikiLeaks on this issue? They're getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, what are you referring to?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Well, for example, there are references to a report by our officials that some Chinese leaders favor a reunified Korea under South Korea.
This is clearly designed to embarrass the Chinese and our relationship with them. The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home...
JUDY WOODRUFF: And what is it -- what are you worried about with regard to the knowledge that...
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: It's not a question of worry. It's, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.
And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.
For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Just criticizing the people around...
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: And the top leaders, Erdogan and Davutoglu and so forth, are using some really, really, very sharp language.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But this is 250 -- it's a quarter-of-a-million do ents.
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Precisely.
JUDY WOODRUFF: How easy would it be to seed this to make sure that it was slanted a certain way?
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Seeding -- seeding it is very easy.
I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.
why is anyone surprised at how these diplomats handle business??
The two women at the heart of a sexual misconduct case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange did not originally intend to press charges against him, according to a Wednesday report.
The women went to the police together because they wanted to have Assange tested for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) after both had unprotected sex with him,
neither Assange or Ardin dispute that they had consensual sex and a condom broke.
The next night, Ardin threw a party in Assange's honor.
Two days later, Assange traveled to Wilén's home Enkoping. The two had sex that night and used a condom. The next morning, the two had sex again but Assange reportedly did not use protection.
For reasons that are not explained, Wilén decided to contact Ardin the next day because she feared that she was pregnant or Assange had given her an STD. Ardin explained that she had also had sex with Assange.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/r...ked-std-fears/
============
Rape? I don't see no stinkin' rape.
The only provable raping Assange has done is raping the lies of governments.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
