Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks To Sell Hugo Chavez' Email

samzenpus posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-much-to-look-through-his-garbage dept.

Privacy 313

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Wikileaks seems to be a bit hard-up for cash, so they're trying a little experiment. They plan to auction off an archive with three years worth of Hugo Chavez' email. The winner will get a period of embargoed access to break any stories they can find in the files, while Wikileaks will later publish the archive in full. Wikileaks plans to use the profits for their legal defense fund, but they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources."

cancel ×

313 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reputable news sources (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776627)

most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources

Then mabye someone else will buy it and break stories?

Re:Reputable news sources (4, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776751)

Also, there are plenty of unreputable newspapers out there too...

Re:Reputable news sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777407)

Hence "someone else"

Re:Reputable news sources (5, Insightful)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776889)

Then mabye someone else will buy it and break stories?

There are plenty of disreputable news sources around, but would their readership be interested in Hugo Chavez's email? I can't see the average Sun reader caring too much. Unless some of the emails were sexually explicit and addressed to a former Big Brother contestant.

Re:Reputable news sources (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776901)

And does this mean that no UK newspapers are reputable as every single one of them pay their sources?

Re:Reputable news sources (2, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777341)

Have you read any of our newspapers recently?

Re:Reputable news sources (0, Redundant)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777231)

Like FOX news?

Ok, that one was a really cheap shot. sorry.

That's what bothers me (5, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777267)

Well, that's what bothers me the most: that it's essentially an invitation for anyone, the less reputable and scrupled the better, to use those for a fishing expedition.

Now I'm all for leaks which actually prove _some_ kind of breech of law, contract, or such. You know, take one or two emails out of there that prove Chavez has done anything illegal, and publish or sell only those.

Basically sorta how using a quote from a book to make a point is fair use, but "quoting" the whole book is breech of copyright law.

(And if you think that that's a bad analogy, no, it's not even just an analogy: everything you write, even emails, is automatically copyrighted by you. So essentially they're selling something wholesale, on which that guy and everyone who's ever sent him an email, has a copyright.)

But here you don't even know if there's any incriminating stuff at all in those emails. It's just an invitation to buy them and see if you can find something you can mis-use. Or to put it even better: it's not even selling some newsworthy story, it's just selling someone else's privacy. No more, no less. Maybe incidentally you can find some story material by trawling through his private correspondence, or maybe not, but at the end of the day what remains is that you paid to rape someone's privacy.

And, yeah, it doesn't matter if you're even a reputable news outlet or a news outlet at all. Conceivably even some spammer could buy them to harvest all email addresses in there. Or someone could buy them and see if they can find any blackmail material in there. Maybe not even as much against Chavez, as against some random politician who's mentioned taking a vacation for some medical condition in an email to Chavez. Or anything else.

I don't know... it seems an absolute low. It seems like the kind of thing only a complete scumbag would even think about doing.

Re:That's what bothers me (4, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777531)

Exactly. Privacy is privcacy. Either you care, or you don't. I does not matter if it's Chavez (who is not that bad as shown trough us proparanda, but also not that good either. ;). King Kong or yourself.

Re:Reputable news sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777569)

The government of Colombia perhaps could be a great bidder, and add some interesting "creative" features to the story. That's exciting, don't they have anything about Colombia too? Between guerrillas and drug traffic, those two have a lot to hide, and I'm pretty sure they will find bidders!

They pay photographers (5, Interesting)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776629)

I guess the difference is that a photographer creates the photograph, but how is this different to paying for, say, the Hitler Diaries?

Re:They pay photographers (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776699)

Because you don't want incentives for sources to create stories (or forgeries).

Re:They pay photographers (5, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776747)

They may not want incentives for sources to create stories, but why then are reporters paid? They create stories, "spin" them I believe is the term they use, all the time and we love 'em for it.

Re:They pay photographers (4, Funny)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776777)

Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events. The problem is that wikileaks doesn't need to provide an incentive for people to create false documents.

Re:They pay photographers (5, Insightful)

Swizec (978239) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776827)

That's like saying politicians don't lie.

Any story can be written so it comes out meaning something completely different to what really happens even if what you write isn't a lie per se.

Re:They pay photographers (1)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776843)

Journalists can be blatantly false or incompetent, but at least they're supposed to document existing events and not simply create stories. I suppose I was trying to highlight that false documents are created while journalists observe (and misinterpret).

But I guess I was arguing on semantics, so maybe I just need to get to bed.

Truth and Honesty (4, Insightful)

martyb (196687) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777431)

Any story can be written so it comes out meaning something completely different to what really happens even if what you write isn't a lie per se.

Agreed. Slightly OT, but I'd like to elaborate on what you wrote; it reminds me of a definition I'd heard:

Honesty: The absence of the intent to deceive.

I can be utterly truthful but still be dishonest. For example:

"Sorry I'm late getting to work, boss. I'm not feeling well. You know there's some kind of nasty bug going around."

One would be excused for THINKING I had some kind of "nasty bug", but that WAS NOT stated. A hangover from heavy and late drinking the night before could also be covered by this example. So, just because each sentence in the example was *true* does not mean that the entire comment was *honest*.

Re:They pay photographers (0, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777317)

"Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events."

HAAAHaHahahahah...Awesome. +5 Funny!

Oh, wait - you were serious about that weren't you?

You know they have a whole new class of antipsychotic drugs out there now - I think you ought to try one and see if it works for you.

Journalists don't create stories??? (4, Informative)

JonTurner (178845) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777395)

>>Journalists don't create stories, they document existing events.
I'm sorry, but that's just naive.

Just a few examples to hopefully open your eyes:

Dan Rather's famous forged Air National Guard documents (for which he was fired, but stands behind with his infamous "fake but accurate" quote):
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12526&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]
This wasn't just some staff reported in Podunk Arkansas, it was a lead anchor who was willing to end his career in order to further propaganda piece that was obviously fake. Makes me wonder what other pieces he pushed in his many years as news anchor and senior editor.

The New York Times accepts (read: publishes without edit) Barack Obama's Op-Ed but "rejects" a piece by John McCain. No bias there. Nosir. Nope.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/ [cnn.com]

Reuters accepts the most amateurish photoshop jobs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut [littlegreenfootballs.com] ...and only after an internet firestorm has to admit it:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/reuters-caught-blowing-smoke-faking-photos [sweetness-light.com]

Tennessee newspaper published blatantly altered photograph to promote political agenda: http://terryfrank.net/?p=2964 [terryfrank.net]

Iran gets in on the photoshop act: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp [nytimes.com]

And then you have the FREQUENT odd Reuters captions: It seems that every time Israel takes out a terrorist with a missile, the area is flooded with "youth" that "inspect" the wreckage. (in reality, they are looking for bits of body parts, for they believe that by touching bits of the dead "martyr", they help secure a spot in heaven. Grisly and repulsive.)
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25627_Palestinian_Car_Swarm_Watch [littlegreenfootballs.com]

And I'll finish with the most vile, disgusting example I've ever seen. The Associated (with terrorists) Press publishes staged photographs of dead children arranged by a (so called) palestinian "press agent". Pure propaganda.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22123_Green_Helmet_Admits_Staging_Photos&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]

which is promptly carried to the United Nations and presented there:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/22669_Fauxtography_at_the_United_Nations [littlegreenfootballs.com]

That's what I was able to put together with 5 minutes of work. I could continue for hours (days?) but hopefully this will open your eyes to the fact that there are people in the "news" that have clear agendas and aren't above creating stories where none exist in order to influence you. Not to mention those who write with bias.

Re:They pay photographers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776975)

But newspapers want people to create stories witness the News of the World going back on the amount that they would have paid their source in the Max Mosley case.
This is not the first time that they have gone back and sought a "discount" after the story broke.

Re:They pay photographers (1)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777091)

But newspapers want people to create stories witness the News of the World going back on the amount that they would have paid their source in the Max Mosley case.
This is not the first time that they have gone back and sought a "discount" after the story broke.

Mosley can't exactly complain that the story was "created", nobody forced him to enter into spanking sessions with 5 prostitutes, play "German prison" scenes and bellow orders in German.

Re:They pay photographers (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777133)

Why not? Those diaries were an incredible hit, pushed the sales of the "Stern" by thousands and didn't really have any negative impact for them when the hoax became public. A lot of people were actually angry that they stopped the series, despite it being fake.

People don't care whether a story is real or not. Whether a story is interesting and entertaining matters.

Re:They pay photographers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777253)

You mean like Jayson Blair and Dan Rather?

Hmm, not paying for stories sure didn't help the NY Times or CBS News.

Re:They pay photographers (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776847)

Hitler dairies anyone? No thanks, I'm allergic.

Re:They pay photographers (4, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776871)

I guess the difference is that a photographer creates the photograph, but how is this different to paying for, say, the Hitler Diaries?

Let me see:

Hitler is dead. Hitler's Estate can not claim copyright ownership. Hitler's rights have expired. Hitler's diaries are much more difficult to tamper with than copied email records. Conversely, Hitler's diaries are probably much easier to authenticate than electronic email records. And contrary to what the CIA wants us to believe -- Hugo Chavez is not Hitler.

And besides, wikileaks doesn't claim to have Hugo Chavez's email records, they claim to have the email records of an unspecified "top aide" of Hugo Chavez. And here in the United States, it's not the top aides that leak the information (unless they sell the information themselves for lucrative book deals, or unless it's a careful manufactured fake leak), it's our own President himself who doesn't know the difference between whitehouse.org and whitehouse.gov when emailing his staff.

Re:They pay photographers (2, Informative)

GBC (981160) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776939)

Hitler's rights have expired

Although this is off-topic, I had to respond as actually whilst Hitler may have expired the copyright in his works hasn't. In Germany, as with the rest of the EU, copyrights are for life of the author plus seventy years. If he had beneficiaries (which, as far as I am aware, he didn't) they would would hold the copyright for his works until 2015 given he died in 1945.

Things that you think are out of copyright probably aren't, thanks to the current global IP regime.

Re:They pay photographers (2, Informative)

Lyrael (1196443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776979)

Not global, or even 'the rest of the EU' as here in England copyright is 50 years from creation, whether the author is still alive or not.

(yes, I am completely off-topic and just picking at semantics, thank you for noticing.)

Re:They pay photographers (1)

serialdogma (883470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777449)

Not anymore, it is now life+75 years for written works throughout all of the EU, UK included.

Re:They pay photographers (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777137)

Did he leave everything to Donitz? or just Germany?

The wiki [wikipedia.org] suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.

Except that the 'Hitler Diaries' were fakes. (And copyright of Konrad Kujau, or, rather his heir, since he's dead as well.) The copyright to Mein Kampf is still held by whoever got the assets of the Nazi party, probably.

Re:They pay photographers (3, Informative)

Cow Jones (615566) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777289)

The wiki [wikipedia.org] suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.

"At the time of his death, Hitler's official place of residence was in Munich, which led to his entire estate, including all rights to Mein Kampf, changing to the ownership of the state of Bavaria. As per German copyright law the entire text is scheduled to enter the public domain on December 31, 2015, 70 years after the author's death. The copyright has been relinquished for the English, Dutch and Swedish editions."

quoted from this page [wikipedia.org] .

whitehouse.org (1)

witherstaff (713820) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777299)

Oh of course whomever set up his email program knew the difference. And not just Bush, but 50 people in the Whitehouse. This was a cheap runaround to the Presidential Records Act [wikipedia.org] . While it was a cheap shot, it was also effective. Millions of emails 'lost' [time.com] , subpeonas to turn emails over ignored - ahhh, the Executive Branch must love all the extra power they've gained over the past 8 years.

Re:They pay photographers (1)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776923)

No different than paying for this [wikipedia.org]

Suicide. (5, Insightful)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776637)

This stunt will come back to haunt them.

It'll give them a dirty name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776709)

Yeah. Sad. I know they need cash, but this is a bad idea. LOL if the successful bidder turns out to be Chavez.

Re:It'll give them a dirty name (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776957)

Successful blackmail in that case, I guess.

Re:It'll give them a dirty name (1, Troll)

ericspinder (146776) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776999)

LOL if the successful bidder turns out to be Chavez.

Well, it would only buy him some time, as they are planning to eventually release publicly the entire archive. I suspect that they will get some pretty good bids for it, as the right wing media doesn't have much in the way of ethics. Besides, I'm not even sure if it is truly unethical as many whistle blowers count on publishing companies for advances on books and then the news companies report on it. As they often have close ties, at least for marketing, if not more direct corporate ties; This action just cuts out the middle man. The only question that I have is "how and why did they get it?", was the source paid, did he donate it thinking of the public good, or was it made up altogether.

So I'm thinking a bidding war won by Fox News. While seemingly intellectual, Chavez is a fairly scary leader, I'm sure that McCain is looking forward to using the worst of Machiavellian activities. I'm just wondering if they'll publish what I'm sure is his gloating over the manipulations of the oil market [time.com]

Re:It'll give them a dirty name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777365)

as the right wing media doesn't have much in the way of ethics

Soo, umm, when is the NY Times going to stop running decades-old innuendo about John McCain and start running the current stories about John Edwards real sexual affairs and resulting love child?

Hmmmm?

And never mind self-admitted "fake but accurate". Just what the hell does that phrase demonstrate about the ethics of Dan Rather and all of CBS?

Re:Suicide. (5, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776713)

This stunt will come back to haunt them.

I agree. If I was an existing source for wiki leaks, then I would stop giving them free information -- I would want to get paid for it. Same goes if I was donating them free hardware and free bandwidth. This may be just an experiment, but it's going to completely change the way people perceive wiki leaks from now on. Once you sell out, you can never go back.

Re:Suicide. (1)

octal666 (668007) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777199)

Being for the legal fund, and that's a thing that they need, I don't see a problem with them offering an exclusive, provided that they publish the information later.

Re:Suicide. (5, Insightful)

NorQue (1000887) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776825)

And I hope it shuts them down. Seriously, I'm all for the idea behind Wikileaks... but *selling* your information to the highest bidder? This is about as diametral to informing the public as it gets! This is moral bankruptcy for them, IMHO.

Re:Suicide. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777009)

to be fair,

they will the release the archives in future. what they are selling is exclusivity.

i don't see this as a detrimental practice if it allows them to continue doing what the do.

but i'm just an AC so what do i know

Re:Suicide. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777533)

Then maybe you should have donated instead of letting it come to this.

Feel sorry for you in America (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776653)

Nearly everyone in the UK gets paid by newspapers for leads and stories :S

In other words... (4, Interesting)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776667)

In other words, ethics are negotiable. I can't say this impresses me much.

No matter which way you slice it, to breach someone's privacy just to offer the media a convenient fishing trip is ethically unsound. Looks like they might need those funds for their own defence.

Re:In other words... (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777019)

They're going to release it anyway; what they're selling is exclusive earlier access.

Re:In other words... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777481)

Would you like them to offer up *your* email for any hack to see if he can find any juicy bits? Irrespective of whether or not any such nuggets are to be found, the principle remains questionable.

Re:In other words... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777043)

DEFENSE

Re:In other words... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777179)

Ethics are the pile of steaming horseshit that holds back so much progress.

Fuck ethics.

Grow up (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777261)

If you think you're making progress without ethics, I'm glad that your version of 'progress' is being hindered.

Re:In other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777323)

No, ethics are an agreed upon insurance co-op - you don't screw other people over beyond a certain point when you're in a position of power, and they reciprocate. You aren't always in complete control in every situation, so disregarding ethics is a very dangerous stance for you to take.

I think this is a great idea. (5, Interesting)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776669)

Sites like this have a hard time obtaining any sort of revenue to pay for their costs, so it's only logical to allow short-term exclusive access to information in order to maintain site costs and legal expenses. Donations only go so far, and many people are probably afraid of contributing with their credit cards as to not end up on any FBI watch lists.

I'm sure many /.ers will have a problem with this, but how else is wikileaks going to be able to defend themselves from lawsuits designed to shut them down through ridiculous, unpayable court fees?

It's a win-win situation: news sources get profit from being the first to break the story, and wikileaks obtains money to keep their site going and defend freedom of speech while remaining true to their mission.

You don't solve this by selling out (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777003)

you solve this by creating the community that will support you. The problem with sites like this is that there are many people who claim to be fans, provided someone or something they don't like is the focus, but they don't donate. They are just riding on the bandwagon because it feels good to be part of something, even anonymously.

the one thing the internet exposes with great frequency is the number of people who want something for nothing. They are all lined up in support until someone asks for money.

Re:I think this is a great idea. (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777201)

``I'm sure many /.ers will have a problem with this, but how else is wikileaks going to be able to defend themselves from lawsuits designed to shut them down through ridiculous, unpayable court fees?''

Well, Wikileaks provide a much needed way for whistleblowers to safely blow their whistles. This is an invaluable service, and should be judged as such by the courts.

The problem is, before there can be such a ruling, Wikileaks will have to pay a lot. This is a fundamental problem, and one that affects everyone, not just Wikileaks. There is something very wrong about being able to be ruined by the courts, without the courts actually ruling against you. That is something that needs to be solved.

Finding funds to pay whatever fees are necessary to actually win your case is no solution. Doing so through questionable means is worse. Isn't there any way Wikileaks can fight these legal battles, without needing money they don't have?

Re:I think this is a great idea. (2, Insightful)

fmoliveira (979051) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777403)

And why a site like this have to be run in the USA? They could even drop these documents in a file sharing network.

Risky... (5, Funny)

someme2 (670523) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776683)

Wikileaks plans to use the profits for a small but capable force of mercenaries to protect their collective asses.

IFYPFY.

Re:Risky... (1)

hansraj (458504) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776711)

What the hell is your acronym supposed to mean?

Or as you probably would have put it - WTHIYASTM?

Re:Risky... (4, Informative)

Tomcat666 (210775) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776773)

"I fixed your post for you"

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/IFYPFY [wiktionary.org]

Re:Risky... (2, Funny)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776817)

"I fixed your post for you"

Thats lucky, I thought it was "I Find Your Porn For You".

Re:Risky... (0, Troll)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776867)

Well, in your case it's probably unlucky ;)

Re:Risky... (1)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777057)

After last weeks deletion error, you are probably right.

Re:Risky... (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777441)

"I fixed your post for you"

Thats lucky, I thought it was "I Fuck Your Penis For Yuans".

IFYPFY ;-)

Re:Risky... (0, Redundant)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776899)

For those wondering, he said "I fixed your post for you."

Acronyms these days :\

Money is not the intention (5, Insightful)

nietsch (112711) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776701)

They are not doing this to scrape some money together. There is some kind of paradox that newspapers are less interested to invest time if the sources are there for any competitor to see. The free availability makes the perceived value less/zero. So by giving exclusive access to an interested outlet, they are guaranteed a better exposure then when they just would give it to all takers for free.

Re:Money is not the intention (1)

pr0nbot (313417) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777347)

Perhaps they should create a currency, wikicredits or whatever, which is paid out when you contribute to wikileaks, and can then be used to buy time-limited exclusive access to new leaks.

heyho. (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776717)

this is what happens when you have a site that pushes data data that everybody wants to take a look at, but nobody wants to pay for.

and, of course, its hard to argue you are working for ethical reasons when you are charging money for it as well.

seems like a flawed business model from start to finish really, but many other websites suffer the same.

the only reason this is noteworthy is the nature of the information that they proffer.

Chavez' regret (5, Funny)

bobdotorg (598873) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776727)

He's kicking himself for not using the same email backup system as The Whitehouse.

Jurisdiction and legal defence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776733)

When an organisation or individual gets sued over web content, which is the weak part of the chain?
I'm assuming that they would go after the domain registrar and try to get the name pulled? ...and the hosting company?

Does that mean that not all TLDs are equal when it comes to vulnerability to legal action. If you are based wholly outside the US, and get sued in the US does it even matter?

Just some legal related stuff I've been wondering about.

Huh?! (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776765)

but they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources.

That's not what the movies tell us!

It's a slippery slope that will eventually lead to (2, Funny)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776769)

It's a slippery slope that will eventually lead to something like this [youtube.com] .

Re:It's a slippery slope that will eventually lead (0, Offtopic)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776897)

I tried to find a video of the helicopter hanging from Scarface, which I think is what it could also lead to but I couldn't find it...

They sold them selves ... (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776779)

They got this info from somebody who could have sold it themselves

They lost their credibility ... pity

G

Re:They sold them selves ... (2, Insightful)

Korey Kaczor (1345661) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776791)

Is this money going to pay for wikileaks's legal bills, or for the site owners' new porshe? Think about it. Either wikileaks sinks from being unable to defend themselves in court, or find themselves a way to pay for their lawyers and other fees.

Re:They sold them selves ... (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777049)

But what if it's for the lawyers new Porsche? I'm confused.

Re:They sold them selves ... (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777351)

Is this money going to pay for wikileaks's legal bills, or for the site owners' new porshe? Think about it.

How would you, I, or anybody else know which? Donating money is a black hole. There are plenty of examples of people enriching themselves in the name of public service. Think about it.

ethics are overrated (1, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776795)

University of Minnesota media ethics professor Jane Kirtly laughed when told of the scheme.

"Ethically speaking, why don't they just publish it?" Kirtly asked. "They pride themselves on being a new breed of news delivery."

Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist.
People have different values, different opinions, ..., therefore different morals and ethics.
When you formalize ethics you create rules or even law.

"Ethically speaking, ..."
Sorry but that doesn't mean anything. You might as well say either "It's my opinion, ..." or "By law, ..."

But if you want to keep your concept of ethics, fine. In that concept wikileaks is contra-ethics (or at least the ethics of the status quo). Because it's considered unethical to publish this kind of information.

(Personal) Principles are important, considering Wikileaks still intend to publish the documents unedited, anonymously, etc. they're not violating their principles. Nowhere did they ever say that temporary exclusives in exchange for money were out of the question.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Re:ethics are overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777053)

"Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist."

Imanuel Kant happens to disagree with you

Bollocks (3, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777081)

"Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist."

Where'd you read that, Nihilism For Dummies? Of course right and wrong and hence ethics exist - in as much as any human mental construct can exist. If you deny that you might as well say that *you* don't exist since you're simply the end result of your brains functioning.

Anyway , your sort of moral relativism has been used to excuse many evil deeds so don't expect many people to share your point of view.

Re:Bollocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24777359)

According to Buddhist philosophy "*you*" don't exist, and are simply the end result of your brains functioning.
 

Re:Bollocks (1)

fmoliveira (979051) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777457)

And who defines what is right or wrong? The extremes seems clearly defined, but there's not a line that divides both them. And it gets complicated when there is a trade-off.

Re:Bollocks (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777459)

Where'd you read that, Nihilism For Dummies? Of course right and wrong and hence ethics exist - in as much as any human mental construct can exist. If you deny that you might as well say that *you* don't exist since you're simply the end result of your brains functioning.

Yes, there are personal rights and wrongs, just no remotely absolute rights and wrongs (unless you destroy all apposed yo your believes). That was the whole point of my rant. The part I quoted insinuated there is (or maybe even should be) a defined set for rights and wrongs (ethics for all).

If *me* is the end result of my brains functioning, doesn't make that the end result *me*?

Anyway , your sort of moral relativism has been used to excuse many evil deeds so don't expect many people to share your point of view.

One group's rights can be an other group's wrongs. It's always relative. Evil is simply a form of wrong. People who excuse said evil probably don't consider it a wrong, maybe even consider it as "right". Who am I, you, anyone to morally judge somebody else's morals/ethics? (well, we're humans with mostly independent thought).

I'm never expecting many people to share my point of view. People who share the same POV are much less interesting that people who think otherwise.

Re:ethics are overrated (1)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777147)

Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist.

Stay away from my family, my wallet and my house. You scare me.

Think again (1)

Jesrad (716567) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777361)

Now think again, hard. You say "ethics can not exist.
People have different values, different opinions, ..., therefore different morals and ethics.

Which is it ? Ethics don't exist, there is no right or wrong and people making choices all the time is actually pure nonsense, including your own urge to write a comment about how no such thing as good or bad exists ; or they do exist and everyone has some of their own ?

See, the very fact that there are things you do and things you don't establishes a sense of right and wrong of your own, just like in everyone - and that's very sufficient to formalize the whole thing and prove you wrong.

Re:ethics are overrated (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777555)

Ethics are based on the concepts of right and wrong. Because there is no right or wrong ethics can not exist.

Ha, the scent of a logical fallacy in the morning.. I'll fix it for you : Because there's (arguably, if you're a moral relativist) no absolute right or wrong, ethics are subjective. Someone more pedantic might also want to argue about the first claim.

creators giving away planet/population rescue kode (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24776915)

fear is unprecedented evile's primary weapon. that, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' greed/fear/ego based hired goons' agenda. Most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'war', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid scheme. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & the notion of prosperity, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece

Wow (1)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777107)

That is one hell of a troll post.

Re:Wow (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777579)

It's called a copy-paste troll.

The most likely buyers? (1)

hashax (1190057) | more than 5 years ago | (#24776989)

Who are the most likely buyers with huge amounts of money at their disposal? CIA anyone? white house? anyone interested in trying to build a puppet regime in Venezuela maybe?

Re:The most likely buyers? (1, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777047)

The most likely buyers will be the victims of the leaks. Yay for disguised blackmail!

Wow... (5, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777041)

For a site that's supposed to be about promoting openness and moral conduct this is an incredibly immoral move.

'victims' of leaks will not get a chance to respond or refute big stories before they hit the front pages. The site wants no accountability for the information it provides whilst at the same time wanting to reap all the benefits that posting false informaiton can bring.

They may bring in more money but they're leaving themselves open for far worse than lawsuits. They're leaving themselves open to real criminal charges. The second money becomes involved, it can easily become blackmail.

"we have an email saying you did something naughty. If you don't want the press to get it before you can find out if the email is true or not or you want to pre-empt it, just make sure you outbid all the other newspapers"

I don't know what country they're based in but that kind of thing will wind up in a criminal court with the site owners facing years in prison.

Bad summary (1)

EatGypsies (1312085) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777087)

It's not Chavez' email, it's was taken from his aide. This is stated in the very first sentence of TFA. Good lord.

sad. (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777103)

to hear they have to start hocking things for cash.

then again, the lawsuits against them should help lend credence to the fact that wikilinks appears to be uncovering some truths alot of people dont like (the cayman bank article in particular)

Re:sad. (1)

Damocles the Elder (1133333) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777229)

If it were for the emails alone, and they weren't putting them up free-of-charge later, sure. But to my mind, this is a minor evil in return for keeping Wikileaks up and...well, leaking. Bandwidth isn't free, and there's no other way to make some modicum of money off of what they're doing.

I just found one of those emails (4, Funny)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777185)

Dear Castro,

Bush sucks. Thanks for the cigars.

Hugs,

Hugo.

PS: No you can't have my Hummer.

Think of the aide who's email was leaked.... (1)

GLowder (622780) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777189)

We're talking about Hugo Chavez, and Venezuela here. It'll be trivial to figure out which aide's email was leaked.

Someone's gonna get stood up against a wall for the embarrassment to Hugo/Venezuela.

Re:Think of the aide who's email was leaked.... (1)

Damocles the Elder (1133333) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777221)

Call me crazy, but I don't think they would have given the email to Wikileaks in the first place if they didn't have any contingency in place for getting the fuck out of there, or at least keeping their head down.

Obama ! (0, Troll)

neonux (1000992) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777285)

they may run into trouble because most reputable news outlets have policies against paying sources.

I'm sure if there is some emails between Obama and Chavez there, a reputable news outlet such as Fox News would be willing to pay...

oh wait!

incorrect apostrophe use (3, Funny)

Zashi (992673) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777513)

Okay, so I'm just another grammar Nazi. Okay, so this is at the bottom of the thread and will probably go unnoticed. That's fine. But I have to get this off my chest.

WTF.

worth of Hugo Chavez' email.

It's bad enough when people throw in an apostrophe for no reason when a word ends in s. I can at least see the logic. "Oh golly gee, this word ends in an s, I probably need an apostrophe." This is, obviously, not how you decide if an apostrophe is needed, but at least it's closer than what this person did.

For the uninitiated, the following is correct usage:

worth of Hugo Chavez's email.

At this point in the game of battling bad grammar and usage, I'll offer some extremely oversimplified rules for possessive apostrophe usage:
1. Regardless of what the word is or how it ends, if it's singular to make it possessive you add an apostrophe and an S. E.G. "the abacus's beads" or "the Nazi's obsessiveness".
2. Regardless of what the word is or how it ends, if it is pluralized by adding an S or ES, simply add an apostrophe to the end of the word to make it possessive. E.G. "all of the abacuses' owners" "the Nazis' collective obsessions".

Note: For my fellow Nazis who may try catch me on something: Abacus can be pluralized as abacuses or abaci. Also, please forgive any typos and use of passive voice.

Proof that Iran has no nuclear program! (2, Interesting)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777549)

"Proof that the stated reason for needing to invade Iran is a hoax and that the Western Media and Government are lying, blood-thirsty, psychotic tools. I'll sell the info to the highest bidder."

On the surface, such a statement appears disgusting.

The ONLY logic I can see here, (assuming that the Wikileaks guys aren't a bunch of sell-outs which seems inconsistent with their sole reason for existing), is that Wikileaks is gaming the system for mind-share.

It will be interesting to see how this move affects awareness of Venezuela on the global chess board. --Um, no. Correction. The world is too brain-damaged at this point for chess. At this point, it's just the global checker board. South America is next in line to be 'jumped' by the Empire.

-FL

Incredibly dissappointed at wikileaks (4, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24777553)

So, even though Chavez is... well, Chavez, I think your emails are... well, private. I just don't get why would wikileaks do this. Think of this : They will first sell Chavez' email then what would stop them to sell yours? Perhaps you are just a geek now, but who knows where life is going to place you later?

Even if it was all right to publicize someone's email, it would still really go against' Wikileaks' ways to actually sell it, this makes no sense.

This is ridiculous, wikileaks

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>