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 Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the picking-some-fights dept.

The Military 667

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."

cancel ×

667 comments

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

Doesn't matter what country you are in... (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597766)

...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597798)

I'm in the Land of the Free(tm).

Sigh. And certain groups are screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.

Near Norway,
How did you end up so not farked up.

Signed,
American.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (-1, Offtopic)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597842)

No, what they're saying is that it's expensive and people shouldn't be required to pay for other peoples health care anyways. Especially when the people in question are busy not buying health care on their own (as most uninsured young adults choose not to buy it).

Also of course, anybody against health care is racist and want to step over (and on!) the dead bodies of the poor! Or so the conversation goes...

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (-1, Offtopic)

polar red (215081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597936)

other peoples health care

s/health care/pension
s/health care/roads
s/health care/education
s/health care/police protection
s/health care/justice
s/health care/defense
s/health care/religion
s/health care/consumer protection
s/health care/unemployment ...
where do you draw the line ?

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Troll)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598072)

The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

amnesiacopera (1748256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598166)

It does effect you. When people without health care go to the emergency room, you end up paying with higher health insurance premiums. These higher premiums lead to even more people being unable to afford health care. It's a cycle that had to be stopped.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598306)

These higher premiums lead to even more people being unable to afford health care. It's a cycle that had to be stopped.

So, to stop this cycle, we're changing from "we have higher premiums because some people use the ER for free" to "we have higher premiums because we're subsidizing the people who used to use the ER for free"?

Note, by the way, that even the White House has said that they expect health insurance premiums to rise by an extra 10% as a result of this "reform".

Note also that this "reform" doesn't include a single element that is even intended to reduce health insurance costs.

And note that it doesn't expect to provide universal health insurance either. It's expected that not much more than 2/3 the people currently without health insurance will have it as a result of this "reform".

Finally, I note that people are already talking about "reforming the reform". Which is probably a good idea, but wouldn't it be smarter to see what, if anything, it actually accomplishes first?

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598188)

however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

That's not true. By denying someone coverage due to prior conditions or via recission, insurance companies skew the risk pools. When uninsured people show up needing emergency medical care and can't afford to pay it, it drives prices up for everyone who has insurance and can pay.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598232)

Two words: infectious diseases.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598246)

The government should regulate anything that one person's actions directly affect another person's rights. ie. FDA makes sure some company doesn't sell you shitty drugs. however, health insurance doesn't affect me if you don't have it.

If you live in a bubble this is true; if you live in society, it's not. If enough people don't have insurance that enough people don't get vaccinated then it will affect you. You may say that doesn't matter because you have insurance so you'll have the vaccines. Do you have children (or will you)? You can't get the measles vaccine until you're one year old - what happens when your three month old comes into contact with someone who couldn't afford the measles vaccine? Even for other vaccines that there aren't an age requirement - if it's given enough human hosts it can mutate to the point that our vaccines aren't affective.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (4, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598388)

Social stability affects everyone.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (-1, Offtopic)

Shark (78448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598248)

I suggest drawing the line at what the constitution explicitly says the federal government should provide.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31597982)

Yeah, let's pretend the teabaggers don't exist. That will show the tyrants.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31597994)

What some groups are saying is that it's expensive, &c. This actually is not the case, according to the congressional budget office, but it least it's a sane criticism, if mistaken.

What other groups are saying is that it's tyrannical oppression, &c.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pilG7PCV448

Thus, your "no" was incorrect - certain groups *are* screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (5, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598040)

Thus, your "no" was incorrect - certain groups *are* screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.

In a hilarious twist, most of the people who are saying that it's oppression and taking away our rights were also fully supportive of the Patriot Act.

http://haacked.com/images/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif [haacked.com]

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (2, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598440)

In a hilarious twist, most of the people who are saying that it's oppression and taking away our rights were also fully supportive of the Patriot Act.

And drug laws.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598012)

Most young adults I know(which is a lot, I'm one of them) don't have health insurance because low wage employers don't provide it.

It took me about 6 years of working to find a good job with good pay that also provided health insurance. Every other place I worked prior either didn't offer it or didn't pay me enough to cover the balance of the very small subsidy they provide. Taken into account that a lot of young teens are working for ~$9/hr or less($1440 gross monthly before tax! assuming 40 hours/wk), healthcare just isn't affordable.

Look at the economics of it. If you rent an apartment and have a roommate, you might pay $500 a month for rent and electricity/water. That leaves you like $600 a month for gas, transportation, phone, and food. When your budget is this small, paying even $200 a month for health insurance is a deal breaker.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598102)

Most young adults I know(which is a lot, I'm one of them) don't have health insurance because low wage employers don't provide it.

There's no such thing as free. SOMEONE is paying for it.

My employer provides health insurance and I have to pay a significant premium for it. I've just learned that my premiums are going to jump over 200% percent next year to pay for your health insurance due to the new legislation that just passed. I can barely afford it now. Forget about next year. Hope you enjoy your "free" insurance.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598210)

I've just learned that my premiums are going to jump over 200% percent next year to pay for your health insurance due to the new legislation that just passed.

Just out of curiosity, where did you learn that?

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (-1, Troll)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598316)

Just out of curiosity, where did you learn that?

From my employer and my insurance provider.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598446)

Just out of curiosity, where did you learn that?

From my employer and my insurance provider.

They're bullshitting you to cover their desire to make you pay more and to pass the blame so you'll be mad at the Government.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598328)

He's one of those people that insurance companies love.

He's happy to pay higher and get less.

And happy for everyone to pay more and get less, and happy that the rest who can't pay can go to the emergency room and still make him pay.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

TwineLogic (1679802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598300)

There's no such thing as free. SOMEONE is paying for it.

That's correct.

For example, persons in positions of high pay will be taxed and pay more than others will by virtue of their higher salaries. That tax money will, in part, fund health care for the low-paid people who are just entering the work force. This is a good thing; this is the way stewardship of a government-imposed fiat monetization system is supposed to look. There should be taxes to redistribute wealth acting in opposition to the inherent structural toward concentrating the wealth in the hands of some few.

In terms of making a smart investment for the national future, I think the current legislation missed the mark. So-called "health care" reform really amounts to "health insurance" reform. Where is the money to perform basic research on the mitochondria, on diabetes, on common weaknesses of virus families; where is the money for actual care as opposed to payment?

The answer, my friends, is that there is no money for those things because the congress was not paid by any lobbying group to consider such expenditures.

Meanwhile... Wikileaks claims that our CIA engaged in a non-military illegal killing. Really?

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598318)

I'm in the UK, I pay income tax. From this tax, some of it goes to paying for healthcare. All the money goes in to one big pot to help everyone. I have not need healthcare in years, do I care, no! I actually feel better about myself that my money is helping others.

Your healthcare system is broken - it is highly inefficient and someone somewhere is profiting too much.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598340)

My employer provides health insurance and I have to pay a significant premium for it. I've just learned that my premiums are going to jump over 200% percent next year to pay for your health insurance due to the new legislation that just passed. I can barely afford it now. Forget about next year. Hope you enjoy your "free" insurance.

I'm not even aware of the Republican's claiming the bill just passed will increase premiums for existing policy holders, certainly not by the scale you mention. Assuming you're not trolling, it sounds a lot like your employer wants to do some cost shifting and this reform is a convenient scapegoat.

Perhaps you could ask your employer what provision of the Bill is raising your premiums so you can raise this with your representatives? Or perhaps you could write to your insurance firm directly?

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598106)

It took me about 6 years of working to find a good job with good pay that also provided health insurance. Every other place I worked prior either didn't offer it or didn't pay me enough to cover the balance of the very small subsidy they provide. Taken into account that a lot of young teens are working for ~$9/hr or less($1440 gross monthly before tax! assuming 40 hours/wk), healthcare just isn't affordable.

See, I have a hard time believing that. I have a GED, and I've had health insurance since I was 18. Worked as a mechanic for three years, and have been working as a mail merge programmer for five years. I was making serious bank when I was a mechanic (41k my first year, 49k my third and final year), and I'm making around 30k now. Again, health insurance since I was 18.

And I'm a REALLY lazy bastard. If I can do it, there is no reason someone else can't do it (again, assuming they are on a 40 hour work week...being a student is a different story)

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0, Offtopic)

linguizic (806996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598154)

The irony of it is, that having these people pay in to a plan would probably make the plan cheap enough for them to afford because they're still healthy and would be using less healthcare than the folks who have it. The more healthy people you have on a plan, the cheaper it is.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1, Offtopic)

Shark (78448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598448)

Insurance also allows hospitals to charge patients 200$ for a tooth brush. You may create a bigger pool of usable money by putting more healthy people in it, but nothing in that plan addresses the obscene amount of waste caused (in part) by insurance in the first place.

If a medical bill is under 50 000$, insurance companies typically don't even look at the invoice. And now they'll have even less of an incentive to pay attention to the costs since insurance becomes mandatory. I'm quite happy for those who'll finally get covered instead of suffering, that's a good thing... But I really don't kid myself as to who this bill really aims to help the most and it's not them.

You never ever drive the cost of something down by having the government (tax payer) pay for it.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (2, Insightful)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598110)

I take personally your accusations about health care. As a young person I had to drop my health coverage because I can not afford it. I rarely go to the doctor; I have been once in the last 3 years so I could get an allergy medication that is now over the counter. Yet despite having good health My policy price kept going up and up and almost every month when I paid it I would get a notice that premiums were increasing and that they were no longer covering x, y, or z. The coverage continued to decline and the prices kept going up until I couldn't afford it anymore. Now I put what I can afford in a savings account in case I have a health problem, but unfortunately if I were to have a major accident right now I would go bankrupt form medical bills and if I end up with a chronic condition I will die from it as I cannot afford medicine or treatment. I am an independent contractor, so I don't get health care through my job, so even if I kept the plan and somehow managed to pay the premium I would likely be dropped if I actually got sick as it is a common practice to do so in the health care industry [latimes.com] . I'm glad your health care plan is so great - keep it. But I want coverage too, and if I don't get coverage from somewhere it will be your tax dollars paying for my emergency room visit, so what do you have to lose in this battle?

Mods: My apologies for going a little off topic here - I already killed the karma bonus.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598278)

As a young adult, I can't speak on behalf of my demographic, but I can say that I and the majority of my uninsured friends only lack health insurance because we CAN'T AFFORD IT. So, yeah, I guess we "choose" not to have health insurance; in the sense that we have to decide between health insurance and the rent.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598426)

Especially when the people in question are busy not buying health care on their own (as most uninsured young adults choose not to buy it).

That's a problem, though -- having the young adults out of the risk pool makes health insurance more expensive for everyone else! Instead of having them mostly having no problems at all (and thus missing their payments into the pool lacking corresponding payouts) and then having massive externalized expenses every time one of them ends up in the hospital for something that could have been handled more affordably if they were seeing a doctor regularly (or, worse, developing a chronic condition -- which then later ends up as a shared cost once they join a big employer and end up in a risk pool regardless), getting them into the system early means that (1) when they're healthy, they're making everyone else's bills lower by paying into the system without many payments going out, and (2) when something that could be a major problem later is caught because they're getting regular preventative care, massive bills down the line can be avoided.

(On a related note -- I don't recall that being much of a "choice" back when I was an uninsured young adult; I'd use the words "financial necessity" instead. Being able to stay on my parents' insurance longer, as this bill allows, would have been a major benefit -- and would have meant that my health insurance would have still been paid for by, ya know, private individuals, not off a public subsidy).

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (4, Insightful)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598362)

That said, what is the point of announcing that you're about to reveal something seriously damning about the government, instead of just releasing? The outcome seems fairly obvious in this case.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598422)

::shrug:: don't have an answer for you there.

[citation needed] (5, Insightful)

Bartab (233395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597802)

Seriously. Saying "we have something" is boring. Post it, or shut up.

Re:[citation needed] (2, Informative)

Spyware23 (1260322) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597826)

They said "We have something, we're going to show you then and then".

Re:[citation needed] (4, Insightful)

krou (1027572) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598156)

Which means they're idiots. Seriously. Wikileaks is likely to be under surveillance all the time. To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen? It'd be like Daniel Ellsberg announcing at a press conference that he's got secret documents called the Pentagon papers, and that he'll release them in a week later.

Re:[citation needed] (1)

Neil (7455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598204)

That struck me as really odd - publicly saying "we're going to release something that the Pentagon really doesn't want you to know in two weeks time" seems to be positively inviting attempts at suppression by the authorities.

If they really have leaked information that they think people should know about, then surely they should just "publish and be damned" - not engage in what appears to be news management in an attempt to create a sensationalist media buzz about it?

Re:[citation needed] (1)

HolyLime (926158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598234)

Why even wait until the April 5th press even? If the treatment is so bad just release it. What can be gained by holding it back then??

Impotent Slashdotters - all talk (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598236)

Nice to see slashdotters talking of this - but doing nothing of any value per se.

Freedom is just another word here - as in censorship or for that matter illegal activities by the government. Everyone gets to talk and talk about China and censorship and torture.. and when things like wikileaks happen, you realize how useless we as a group are.

Do something or shut up already people

Re:[citation needed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598250)

But some are saying "we have something" just so that stupid feds fall in the trap and gets themselves tapped/caught-on-videotape while trying to "follow" the dude saying "I have something".

Now they have something, and in addition they also have stupid busted feds...
 

Well, what did they expect? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597818)

There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597898)

OTOH, it's very easy for governments to simply "classify away" embarrassing secrets that are in fact no danger to national security. That's exactly the sort of thing that Wikileaks is built for. It's a national security risk only in that it risks the jobs of the people who fucked up, who may be in charge of security.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598018)

There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

  1. If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).
  2. Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.
  3. Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598086)

  1. Yup
  2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law
  3. When?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598348)

2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law

They do if they are publishing classified information, private information about individuals, etc. I'm not sure any jurisdiction in the world actually has absolute freedom of speech coded in law — even in the US, there have been Supreme Court cases balancing the First Amendment against other concerns with legal weight — and there are explicit exemptions in the basic constitutional or human rights legislation almost everywhere covering things like genuine national security interests.

3. When?

A common example is publishing the membership list of the BNP. It is particularly ironic since by outing those people, Wikileaks actually removed some protection and consequently damaged the freedom of expression of a minority political group that has been subject to dubious restrictions by mainstream politicians.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like the BNP's politics at all. I just don't like censoring them rather than beating them with rational argument any better.)

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

OttoErotic (934909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598126)

What are you referring to when you mention Wikileak's previous lack of good judgment?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598182)

Why the hell is this a reason to oppose Wikileaks: "If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig)."?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598208)

Please be so kind as to provide us with one example where Wikileaks placed itself above the law, one example where they exhibited lack of good judgement, and tell us how to get the checks and balances in place without Wikileaks or a similar organisation.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

Capt_Morgan (579387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598260)

Above the law? You mean the laws that guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598270)

The civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower point, destroys your first two arguments.

Please be more specific with your third so that I can take it in as a whole.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (4, Insightful)

Trails (629752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598470)

I think the counter point is that we don't know we have a fundamental problem without people leaking things.

Further, giving away genuine, non "CYA" national secrets that puts civilians/military personnel at risk would be a horrible blow to wikileaks. My point is that there is incentive here for wikileaks to expose only BS-type classified stuff.

Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to protect lawfulness.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (5, Insightful)

jimwelch (309748) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598136)

As always, in a "free" country, the question is who watches the watchers?
Embarrassing vs Dangerous or both?
Is the "reporter" out for glory or sees real criminal behavior or a political agenda?
Who gets to decide? If they are arrested, a jury/judge gets to watch the watchers.
The correct answer: all of the above.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (4, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598312)

Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?

Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.

Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (5, Insightful)

JDmetro (1745882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597918)

National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598060)

And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

That's a silly argument when governments try to use it to justify privacy invasions, and it's an equally silly argument to make against a government, some of whose members/staff will necessarily have access to information that should not be immediately available to the general public.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598392)

the argument: "I have nothing to hide" is silly. insofar you are right!

but the 'National Security' argument is actually saying: I have something to hide!

when you have something to hide, you usually did something inproper, unlawful, indecent or outright evil and immoral.

The US has a longer list of secrets than the library of the Vatican.!

and most of them seem to be rightout dirty!

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598396)

I think the use of that phrase was intentional. The phrase is used by the govt when they take our privacy away. We should be able to use it to take the govt's privacy away.

The phrase is actually bullsh*t, but if it is being used on us effectively, the same logic should apply to them.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598190)

And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

So how many curtains do you have on your bedroom windows?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598308)

Well, you dont mind then if I put my gloves on to do a rectal examination?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

JDmetro (1745882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598344)

Could you check my prostate while your at it? It would save me a trip to the doctor and I'd really appreciate it.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (5, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597924)

There are national security laws for a reason.

True, but those laws are not the highest laws of the land.

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Actually, many government officials think they are above the law and can apply state secrets laws indiscriminately and without regard for constitutionality. It has been a huge problem throughout the history of the US, because it is very difficult for the fourth estate and the judicial branch of our government to provide the proper checks to balance misuse of that power because of the secrecy involved. What Wikileaks has been doing in many (but not all) cases is protected whistleblowing, protected freedom of the press, and protected free speech that the courts most likely will rule as constitutionally protected if they ever actually make it to court.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598458)

There are national security laws for a reason

Yes, to protect politicians and their lackeys.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31597930)

"National Security" also gets used almost every time a government wants to hide something
that is either embarrassing or proving that they did something wrong or just to hide the
fact they intend to screw us (like ACTA).
I've never seen anything on Wikileaks that should be covered by National Security.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (5, Insightful)

davegravy (1019182) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597932)

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31597956)

They are not in USA and do not have to follow our wishes. If the foreign combatants who have broken the video signal encryption for our drones have shared video with them then they should share it if they wish. They have not promised anyone that they will not show something that normal US citizens have no access to online.

whether our defense folks like this or not is not their concern, as leakers....

Re:Well, what did they expect? (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597986)

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was told the First Amendment is above the law.

Re:Well, what did they expect? (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598050)

There are freedom of information laws for a reason.
If the defence departement is going to hide sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws -- and it might well be -- then of course Wikileaks are going to take steps,
the same way they would with anyone else.
Why anyone using/working on National Security thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted and can the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security be justified?

Re:Well, what did they expect? (2, Insightful)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598194)

There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

How can you not understand Freedom of the Press?
The constitution is above any other law.

Have you read the case surrounding the pentagon papers?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [wikipedia.org]

The only way this this sort of service treasonous, is if you consider the american public to be your enemy.

Don't do that (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597862)

'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

Re:Don't do that (2, Funny)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598028)

'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

I'm sure this ambiguity was completely accidental. Surely the Wikileaks folks would ever sensationalize anything, or present it out of context.

Re:Don't do that (5, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598142)

The summary is not the story. one editor was detained 22 hours and had is laptop "confiscated", another was followed internationally, their editorial meetings were bugged, and recorded.

Re:Don't do that (3, Informative)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598212)

Appears there's some interpretation/conflation by the person who submitted the Slashdot summary. What the relevant tweets says is:

"WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining. "
Then, later:
"One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer's seized.That's http://www.skup.no"
and
"We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike."
followed by
"We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

(see, you could have gotten all this by following the link in the summary). I've got to say, the hubris implied by that last one seriously reduced by sympathy for these guys.

Really? (2, Insightful)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597864)

A Twitter page is now the source /. is running with?
I suppose when you put "it appears" and "apparently" you can just pass anything off as "news".

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597980)

If the source is verified to be wikileaks does it matter what site they post on? I hate twitter, and I mean, quite a bit. But it doesn't make info posted on their less valid. Just less thorough.

Re:Really? (3, Funny)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598310)

A Twitter page is now the source /. is running with?

I suppose when you put "it appears" and "apparently" you can just pass anything off as "news".

Would you trust a source more if it was on the radio?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds [wikipedia.org]

Maybe you'ld just like it if I got off your lawn.

So..... (1)

zerospeaks (1467571) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597910)

So the pentagon is using Scientology to scare wikileaks?

dumb summary (1)

nazsco (695026) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597922)

air strike? who care the means. if they alledge murder, the target is the main point of interest, fine editor.

air strike on some iranian military base? air strike on the twin towers?

see?

Re:dumb summary (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598108)

You got "airstrike" from the last sentence, but missed "intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am"?

yeah, you know. (-1, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31597946)

State Department / CIA, either/or, take your pick, you know...they're totally the same thing.

Re:yeah, you know. (0, Offtopic)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598314)

Didn't you know? Hillary swings both ways.

Godwinned already (1, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598010)

Yeah, I'm sure they experienced the full Gestapo treatment including torture and being held indefinitely.

Taco, you're a fucking tool.

Re:Godwinned already (1)

floppyraid (1756326) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598226)

You should at least have the decency to post that sort of thing AC.















but srsly, cheer up :D


sidenote: is anyone else really disenchanted with the idea that someone, somewhere, might be saying, "Yeah. I tweet for freedom.".... Brughrb. It makes me feel so dirty.

More of the same. (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598014)

Sadly, it doesn't really matter what the truth is to people that are determined not to believe it. How well documented are atrocities like Operation Keelhaul or the USA's active involvement in the genocide of the people of East Timor in the 70s? Very. Many people have taken it upon themselves, at great risk to their own safety, to bring things like that to the attention of the public at large... most of the time it does no good whatsoever.

For every 1 dedicated researcher out there, there is a countless myriad of parrots that simply read off the carefully prepared messages their teleprompter tells them to, to the slews of average citizens that are more concerned with bickering over which news channel is actually presenting unbiased raw facts.

When you bother to alert said average citizens that no major news outlet is trustworthy because all major news outlets agreed with one another in 2005 that they should be allowed to lie on public airwaves, legally*, you get labeled as a conspiracy theorist.

* http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie [projectcensored.org]

Re:More of the same. (1)

RCGodward (1235102) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598122)

What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?

i like todays twitter. (1, Troll)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598038)

Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

Yeah, yeah. I know... you are legion, and you don't forget, and you don't forgive.

Re:i like todays twitter. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598254)

Yea, but they do get distracted pretty easily by porn site passwords and pedo-pix, so not the most reliable army I suppose.

State Department Blushing (1)

j00bhaka (916701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598084)

The State Department must be blushing right now. Their "secret ops" is no longer a secret.

Like a backseat driver... (5, Insightful)

OdoylesRule (1765008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598096)

It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Re:Like a backseat driver... (-1, Offtopic)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598360)

That's a misquotation, you cock. It's a misquotation in that Churchill never said that, in that what you are misquoting is from Orwell's On Nationalism in the first place, and in that the form of words is wrong in any case.

Is this indicative of your general level of research on the topic? Or was it not so much thinking as 'what you reckon'?

Re:Like a backseat driver... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598460)

No, you're wrong: I don't gallus gallus are capable of forming (much less articulating) any form of coherent text based communication- misquoted or not.

Wikileak is a brand (-1, Troll)

HNS-I (1119771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598098)

It's a brand. It has the word wiki and leak in it making it both feel trustable and sensational. It is their business and marketingplan. They keep sending out sensationalist stories out to the world. On the other end they are giving talks about free speech. Just a bunch of kids that found out a way to make money. I don't trust them, I don't read them, I don't watch them, I don't care where their servers are. They are an oxymoron like the your local wealthfare pulling anarchists. This is slashdot, damnit!

Re:Wikileak is a brand (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598382)

SHUT THE FUCK UP, MORON.

UPDATE: tweet about disclosure removed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598114)

The original tweet has been removed.

This was the original text:

"WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org 10:43 PM Mar 21st via bit.ly"

Two possibilities: they're planning immediate release, or they decided to give up with it.

US Intel doc on Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598128)

Out of curiosity I decided to take a look at what wikileaks had to offer (never been there before), and I ended up on the PDF purportedly from the Army Counter Intelligence center (*) that describes the Wikileak operation and how it could be ground into the dust.

Within that document is a table (on page 8) that lists equipment deployment in Iraq. The NSN column seems to be listing some sort of ID number like 581001X111125. But then you get entries like "1.24001E+12". That to me looks like Excel converted the data from a string to a floating point format - something that probably belongs more on the Daily WTF than wikileaks!

* The document itself refers to the possibility of posting "fake" documents to wikileaks in order to spread disinformation - so now my head is spinning as I don't know what to believe

Re:US Intel doc on Wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598456)

Leakers are not all computer-savvy, they often ask the editors for advice, like whether sending the docs over their connection will blow their anonymity.

What do they expect? (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598174)

If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen? Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security. It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank. Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination. I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care. If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.

To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic. I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!". It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something. Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video. What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.

Re:What do they expect? (2, Insightful)

phayes (202222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31598416)

Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

Press, Press, Pull Nyuk Nyuk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598280)

Yes and the real story here is that we all know that members of the "National Press Club" are never ever terrorist scumbags. I mean, he/she had an id card, a camera and an official looking badge, that should be enough to satisfy even the most doubting believers.

I have evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598286)

regarding alien technology...but i'm a coward so i'm safe.

Obama lied (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31598338)

America died.

Turk 183.
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>