Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

cancel ×

438 comments

Great move, Pirate Party. (1, Offtopic)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280616)

Now fucking us out of due process to combat copyright violations is a "matter of global security."

Their heart's in the right place, but could they possibly have a worse strategic approach?

Re:Great move, Pirate Party. (3, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280656)

The Pirate Party is a separate deal from The Pirate Bay. Essentially, the Pirate Part is an organization that pushes for the legality of sites like The Pirate Bay, but they do not go distributing torrents themselves.

Re:Great move, Pirate Party. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280684)

Are you sure? [techdirt.com]

Re:Great move, Pirate Party. (0, Troll)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280760)

Sort of like how Sinn Fein is/was separate from the IRA? Not trying to make some sort of stupid terrorist analogy, but many movements have a tangentially-associated legal, political wing.

Re:Great move, Pirate Party. (5, Informative)

obliv!on (1160633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280802)

Well they are not one in the same sure, but The Swedish Pirate Party also hosts The Pirate Bay itself so you can't completely separate them from each other either. The Pirate Party Becomes The Pirate Bay’s New Host [torrentfreak.com]

Obviously both sites and the Swedish Pirate Party are betting (pretty hard) on the election next month which a successful outcome would as previously posted [slashdot.org] put TPB and perhaps now wikileaks inside the Swedish Parliament.

Re:Great move, Pirate Party. (4, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280840)

That's completely irrelevant. We're talking about politics, here. Conflation is the order of the day. The Piratbyran have associated themselves with an organization that every government hates. Talking heads will brand them security risks, and their agenda will be completely torpedoed.

Nice move (5, Insightful)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280670)

While it's a nice publicity stunt for the Pirate Party (with the Swedish elections coming up in little more than a month), WikiLeaks may also gain from it. Swedish politicians may well be pressured by the US government, or by others depending on what WikiLeaks publishes in the future, to close down those servers like they did with The Pirate Bay. But now that they are hosted by the Pirate Party that would be seen as a direct attack on a political opponent, with the obvious effects on public opinion. That will likely make them think twice before ordering a shutdown, which probably wasn't the case with The Pirate Bay.

And yes, government representatives giving direct orders to police and prosecutors is illegal in Sweden. But in practice it happens all the time due to widespread patronage and cronyism and few legal checks against it.

Re:Nice move (2, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280740)

to close down those servers like they did with The Pirate Bay

You know, I keep hearing about stories about the final nail in The Pirate Bay's coffin, but it's still there. The founders may have lost that suit, but I'm not believing a word of the stuff about TPB finally being killed until it's been offline for more than a month.

Re:Nice move (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280860)

The founders were court ordered to take down TPB. However, the founders no longer run it. They do not seem to know who is running it, either, but apparently it is currently being hosted the Pirate Party.

Re:Nice move (4, Interesting)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280870)

Yes, The Pirate Bay was up and running again three days after that raid, and still is, and probably will be for the forseeable future. But the prosecutor _did_ raid their web hosting company, take their computers and dozens of other ones that just happened to be in the same room, and kept them for years, long after the time it could have taken the police to mirror the data. That's what I meant.

TPB had the resources and contacts to enable them to just copy their backups to other computers around the world and get the site running again, and I'm sure that WikiLeaks too have lots of hidden backup servers and hidden backup people to run them. Probably lots more than TPB. That doesn't mean that their enemies in e.g. the Pentagon will not try to close them down, one by one.

Re:Nice move (0, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280804)

So let me get this straight ... they (pirate party) make an obvious move to turn it into a political fight when it isn't ... and you're saying the Swedes are too stupid to figure it out, so they'll assume anyone attacking Wikileaks is attacking the Pirate Party?

I'm sorry, Sweden isn't nearly as retarded as you seem to think it is. I highly doubt anyone would take it as a direct attack on the Pirate Party with the exception of those too ignorant to matter anyway. If anything it just makes the Pirate Party start to look like idiots, making attacks on them much easier.

How many people do they intend to take on at one time? The RIAA/MPAA and several governments ... including the US ... I don't know about you, but if I was a Swedish citizen I'd have serious doubts about voting for someone who regularly bites off far more than they can chew.

This was a stupid move, but fitting considering the parties involved. Kill two birds with one stone.

Re:Nice move (3, Insightful)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280876)

>those too ignorant to matter anyway

What you don't know about politics could fill an ocean. :/

Re:Nice move (3, Funny)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281316)

I'd say he doesn't know most politicians. Can we start with them? Please? Don't remove the water, first, though.

Re:Nice move (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33280926)

Even if the fights seem impossible,

it is refreshing to see people saying what they think, and take a real stand on issues.

The important thing is to bite, not to chew.
You must be able to say "no" to what is not ok, even if they are much stronger than you.

The Pirate Party is showing integrity and courage, as does wikileaks.

Re:Nice move (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280950)

I'm sorry, Sweden isn't nearly as retarded as you seem to think it is. I highly doubt anyone would take it as a direct attack on the Pirate Party with the exception of those too ignorant to matter anyway.

You have obviously never been to Sweden. I live here.

Re:Nice move (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281302)

Um, so you're saying that your fellow countrymen are retarded?

I thought we had a patent on that here in the States. ;)

Re:Nice move (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280980)

If you mean to say that wikileaks's mission is not aligned with the core political principles of the Pirate Party, you might have a point; I don't know their overall platform well enough to say.

But to claim that wikileaks is, or ever could be, anything other than a political issue just strikes me as silly.

Not really. (4, Insightful)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281206)

It's more just falling in line with the party, and offering another level of protection for the site.

The reason that Sweden's Pirate Party got political support in the first place was because Americans pushed political pressure on the Swedish government to take action, thus causing the first raid on The Pirate Bay. When the public got wind of this, there was massive public outcry saying that they shouldn't allow American corporate interests (and American copyright law) dictate what the Swedish government did. So all of a sudden there was a ton of political support for people that opposed American-style copyright.

This is a political move not to equate wikileaks to the Pirate Party, but instead to show that the Pirate Party operates as a safe haven for information so it cannot be tampered with by foreign interests (most notably, the American government and American corporations, who seem to believe that they are the authorities to determine what copyright law SHOULD be rather than the constituents of these so-called democracies).

This just falls in line with what the party represents. I think that the Swedish people would sooner resent America for trying to impose its beliefs on their democratically elected governments than they would be worried of the consequences of staving those companies off. It's not like America is about to bomb them because they run filesharing sites. And if they did, then Sweden would have an entire international body of allies who would object.

Re:Nice move (1)

spyfrog (552673) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281058)

Yep - now they will wait to shut down any servers before the third sunday in september...
After that all bets are off. Look how they strategically placed the TPB trail after the election.

Re:Nice move (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281208)

its awesome news. Now the immature little fucktard kids who run the pirate party will be forever known as the kind fo asswipes who broadcast information that puts the security of soldiers at risk.
Fucking retards. I hope they all end up in prison.
This news has made my day. Shows them up for the delusional fucktards they are

Re:Nice move (1)

Somewhat Delirious (938752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281238)

It's even more interesting than that!

Since the Pirate Party has elected members in the Swedish Parliament and they are allowed to use the servers of the Swedish parliament to make available to the public information that is related to their political ideals and election program they may be planning on hosting Wikileaks from the Swedish Parliament.

And now for the interesting bit: The information that they release to the public that way has FULL PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY. I don't know how exactly parliamentary immunity is defined in Swedish law and what the exact restrictions are but normally that means FULL immunity from the law for any and all information that is provided by members of the party involved. That would amount to complete protection from any attempts to get information taken down through any Swedish court as well as complete protection of their sources within the territory of Sweden...

Huge risk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281272)

but in Sweden they face the huge risk of their servers getting borked.

This may backfire... (4, Insightful)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280708)

Looks like the RIAA finally got that army of copyright enforcers they've been looking for.

Re:This may backfire... (0, Offtopic)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280752)

Yeah, a bad move. RIAA vampires make CIA goons look like buncha of Ray Kurzweils.

Pirate Party = Tea Party for geeks? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281210)

It's true, the Pirate Party equivalent to the Tea Party- only the constituencies are different (left-libertarian-leaning computer geeks vs. xenophobic social conservatives). Both parties are simply reactionary political movements fixated on some bogeyman - The Tea Party has Obama and the Democratic Party to whip themselves into a rabid froth while the Pirate Party is nothing more than a backlash against the excesses of the 'MAFIAA' cartels. Just replace 'Sarah Palin' with 'Corey Doctorow,' 'Ayn Rand' with, I dunno, 'Neal Stephenson,' and 'The Rapture' with 'The Singularity,' to get an idea of the parallels in their cultural and intellectual underpinnings. The only thing missing is a sinister, shadowy organization with deep pockets issuing the marching orders, as with Koch Industries and the Teabaggers, but I won't be surprised if the political pirates are also getting jolly-rogered by some rich people with an agenda.

Political entity required to comply? (0)

iPhr0stByt3 (1278060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280718)

As a political entity, wouldn't the pirate party have some sort of international obligation to comply when other federal governments ask them to remove information?

Re:Political entity required to comply? (3, Informative)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280750)

No. Not more so than any other organisation. And any legal attack would have to go through the Swedish legal system. There is no "international law", there are just treaties that countries implement in their own legislation.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (3, Insightful)

mckinnsb (984522) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280878)

Correct. It would be much easier for a foreign government (lets say the U.S), to pressure ISPs within its borders to prevent access to the website and/or persecute those who host leaked information within their borders. That's not necessarily easy or without political repercussion, however, and would probably draw some negative press coverage. Given the sometimes inexorable spread of information, if the Pirate Party were to become elected within the Swedish Parliament, then it would ensure that most of the information on Wikileaks would be available in some form or another, even if foreign governments succeeded in the aforementioned pressure efforts - as long as they remained elected.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280768)

I'd think that the activities and speech of a particular elected group of representatives would be off limits to outside governments as a matter of Swedish sovereignty.

That's why we made the CIA, you know, to fix that little global oversight.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (1)

NecroPuppy (222648) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280772)

It depends on the nature of the treaties between the two governments.

Just because the US Government wants something from another government doesn't mean they're going to automatically get it, even when a treaty is involved. National laws may carve out exceptions, and sometimes the government in question will just say "no", regardless of the treaties that are in place.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280814)

If I recall correctly, in Sweden the servers of political parties, served from their political offices, are immune to prosecution for a variety of offenses. It's intended to protect the freedom of independent parties. It just adds another layer of shielding on top of Sweden's other protections.

They would have no more political obligation to remove the material in response to an outside government's request than the Republican party in the U.S. would in response to a request from the Chinese government to remove documents from a GOP server.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (2, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281366)

The U.S. is prepared to take out Assange and Wikileaks by force. Putting this material on Swedish government property would make Sweden their enemy.

Re:Political entity required to comply? (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281012)

No. The swedish government might, if they've signed some treaty saying they will. Assuming you are a USian, consider what would happen if the federal government of Iran demanded that the Green party drop all information pertaining to Israel from their site. (Mostly: laughter).

Re:Political entity required to comply? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281276)

As a political entity, wouldn't the pirate party have some sort of international obligation to comply when other federal governments ask them to remove information?

Yes, there is an international obligation to comply. But they are only required to wear black patches over one eye, get a peg leg, and sport a parrot on their shoulders (a Norwegian Blue should be suitable). Otherwise when queried by "other federal governments", they can answer, "Arrgg maties, thirty days at see, and not a wench to be seen! Grease up the monkey!"

Assange can post whatever he wants... (1, Offtopic)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280722)

...but he also needs to be held accountable if things go wrong.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (5, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280792)

By "go wrong" do you mean "embarrass the hell out of the US military"?

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (0)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280934)

No I think he means that if some bit of intel is figured out that leads to the deaths of NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281318)

If causing the deaths of NATO forces in Afghanistan is a crime, why hasn't anyone tried to prosecute Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld?

Side note: The CAPTCHA for my first attempt to posting this was "invasion".

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (0)

saider (177166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280992)

I think "go wrong" means when the Taliban murders the civilians named in the documents as cooperating with ISAF, which the Taliban has already promised to do.

I don't have a problem with them releasing the documents, but they should have redacted names first.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281280)

Please explain one time when he's done that.

And if you bring up that retarded video I'll hunt you down and shit you myself for being a fucking moron and polluting the gene pool with your stupidity.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (2, Insightful)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280794)

Sure, because Faux News is held so terribly accountable whenever they get something wrong.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281094)

They should be.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (2, Insightful)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280806)

Why would anyone ever have to be held accountable for telling the truth?

The Human Race... (3, Insightful)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281038)

Sorry, you must be new here.

The truth is not nearly as important as their truth, or my truth, as told to me, by me (and others).

Beyond self-deception, there are many who are drawn to the idea of being a sort of "information royalty." The idea that you know more than others, and deserve to know more, because you're special, is very attractive.

Then there's the reality of tactical and strategic advantages. Sometimes you're just better off knowing more than others (information asymmetry), and sometimes you're just better off with others dead. It's a matter of personal assessment. I'm not talking about morality here, just power. For most of us, killing someone else would be something that we would at least say is unthinkable. For some of us, punishing someone for telling the truth would be in the same boat. Both of these proportions may be significantly smaller than you or I would hope.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281080)

For the same reasons we have to have laws restricting the dissemination of top secret truths. Some truth-tellings result in people dying.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281176)

Its like an NDA, its not wrong for the truth to be given out, it's wrong for breaking your word in that you promised not to tell people. Also, if the truth leads to people dying, then maybe they should have been better at making sure that the truth wouldn't do that.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281324)

So would you like to offer up the truth of your home address and some times when your family will be home alone?

There are truths that people shouldn't have to be prepared to defend their lives against, and there is no perfect security system.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281108)

"Hey North Korea, the codes to the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States are ______."

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281166)

The problem in that instance is not the telling of the truth but the breaking of your word that you won't tell anybody.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (3, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280832)

Sure, as long as he's in line behind all the people who did wrong and covered it up, only to be exposed later through Wikileaks.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (2, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280874)

he also needs to be held accountable if things go wrong

That is an empty, meaningless phrase. What do "held accountable" and "things go wrong" mean? What applicable law covers it? Is the Pentagon "held accountable" when "things go wrong" and Afghan citizens die like chickens? Or when friendly fire kills US and NATO troops?

If you don't want things to "go wrong," pressure your elected representatives to withdraw our forces from the profoundly corrupt interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't shit on the very people who are trying to expose the scammers and the war criminals.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281046)

I agree, war should be won in less than a year or it is a failure and weapons should be developed that don't kill non-combatant by-standers in a war-zone.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281086)

Is the Pentagon "held accountable" when "things go wrong" and Afghan citizens die like chickens?

That's not really a fair thing to say.

We have the ASPCA and anti-animal-cruelty laws in the U.S. Chickens are given far more consideration.

Yes, sensitive people, there's a bit of a tongue-in-cheek attitude there...

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281112)

Eh. I think it's possible to release information that exposes scammers and war criminals without also putting specific innocent people at greater risk.

There being a good side to leaking doesn't mean you (or they) should ignore or fail to minimize, to the best of their ability, the downsides.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (3, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281200)

Now that we're on the subject, could you please cite credible reports showing that wikileaks did in fact result in "putting specific innocent people at greater risk?" I'm not nearly as interested in spin and rhetoric from politicians and the commercial news media.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281308)

Really, the documents are obviously still available, and the highest count I have heard is that one wasn't innocent, one was already dead, and the third is unknown (so we should assume innocent). It seems that given the information that was leaked, the net total of deaths would be less with the documents leaked than if they remained hidden. Speculation of course, but I haven't heard anything credible that would even indicate otherwise.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33280930)

Wikileaks is free to publish anything.

If their actions result in deaths, there is due process. Wikileaks employees are charged, tried, and convicted of accessory to murder. See you back in the streets in 2070 or whenever.

They know what they are getting into. Alternatively, if not, well then, stupidity has its price.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281368)

Wikileaks is free to publish anything.

If their actions result in deaths, there is due process. Wikileaks employees are charged, tried, and convicted of accessory to murder. See you back in the streets in 2070 or whenever.

They know what they are getting into. Alternatively, if not, well then, stupidity has its price.

Should this perhaps also apply to for example those who commit war crimes and those who allow their subordinates to commit them and then help them cover up their actions?

Somehow, I get the feeling that you think your high principles should only be applied to people you personally dislike, for whatever reason.

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (1)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280982)

By "go wrong" do you mean "get people killed"?

Sure, because Faux News is held so terribly accountable whenever they get someone killed.

Why would anyone ever have to be held accountable for getting people killed?

Re:Assange can post whatever he wants... (2, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280994)

You mean like the U.S. has agreed [cnn.com] to be held accountable? Or does the law only apply to other countries?

May I make a simple request? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33280738)

Look, when you have "Swedish" and "Ass" in the title, I want it to be about a chick, dammit.

Source (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33280758)

I feel so bad for Bradley Manning, the 22 year old that is taking the shit for all of this. Some douchebag congressman wanted to execute him. Why is getting truth out so bad guys?

Re:Source (5, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280936)

Because he violated operational security which lead to the two charges filed against him.

Misconduct charges were brought against him for "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system" and "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source".

Both are violations of the UCMJ.

When he became a soldier in the US Army he performed this oath

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

So he disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him and violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, why shouldn't his ass be sitting in a cell?

Re:Source (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281078)

Yes, he broke the law but it isn't necessary to have him rot in jail. You obviously were in the army or something so you are biased.
The generals admitted that this information didn't put anybody at risk. It has been known to cause problems when people consistently blindly follow their masters. Perhaps if this kid were in Hitler's army he could have warned the public before they commenced mission: Kill All Jews.

Re:Source (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281212)

Herr Earp is correct.

All those who sign up to defend the Fatherland will follow orders, or face death for their defiance. True Patriots understand that in times of war no dissent can be tolerated. No small trespass of the judgement of our commanders can suffer the slightest breach of trust, or we shall fail in our task to defend civilization itself from the barbarous enemies at the gate.

Holy Victory! Holy Victory!

Yours in Christ,
Barack Hussein Obama

Re:Source (3, Insightful)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280940)

Because he violated his orders and actively breached security protocol. **IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked" or why, it just matters that he broke the law. And in breaking the law by providing classified (even if most of the content was "common knowledge") documents to the 'public', he also provided classified documents to the enemy, in this case the Taliban. And those documents contained the names of Afghan citizens who were "collaborating" with NATO. And that puts them in danger, and makes putting them in danger a lot easier for the Taliban.

You could say that he aided the Taliban. Sounds like about half of "giving aid and comfort" or "aiding and abetting". No, where have I seen that phrase before? Oh, yeah... the definition of treason. And last I checked, treason is a hanging crime. Not only that, but the very center of hell is reserved for traitors, turncoats and informers. So, assuming hell exists and it is as Dante wrote, then he'll likely have some time to discuss the morality of his actions with the people he outed to the Taliban who were subsequently offed.

At least, that's probably what the congressman in question was thinking.

Re:Source (0, Flamebait)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281044)

I hope if he is found guilty he gets what he deserves. But more importantly, I hope Assuage get's it too. He's hiding behind "freedom of the press" but he's arguably guilty by simply having possession of these documents. He'll come to the U.S. eventually.

Re:Source (5, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281334)

How can you "hide" behind freedom of the press? Do you only consider "press" to be the corporate propaganda mass-media drivel fed to you by Fox and Friends? If anything, Assange is much more of a reporter than anyone in the US media. He takes information, and he disseminates it freely to the public, without modifying it (except for removing names and the like). That's much more in line with what the "press" should be than the constant editorializing you get from Glenn Beck. We live in an open society (or rather, we purport to...), and with that comes danger. We claim to hold ourselves to a higher standard than the rest of the world, but then cover up our actions by burying them under the cloak of "National Security".

Re:Source (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281348)

Unless we arrest him overseas or he's extradited here that's pretty unlikely. Plenty of people have survived for a long time avoiding US Soil...

Re:Source (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281362)

Really? I would hope that justice is served and not some blanket GUILTY to be thrown over him or Assange.

And you know what else? I would hope that what the released documents reveals is taken into account.

Full names and pictures of informants? Tactical data (response times, UAV patrol routes and times, etc.)? That should be on Assange's head since he went and released all the data when the DoD called his bluff.

Cover ups? Friendly fire incidents rebranded into media friendly heroic last stands? Whoops, shot up a reporter standing around and a van full of kids? Yeah, I think Manning should be saluted for having a conscience and letting the world see what the fuck is going on over there.

Not that it matters though. Media will ignore it or just sit around speculating about his trial then switch to whatever is THE NEW PRESSING URGENT DANGEROUS THING THAT COULD KILL YOU right after the commercial break.

Remember that oil spill? You wouldn't know it if you read the news in the last couple weeks.

Re:Source (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281178)

So, assuming hell exists and it is as Dante wrote

Yeah or we could "assume" that Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism are right, that the practice of Ahimsa is essential, and that, in attempting to end violence, he was acting not only morally, but nobly. He broke the UCMJ, and he'll be punished for it. That's only fair. But don't try to start tying morality into this sort of thing.

Dick Cheny (0, Troll)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281190)

So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?

Re:Dick Cheny (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281342)

So explain to me then how Dick Cheny and Robert Novak conspired to "leak" the name of a CIA operative that was actively engaged in operations, compromised her and everyone she had contact with, but that wasn't treason?

In the U.S., rich people don't commit treason (or any other crimes) unless they're caught with the cocaine straws up their noses.

Re:Source (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281352)

**IT DOES NOT MATTER** what he "leaked" or why, it just matters that he broke the law.

Geeze, get a grip! Of course it matters. I don't mean to Godwin this thread, but I just talked to my father about this sort of thing yesterday, and he brought up the example of people hiding Jews in their basements etc. during the nazi era in Germany. Imagine someone back then said the same thing:

**IT DOES NOT MATTER** why he hid those Jews from the nazis, it just matters that he broke the law.

Seriously, I don't think this needs any further comment.

Re:Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281056)

because he is a traitor

some people commit treason for love, some for vices, some for political ideology, some are coerced

no matter, they are all traitors and deserve a firing squad IMHO

Re:Source (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281082)

Basically there's two possibilities:

1) Bradley Manning chose to leak the documents, knowing that he would be punished for the leak. In this case I can't feel sorry for him -- he knew what the consequences would be and made a choice. That's his right as an adult.

2) Bradley Manning was dumb enough to think that releasing the documents, which pretty well narrow down who and where he, the leaker, could be, under the alias 'bradass87' rendered him anonymous, and the U.S. government would never figure out who he was. In this case I can't feel sorry for him because it would mean he's one of the stupidest people alive.

So, either way I don't feel bad for him.

Re:Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281246)

stupid or not, he was trying to do the right thing like spike lee.

Scenarios (1)

prakslash (681585) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281084)

Let us say there is a secret US military document. Say this document has complete details of a plan to attack Canada two months from now. Someone in the military leaks it out and Wikileaks publishes it on a server hosted by Pirate Party. Questions: 1. Who should be jailed? (a)The military guy who leaked it (b)Wikieaks chief (Assange) (c)the Pirate Party chief (Falkvinge)? 2. What if the plans were to take out an Iranian nuclear facility? Would your answers change? 3. What if the plans were to take out a North Korean chemical weapons facility? Would your answers change? 4. What if the plans were to take out an AlQaeda hideout? Would your answers change?

Re:Scenarios (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281136)

Dude, bad example.

People in the states friggin' talk about invading Canada all the time, but the point is otherwise a good one.

Re:Source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281118)

He aided the enemy. Of course he should be executed.

Re:Source (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281120)

I feel so bad for Bradley Manning, the 22 year old that is taking the shit for all of this. Some douchebag congressman wanted to execute him. Why is getting truth out so bad guys?

So, if you could provide me with a list of times when your wife and children will be home alone over the next couple of months, I know some people who would love to get a hold of those truths. Thanks.

It's not a takeover (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280764)

This is just intelligent load-balancing. Offload enough of the responsibility to enough political or apolitical parties and regardless of what happens, there's multiple legal or quasi-legal entities hosting it. This is essentially a guarantee that the data will exist in several locations no matter how many you try to take down. It's always somewhere that you can't get to.

Too big to fail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33280778)

Somehow I don't think the principle sticks when you're not talking business.

Still, given how confusing and lengthy the Swedish legal proceedings have been for The Pirate Bay trial, maybe the concept here is to jam so much into the system people forget what the charges were by the time sentencing rolls around.

Re:Too big to fail? (1)

jemtallon (1125407) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280882)

More likely to use the slowness of the systems against the powers that be. Information moves quickly. A takedown in one country may be able to stop the flow of information quickly but coordinating takedowns to happen quickly around the world is too difficult with multiple jurisdictions and legal systems. It's a very smart idea.

Re:Too big to fail? (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281220)

You see the problem with governments who want to censor their people is they still do all of this by the book. From a purely hypothetical point of view it would be more efficient to coordinate the "disappearing" of the people you don't like without trials or convictions. Then again the political backlash would be severe but by the time you are considering censoring the opposition you've lost the battle anyway, so why not take out the enemy while you still can. This is all purely hypothetical .

And in other News.... (1)

d474 (695126) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280808)

....Julian Assange has officially changed his name to Captain Hook.

Basically, get used to this. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280904)

Wikileaks is the future, plain and simple. Governments will not be able to legislate restrictions on the internet forever. Pandora's box is essentially open.

This approach to data-distribution and careful evasion of embarrassed (or harmed) governments is bound to remain, as it's a natural capability of the internet. Nations under-represented on the world stage (or more principled in their respect of free speech) will continue to host those responsible for sites like Wikileaks, and fully-distributed, and virtually untrackable, delivery systems are certain to take hold for the proliferation of this type of information.

The law is no substitute for tight security, despite years of governments being trained to the contrary.

Re:Basically, get used to this. (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281092)

Governments have more ways of controlling this sort of thing, without any kind of legislation. Just watch how the Taliban handle those who don't follow their rules (look for a pile of bodies with their heads cut off, for example).

Just because they get away with it against the US, doesn't mean that other governments won't take a more direct approach to plus such leaks.

Actually, these events will mean less freedom. (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281126)

Assange is handing out free ammunition for those who would like to legislate tighter restrictions on internet freedoms. Tying itself to a particular political party will only make that easier.

Talk like a swedish pirate day (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280908)

So, how does it sound when you mix the Swedish Chef with the Talk Like a Pirate day?

Barg, Bhiber be bembers?

Whistleblower?? (2, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 3 years ago | (#33280976)

You mean media whore....

A whistle blower would go through the data and make a something that at least resembles a case. He doesn't want to do any real work, like analyze the data, strip out names to protect innocent parties, or provide only truly relevant data. Instead, he prefers to vomit data and let other people make sense of it.

Assange suffers from attention deficit disorder .. he gets upset when he isn't getting enough attention.

Re:Whistleblower?? (2, Insightful)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281154)

So, you'd rather he bias whatever documents are leaked to his organization with his own personal views and analysis? I thought one of the defining creeds of slashdot was open and free data. If Assange posted nothing more than a personal analysis of the documents he's leaked, he'd be criticized for keeping secrets from the public and letting his personal bias take over objective analysis. It would be that whole stupid climate-gate scandal thing all over again.

Re:Whistleblower?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33281160)

Well none of the other people with so called morals are doing anything, so why blame this guy for doing something that feeds his ego as well?

Re:Whistleblower?? (4, Informative)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281168)

He isn't a "whistle blower" by any means... he is simply providing a service FOR whistle blowers to anonymously release their information to the world.

Re:Whistleblower?? (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281224)

Thus explaining why they have spent the past few months pouring through the documents that major newspapers indicated could contain the names of civilians, and removing those names. And why they asked for the Pentagon, who undoubtedly knows which documents contain those names, to assist them.

Yup, they don't care.

Re:Whistleblower?? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281312)

I love how people get modded down for pointing out the obvious.

wikileaks neutrality (2, Insightful)

budgenator (254554) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281064)

It's obvious to me that by aligning with a particular political party, Wikileaks is publicly announcing the abandonment of any semblance of editorial neutrality. Their Noble effort to bring additional transparency to the world is now forever tainted.

Well So much for a PP in the US (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281128)

At one point I held onto the romantic, idealistic hope that a Pirate Party could take hold here in the U.S. eventually. I think this publicity stunt will effectively keep that from happening.If a PP on American soil starts to gain any ground, they are going to be immediately lambasted and hung out to dry as terrorist supporting, anti-American, extremists because, hey, look, the Swedish branch helped embarrass the U.S. Military.

Ah well, time to start looking for a new source of hope in the States.

Awesome (2, Interesting)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281248)

Now we have someone to bomb! /kidding

Well... /halfkidding

By aligning itself with a political movement, we now have a political entity of a foreign state aiding and abetting our enemies. I don't think we're going to be invading Sweden any time soon, but now we have someone to yell at when people are killed thanks to this info getting leaked out. Heckuvajob, Swedes... the Afghan informants' blood is on your hands now!

A while back... (1)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 3 years ago | (#33281354)

A while back, in a post on a previous thread regarding Julian Assange shortly after the Afghanistan files were leaked, I posited the question, "Why is Julian Assange still alive?".

I had assumed that if he did indeed have dirt on the US military establishment he would be pushing up daisies in some backwoods of Virginia.

Now I know that he is simply a very cautious, very smart player that is using EVERYTHING at his disposal to protect himself and what he does. The people he is aligning himself with are NOT idiots and they themselves are protected by laws that other nations are somewhat obligated to respect (the repercussions of ignoring these protections would probably be worse then any damage leaks might cause--think Barbra Streisand). He now has political AND journalistic protections. And don't forget about the "Insurance" file. Not a fucking clue, and I am not going to begin to guess.
( http://leakmirror.wikileaks.org/file/straw-glass-and-bottle/insurance.aes256 [wikileaks.org] )

I am starting to like this guy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...