×

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 Took Advice From Media Outlets

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the pentagon-papers-on-the-resume dept.

Censorship 385

formfeed writes "According to the AP (through Google News), WikiLeaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material' are they releasing it themselves. These newspapers 'have been advising WikiLeaks on which documents to release publicly and what redactions to make to those documents.' AP questions whether WikiLeaks will follow these redactions, but nevertheless seems quite impressed by this 'extraordinary collaboration between some of the world's most respected media outlets and the WikiLeaks organization.'" I wonder if some of the anti-WikiLeaks fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources. Update: 12/05 17:42 GMT by T : Yes, that's WikiLeaks, rather than (as originally rendered) WikiPedia. HT to reader Mike Hearn.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

385 comments

Julian! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451268)

I miss your lustrous white hair. WHy did you cut it?

Re:Julian! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451920)

I think he did cut it after reading a lot of comments about it in the media. Strangely, it was something that was often mentioned about him in interviews, bios etc. To me, it represented the essence his anti-establishment nature.

I call for an online petition for him to grow back that lustrous, silvery mane!

The wikileaks (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451288)

be used to wage war against information access, like 9-11 is used to wage war against liberty and freedom.

Fix the summary (5, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451314)

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

Re:Fix the summary (1, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451412)

Yeah, wikileaks' information is probably much more reliable, especially on matters concerning African elephants.

Re:Fix the summary (4, Informative)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451730)

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com] [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act [wikipedia.org]

These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (3, Informative)

lousyd (459028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451316)

The timothy editor added to the summary, "some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers". I believe that should be "anti-WikiLeaks fervor".

Re:WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451496)

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Also it's pretty clear that timothy didn't even bother reading the article before making that statement because the AP isn't one of the five media outlets mentioned. They're just the one presenting the information that other media outlets were consulted.

Re:WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451624)

To US lawmakers, it is quite possibly the same thing.

It is to Glenn Beck, that's for sure...

Re:WikiLeaks, not Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451684)

Here's another secret.

It's not just US lawmakers.

Can we quit pretending that the US is the center of all thats bad in the world, especially when the leaks themselves seem to show exactly the opposite?

Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451324)

Ok, can we get back to real news for nerds for a little bit and save the wikileaks stuff only when it is major?

This little wikileaks minutiae doesn't really belong here as as front page news.

Plus, it's obvious how biased the editors and readers are in favor of wikileaks.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (4, Insightful)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451390)

Hmmmm.... first internet war that we can actually observe and follow as it happens is not news for nerds, stuff that matters? Then what is? Where would nerds get their first-hand account? Whose embeded journalists would sit with the hackers at the NSA as they destroy the fibers of the internet to strain the wikileaks out of them?

Internet war? No it's more dangerous than that. (4, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451732)

The people who are close to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. The people donating money to Julian Assange are at risk of their lives being ruined. By a government that will stop at nothing to stop Julian Assange.

This means informants. This means entrapment. This means torture. This means psychological operations. This means black ops, false flags, black bag, honey trap operations.

This means ruined marriages, ruined careers, mysterious illnesses, mysterious criminal charges like tax evasion to further drain financial resources, psychiatric diagnosis from professionals like paranoid schizophrenia, ruined friendships, destroyed reputation, being labeled a pedophile, rapist, snitch/informant, or being entrapped / locked in prison and then being labeled any of these things.

The Government will do everything short of kill you. They'll try to make you kill yourself with psychological operations. They'll try to manipulate other people into killing you with rumors, smears, and character assassination, and they'll keep you from being able to make any money by lawsuits, blacklists, etc.

Internet war is just war. It's not something that geeks do on the internet with DDOS. It's when lives are permanently destroyed in the real world by blackmail, extortion, manipulation, humiliation, etc.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (4, Insightful)

TimHunter (174406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451392)

Plus, it's obvious how biased the editors and readers are in favor of wikileaks.

The biases of Slashdot's editors and readers are numerous as well as obvious. Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc. Why are you surprised that they show a bias about Wikileaks too?

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (3, Informative)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451444)

Hold on, this story is news because WikiLeaks requested the U.S. government help them do exactly what they are now accused of retaining media outlets help them to do.

The U.S. government declined to assist. This is major news. Access to outside parties will continue to increase so long as the U.S. refuses to own this situation and assist in the preparation of these documents for dissemination.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451542)

Of course the US government declined to assist. "Hi, we just got a whole bunch of classified documents you'd rather us not have, and we'd like to publish them. Want to help us redact them?" Any answer the government gives other than "publish nothing" is basically approving Wikileaks publishing leaked documents.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (3, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451644)

When the barn door is swinging open and the pigs have fled don't turn your nose up at offers of getting bacon returned to you simply because accepting it would imply approving people eating your escaped pigs.
Take what you can get and accept that you should have locked the barn door because you're never catching those pigs no matter how much you scream and stamp your feet.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (5, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451660)

That's the point. The answer 'publish nothing' is not recognized data-war tender. The U.S. is clearly hoping for meat space developments to solve this situation.

Otherwise they would have a strategy that involved dealing with the data on the table.

The Egyptians have apparently been saying this for years. The U.S. will enter into new theaters of combat with no concern for the opinion of established actors in the arena. Instead they listen with half an ear, then return to telling the established actors what the U.S. wants them to do.

The net result here is that WikiLeaks gets to start doling out National Security level assignments and drawing up the game plan. Currently Assange is only a few pieces short of being able support a cabinet, storm Sealand, and demand U.N. recognition of sovereignty. All because we are forcing his organization to grow up into a full fledged Intel agency and polarizing other sovereigns into his camp.

If anyone is worried about a stateless future ruled by paramilitary actors start taking notes. The U.S. government appears to be hellbent on making that future a reality.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (1, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451458)

No, slashdot is pro-apple. You'll be virulently downmodded if you criticize the great one (Jobs).

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451518)

No, slashdot is pro-apple. You'll be virulently downmodded if you criticize the great one (Jobs).

From what I can tell...

Slashdot is Pro-Apple, Pro-Microsoft, Pro-Linux, Pro-PS3, Pro-Xbox, pro-Wii, pro-piracy, anti-piracy, anti-Wii, anti-xbox, anti-PS3, anti-Linux, anti-Microsoft, anti-Apple, anti-computers, pro-computers

should I continue?

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451754)

Exactly my point, I was just trying to be more subtle.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451970)

I once got modded down for suggesting that Apple might not be flawless. We need a new downmod for those instances. -1, Nerdrage.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451502)

The biases of Slashdot's editors and readers are numerous as well as obvious. Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.

Yet every time a story about any of those are submitted there are plenty of readers defending Apple, Microsoft and Copyright (As far as I have seen no-one actually defends RIAA, I guess everyone agrees that they are evil.)
Just because there anyone has a different opinion than you and dares to speak it out does not mean that they are in majority.

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (4, Insightful)

SETIGuy (33768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451746)

Pro-Linux, anti-Apple, anti-Microsoft, anti-constraints on downloading free entertainment, etc.

You could probably combine those into a single "pro-freedom" or "pro-individual rights".

Re:Please Give Wikileaks story A Rest (1)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451532)

Then doesn't that mean, by your own admission, that the majority want to see stories like this ?

I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Informative)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451376)

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451408)

Nothing. That's what makes it so scary. This is a fundamental assault on the very concept of a free press - and I am quite scared of the amount of people wanting to see Assange's head on a pole here. Those people are the enablers of totalitarianism.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451826)

Thats utter nonsense. When has any other major media organization ever received classified information that it decided to reveal even after being told numerous times by the us government to not post it? Wikileaks is doing a LOT that other media organizations aren't doing. This is not at all an attack on free press. This is an attack on compromising our national security.

Has it ever occurred to you how easy it is for our enemies to thwart our surveillance efforts? Once they realize how we're obtaining information on them, its trivial for them to eliminate that source or medium we exploited. And screw that crap about oh, we're redacting names so everything is ok. These other governments and organizations aren't idiots. If they can see what information is being leaked, then that drastically narrows down the number of possible leaks.

So yes, Assange's head should be put on a pole. Who is he to decide what kind of damage to our countries efforts is acceptable?

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451838)

Why the flaming fuck should any agent of the free press care if the US government tells it "numerous times" not to publish something? Not giving a fuck about that is the very definition of free press.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Informative)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451960)

Thats utter nonsense. When has any other major media organization ever received classified information that it decided to reveal even after being told numerous times by the us government to not post it?e?

Guess you didn't bother to research that claim.

Pentagon Papers was the first thing that came to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [wikipedia.org]. Watergate was the second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal [wikipedia.org]. Plenty others exist if you want more examples.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (0)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451934)

assault on the very concept of a free press

Being part of the free press, or being anyone who enjoys the protection of the first amendment, doesn't give you cover to work with a person who is illegally stealing and transferring classified documents. Period.

The NYT (and the other media operators) didn't get into a chat with the guy who stole the docs. Nor are they stashing a special encrypted cache of stolen docs which thehy are overtly using as blackmail leverage. These are completely different types of activities. Assange is not acting like a member of a free press. He's an ego-maniac with a specific political agenda who is directly soliciting illegal activity, and even offering help with legal costs for those that commit it. People who think he's being a jackass aren't totalitarians ... Assange himself, on the other hand, is really enjoying his King For A Day power trip, and is so far removed from "press" to make it laughable when people use that term to describe him.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451450)

This is the best moment for the media to steal away some political power. If they're successful, well, the future will be a little brighter.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (2)

whitehaint (1883260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451490)

Did you miss the 2008 election cycle? The media already has too much political power in how the gave unbalanced coverage to the various candidates!

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451480)

Wikileaks just doesn't cave in to pressure from the government to censor themselves. Other American news organizations are loyal to a certain commercialist regime in the government, and would much sooner turn in their sources than publish something like that.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Informative)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451482)

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

They provide a secure anonymous drop-box so that people can leak to them without leaving a trail by which to get caught. (It's important to note that Bradley Manning got caught because he went around bragging to others about leaking; WikiLeaks didn't blow his cover, he did that himself)

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else.

They don't leak, but they do facilitate leaks. By providing the secure setup they presumably encourage leaks that would not otherwise occur, and distribute material that might be containable by the authorities if the leakers had gone to a more traditional outlet.

So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Simply put, the attacks aren't justified, but people in the press and government are self-righteous assholes.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451516)

It has to do with (a) a perception of poor judgment exercised on the part of Wikileaks in terms of what they release and how they release it, and (b) a perception that Wikileaks has an axe to grind against the US, the West, or capitalism in general. There's no real indication that Wikileaks has a goal in mind of improving the world somehow, but rather it seems that they release this information as a gigantic middle finger to the US.

On the other hand, conventional news organizations have frequently shown a willingness to work with (or, at least, in consideration of) the US and/or other countries to ensure that lives aren't endangered in the process and any generally positive objectives that the country in question may have are not unnecessarily undermined (or in some cases, are bolstered by revealing corruption that works to those objectives' detriment).

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451782)

I completely agree with your assessment. That is the basis of my own criticisms of Wikileaks. Although I would add that there's a difference between criticism and legal action. I have no problem being critical of Wikileaks (although even here I dislike some of the political grand-standing that's associated with it). But I do have a problem with politicians trying to circumvent law to go after Wikileaks (or craft Constitutional end-runs to give them legal authority).

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451522)

They are dedicated to leaks of supposedly secret information, and they encourage people to with clearance to leak it illegally. It should still be perfectly okay, but don't say that there isn't any difference when the difference is quite blatant. The other most obvious difference is that WikiLeaks is having an effect. Dirty secrets are becoming public and the society gets to know about them. I don't think you can credit AP or NYT with anything like this.

Otherwise, sure, when it comes to the actual release of such information, there is no difference.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (5, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451580)

>What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.

They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.

*example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:

"Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.

Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.

[...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.

The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."

Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."

It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".

[...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched [guardian.co.uk]

Traditional media is under control (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451586)

The USG has nothing to fear from the NYT or any other news source. They are always interested in keeping access to government officials, so they never step over the line when reporting the news. They don't report on the reality of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Editors at the major media companies are good friends with everyone in Washington and Wall Street, so you can't get good coverage there either.

Even looking at coverage of WikiLeaks, how many are reporting that the US State Department new immediately that the coup in Honduras was illegal, and then publicly stated a month later that they hadn't decided what had happened? How many are reporting that Hillary Clinton knew Saudi Arabia was the main funding source for the worst extremist groups in the world, but did not publicly reveal this to US Citizens for fear of damaging trade relations with the oil barons?

You would think that would even be front page news on Fox, who'd bread is buttered by fear mongering about muslim terrorists, but it's always below the fold, or on some opinion column that never sees the front page. That's because one of their main investors is a Saudi Prince.

A truly independent press is too dangerous for the United States to tolerate. It's told too many lies to too many people for too long. They know WikiLeaks has zero self-interest in American interests, and that's why the organization is so feared.

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. -George Orwell

The Press does not have an army. (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451840)

So it cannot be independent. It serves the US Government as all who don't have an Army must do.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451600)

In theory, there shouldn't be any difference between Wikileaks and these newspapers.

In practice, the media organizations have much less degree of freedom since they get a decent share of income from ads and are linked to the government to a certain amount (taxes, donations, political interests from redactors, friendships).

"Le Monde" used to be the French newspaper of record, but is now merely repeating what Reuters says minus the information that could hurt advertisers or the french government.

If Wikileaks releases confidential stuff about Total or BNP Paribas, you'd better read "Der Spiegel" or "El País" if you want to know more about it.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451656)

What's happening is exactly what the powers that be would like to do to the NYT and AP, if they dared. That, however, would have to take place in the "real" world, and would without doubt wake up the Jones', and make them realize just what's going on. But the Internet is not "real" to most people, and thus these actions are possible.

Personally I think there's an important lesson to be made from this that has pretty much been ignored so far. This is the de-masking of our rulers, who have thrown away any and all pretence of being democratic at this point. Because make no mistake, the ongoing proceedings are to keep the ordinary Jones' and Smiths ignorant of what the mass of documents tells us, which is rather more than the rather mundane observations like Putin being an alpha dog etc. It's most certainly is not to keep the Russians, Iranians and the Chinese from reading it, I think it's safe to say they already have their copies. It's about avoiding having anyone looking at the whole thing, connecting the dots and telling the public about the bigger picture.

In other words, the powers that be are with their actions declaring that they are not accountable to anyone. They are the kings, we are the peons, and fuck that democracy thing.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (2)

Dasuraga (1147871) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451668)

Well, what wikileaks is doing is releasing these cables. While you could say that the NYT and AP are doing the same thing, there's also (a bit of) plausible deniability.

If you've been following the leaks, you'll notice that wikileaks always releases the cables before the NYT will post a copy of it. This can put them in a position of "we got it from wikileaks." This is obviously a lot different from "we published this classified information first." Obviously the Times has experience with classified info(see the Pentagon Papers).

Interestingly enough, while the Pentagon Papers did set a precedent for publishing classified information, it isn't nearly as open as people thing. In the ruling, the Supreme court did say that, in certain situations("material damaging to 'national security' ") the government has the right to prevent publication(but not distribution). By letting wikileaks release first, the Times can argue that, legally, they are merely distributing published information.

I am not a lawyer but I'm (hoping) the legalities of these actions have been thought out.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (1, Troll)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451688)

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Where does this notion about them not having a security clearance making them immune to prosecution come from? It doesn't matter if anyone at Wikileaks has/had a security clearance. The dissemination of classified US Defense information is STILL ILLEGAL under US law. Please see Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com]

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (4, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451744)

Section 798 deals with the disclosure of information. The information was already disclosed, however. So where is the problem? The other two deal with national defense. I am not aware that there is any defense-related information in the cables. On a different note, why should Wikileaks care about US law? It's not like they are under your jurisdiction. In contrast, they are part of the free world, not of the totalitarian regime the likes of you want to install. I fervently hope you do not succeed.

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (2)

fluffy99 (870997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451818)

Section 798 deals with the disclosure of information. The information was already disclosed, however. So where is the problem?

The wording of the law is "Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes". It doesn't really matter how they got it.

The other two deal with national defense. I am not aware that there is any defense-related information in the cables.

The fact that they were classified by the Dept of Defense should be evidence of that. There is information of which the release presents a danger to US troops or national security interests.

On a different note, why should Wikileaks care about US law? It's not like they are under your jurisdiction.

Very true. Again, my point was that it's another redundant US law (that doesn't directly apply to Wikileaks anyway).

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451864)

The title of section 798 is "Disclosure", however. If the retransmitting of already disclosed information is punishable under section 798, then I would be guilty for talking with a coworker of mine about some of the cables. Guess I better not travel to the US in the near future...

Re:I know it's called WikiLeaks, but... (1)

Hope Thelps (322083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451802)

The question wasn't whether it's legal to disemninate the information. It was how Wikileaks is different from the other media organizations. Just like the others, Wikileaks has received the documents, just like the others they're publishing them.

In related news (4, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451380)

Interpol issued an arrest warrant for Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian and Der Spiegel for sexual assault charges in an undecided yet country.

Re:In related news (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451418)

You are modding this funny now... Wait until they really come after the free press in force under the banner of The War on Terrorism(TM).

Go, tailgunner Joe! (5, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451386)

Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.

Re:Go, tailgunner Joe! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451696)

Go ahead and pressure Network Solutions to pull nytimes.com. See how well that works.

yeah! nytimes is ******

http://cardersunion.net

U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (4, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451430)

I think Wikileaks has been discussed ad nauseam here on /. I am a former insider, but a civilian now. My position is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on this debate. The U.S. needs to realize that even if they successfully drive Wikileaks from the internet, it is an idea whose time has come and there will be other whistle blower web sites from here on out. I am concerned that if the US makes it a crime to publish classified information obtained from sources, it will basically end investigative journalism and take the US one step closer to being like Russia or China. So instead of focusing on destroying Wikileaks, the US should focus on preventing leaks from occurring. Pvt Manning needs to be punished. His commanding officer, executive officer and security officer all need to be fired and sent into early retirement. Mr. Assange wouldn't have much of a web site if Pvt. Manning hadn't sent him those CDs.

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451550)

I am a former insider? Are you admitting you committed treason while in the U.S. Military? You think because you are a civilian you are no longer guilty? Seriously Mr. Kaneohe you are a real genius! Why not just call on the CI guys on the phone?

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (2, Insightful)

js3 (319268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451568)

The U.S hasn't actually done anything to wikileaks, I know there's a lot of hysteria around it and the administration are opposed to it because of the embarrassment is causes (and generally makes everyone else's work much harder to do now) but there's really nothing in the leaks that point or show any wrong doing. All it shows in the internal back and forth of the inner workings of the government, as far as spying on diplomats so what? everyone spies.. and believe it or not it's in the best interest of YOUR country to know as much about other countries as possible.

You don't wanna invade another country based on bad information right? [/sarcasm]

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (1)

Trufagus (1803250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451716)

Yes, the gov't has yet done anything to wikileaks, but the Republicans want wikileaks to be designated a terrorist organization.

Now, I don't know the details, but I would guess that once the U.S. designates you a terrorist organization you can pretty much expect to see a drone coming in your direction pretty soon.

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451596)

Instead of preventing the leaks, I'd rather have them fix the issues covered by those leaks. Adding another curtain is not a real solution, quite the opposite in fact.

The government has vast resources (3, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451646)

Most Wikileaks supporters are naive and don't understand the imaginably vast resources of the US Government. They also underestimate the ruthlessness of the US Government.

To understand an individual would have to know the history of COINTELPRO. An individual would have to also talk to people who are being gangstalked today or who have been targeted individuals in the recent past to know that the Government is fully capable of covert psychological torture and entrapment. The rape charge, everything Assange and his supporters are dealing with can be found here [jbhfile.com]

If people would have just took these sorts of websites more seriously they'd understand that the Government does not have to kill you, they can just ruin your life in every way possible until you wish you were dead. You'll lose your finances, your friendships, your marriage, your family, and when they are done with you they'll have you looking like a psychopath pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a snitch (they call it the snitch jacket). They don't follow the law, they don't care about your human rights, they'll destroy your life just as they did to hundreds of thousands in the 60s under COINTELPRO.

Julian Assange has gone too far. If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.

Re:The government has vast resources (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451814)

At least the psyops have been effective enough to get to you, so I'll give them that.

Re:The government has vast resources (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451872)

Are you willing to accept a rape charge for Julian Assange?

If not then you have no business supporting him.

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451658)

ET1 Brian M. formally of the U.S. Navy. He loves MAC's, drives a VW and likes to perform illegal covert activities while employed by the U.S. Goverment.

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451752)

I'm sure Pvt. Manning will be punished because he is an easy target. But then why not punish those who improperly classified information which should have been published? It shouldn't be a crime to reveal information which was improperly classified.

Arguably, by wrongfully classifying information these officials have done more harm to public trust than Wikileaks. Now, many people roll their eyes at the concept of "national secrets" because governments have so substantialy watered-down its meaning.

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451788)

If lies and corruption stay behind national security secrecy, is that republic&/democracy still a government for the people by the people?

Should a "civilized" society punish those who expose crimes commited in false pretenses/propaganda?

As is was written here before by another user, why so much rage towards this person, Pvt Manning and none towards Dick Cheney?

Re:U.S. is Barking up the Wrong Tree (1)

dsmithhfx (1772254) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451816)

>it will basically end investigative journalism and take the US one step closer to being like Russia or China I think we're seeing a trend here...

New Low (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451468)

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

How fucking hard is it for an 'editor' to not confuse Wikipedia with WikiLeaks, if you're going to add in your useless redundant opinion as an editor at least make sure you're right about basic information.

Anti-Wikipedia?!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451548)

timothy the Slashdot "editor" is an idiot.

And yes, that's redundant.

Secrets and lies - the reality TV show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451564)

One hypothesis: you are young president, trying to repair an ill country in a dysfunctional political landscape that is a minefield of secrets and lies. You think to yourself, "things aren't going to get better until we get rid of the secrets and lies. And gee, there is even a group that is outright eager to do the information dispersal and be the scape-goats. This could work." One additional secret and lie in order to banish a much larger bunch of them.

Alternate hypothesis: If I was the US government, I'd be advising on redactions through my connections with the news media. After all, I can't be seen to be in contact with wikileaks itself.

Backlash against AP? (4, Informative)

seyyah (986027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451570)

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Why should they? AP is reporting that Wikileaks collaborated with five media outlets, but Associated Press is not one of those five outlets.

They are:
El Pais
Le monde
The Guardian
Der Spiegel
The New York Times

It's not lawmakers you have to worry about. (1, Troll)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451692)

It's the spy agencies with their black ops, clandestine operations, psych-ops. It's agencies like the FBI that will entrap you. It's agencies like the NSA that will provide the information to the FBI. These agencies have unlimited power, they aren't bound by the law because nobody really knows what the secrets are or what the operations are.

What we can see is an operation has begun. The financial resources are being choked off. After that then the people who donated to Wikileaks have to worry because their names are now in the possession of the agencies and sorts of people who hate Wikileaks and their supporters, and these people don't respect human rights.

Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (4, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451576)

Press coverage today is more favorable to Wikileaks.

  • BBC: "Pursuit of Wikileaks founder 'political'"
  • The Times (London): "Backlash as Amazon pulls WikiLeaks server"
  • The Guardian: "Julian Assange's lawyers say they are being watched"
  • The Australian: "WikiLeaks reveals ugly truth"
  • San Jose Mercury News: "O'Brien: Why we should applaud Wikileaks"
  • The Atlantic: "Must-Read: NYT-Wikileaks on China and Google"
  • Vancover Sun: "Wikileaks an indictment of diplomacy"

There's even talk that Assange might be Time's "Man of the Year".

Also, there are now 74 mirrors of Wikileaks. [twitlonger.com]

Re:Press coverage now more pro-Wikileaks. (4, Informative)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451898)

Concerning Assange being "Person of the Year" (it's PC nowadays): duh. Who has had a greater impact on the world than Assange throughout the last year? The other top candidate is LeBron James.

The "Person of the Year" has been real stupid for the last decade. In 2006 it was "You," 2005 "The Good Samaritans" (represented by Bono and Bill Gates), in 2003 it was "The American Solider," and in 2002, ironically enough it was "The Whistleblowers" (the Enron mess). 2001's selection of Rudy Giuliani was pretty piss-poor as well. Person of New York, sure. Person of the Year? Please. That was Osama bin Laden. All in all the "Person of the Year" was accurate to Time's description (having the most impact globally) about 50% of the time the last decade. It would be just like them to select LeBron James (who, ironically, said it would be a "great honor," obviously not understanding that it's not necessarily an honor at all: Putin, Arafat, Hitler, Stalin, ect.).

Other past selections that reek of sentimentality/fail the basic criteria of being a person: "The American Fighting Man," "Scientists," "Baby Boomers," "Middle Americans," "American Women," "The Computer," and "The Endangered Earth." Some other media outlet should do the Man of the Year thing. Time has sucked at it for years.

Yeah, that kind of went off-topic. Oops.

Because the media is so trustworthy... (2)

webdog314 (960286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451594)

And the fact that the major media outlets will make WAY more money if they are able to cover the released information as a number of stories over a longer period rather than all at once has nothing to do with it.

Re:Because the media is so trustworthy... (2)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451708)

With people's limited attention span and focus, parceling everything out is a good thing. Otherwise you'd have important stories drowning each other. If the press makes money doing good work, I'm all for it.

Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (3, Interesting)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451602)

If you want to know how the Feds are going to handle this situation just look at how they handled it in the 60s. The church committee report details what the feds could do in the 1960s. Joel Byran Harris is an ordinary individual who pissed off a high level bank executive in the 1990s and he has been subject to a constant harassment and psychological operation ever since.

Here are the links for anyone who thinks I'm full of it.

http://www.jbhfile.com/index.html [jbhfile.com] [jbhfile.com] and http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm [icdc.com] [icdc.com]

Re:Wikileaks supporters should study COINTELPRO. (2)

johnhp (1807490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451956)

I don't see any reason, so far, to believe that Joel Byran Harris is anything other than paranoid and insane.

The website you linked to is his own website, made to document his "assault" by federal/corporate harassers. So far he hasn't presented a bit of printed, photographic or video evidence, and refers mysteriously to a crime he committed at age 17 without ever explaining (so far) what that crime is.

Let's look at a quote from the site:

"Furthermore, I began to be witness to a number of regularly occurring social dramas that would be played out in any given of my usual public hang-outs that could only be called psychosocial dramatics, or 'street theatre,' dramas which were, without a doubt, targeting me and seemed designed to illicit even more nervous responses or symptoms."

"I also began noticing within my house that various personal items had been tampered with, clothes moved or guitar strings unwound, little tidbits to very definitely let me know that others had been in my personal space."

Sounds like a mentally disturbed person to me.

Are you actually this man?

one doesn't preclude the other (1, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451606)

Wikileaks isn't just sitting on the recent material so they can release it bit by bit to the press, as many people implied. On the contrary, it's quite the other way around: 'only after considering advice from five news organizations

Right. Why would the major news organizations possibly be interested in having exclusive access to most of the content? Gee, I wonder.

Also, a slow trickle is much friendlier to their publishing process, and will keep the public's attention longer. I suppose in the end that's not a bad thing, but we're still going to be reading everything through a filter, which is hardly in line with Wikileak's goal.

Also, is anyone else tired of the "wiki" in wikileaks? There's absolutely nothing "wiki" about "Cablegate."

Re:one doesn't preclude the other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451642)

Also, is anyone else tired of the "wiki" in wikileaks? There's absolutely nothing "wiki" about "Cablegate."

Yeah, or the "slash" in Slashdot. WTF is "slash" about any of this?

They want to publish only about 100 of 250000... (4, Insightful)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451610)

This is really interesting. From TFA: "The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction."

Well, this is mostly very boring stuff. Still, having only a handful of newspapers and some journalists try to find something interesting in this large pile of documents means that there will be gems that will not be found. These cables go back to 1966 and there must be very interesting details in there about things that just aren't on the radar for these journalists.

I'm really looking forward to Wikileaks publishing all of this.

Re:They want to publish only about 100 of 250000.. (4, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451672)

I read most of the stuff published so far, and I wouldn't call anything in there boring. Sure, there is a lot of stuff that is of no great consequence, but I found nearly every document very interesting for someone who cares for international politics. What really surprised me is how well written most of them are - I kinda expected dry and boring bureaucrat speak, but found lots of very polished essays that were straight to the point.

Re:They want to publish only about 100 of 250000.. (1)

oWj9*7!7dsggh7 (1952478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451758)

Still, having only a handful of newspapers and some journalists try to find something interesting in this large pile of documents means that there will be gems that will not be found.

The Guardian.co.uk has an interface for "browsing" the cables, but it doesn't tell you how many cables are currently in the set being browsed.

There's also the issue that recognizing a gem as a gem sometimes takes a long time. They don't necessarily come pre-tagged as such.

Re:They want to publish only about 100 of 250000.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451904)

The point is that they are doing things slowly. This is nice for journalists who aren't also nerds (like most of us) and can't get through all this mess.

No, here's why (3, Insightful)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451664)

There's little question the AP and other press sources wouldn't have published anything like the volume of information Wikileaks has. Right now they are acting as a restraint rather than an enabler and it's likely the government will see them as an ally trying to bring a troublesome organization under control. I don't think that's the role the press is supposed to have, but they have decided that for whatever reasons they must make decisions about what the public should see rather than maximizing transparency and reporting simple facts.

They don't have a choice. (3, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451820)

If they don't help the government they too can be charged with rape, pedophilia, or something heinous. Their career as a journalist can be ended with a phonecall, their marriage can be ended with a phonecall, do you understand the amount of power the spy agencies have? One phonecall and a life can be destroyed.

Assange might be willing to take a rape charge with a straight face and stiff upper lip but most Americans are cowardly and want to save their asses.

Well it shouldn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451776)

Wikileaks should publish everything without these advices. Newspapers have owners and editorial guidelines which are never free from partisan views. So if these newspapers are giving advices to wikileaks we can think that they are picking the cables to have other media outlets focus on some matters and some people instead of others. It's time to release that key and let everyone have access to the whole collection.

Why do leftists call themselves mainstream? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451852)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times

According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public perceptions of major media outlets, 40% believe The Times has a liberal slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[79] In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles study gave The Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal.[80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

It is known for its left-of-centre political stance.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde_diplomatique

Le Monde diplomatique (nicknamed Le Diplo by its French readers) is a monthly newspaper offering left-oriented analysis and opinion on politics, culture, and current affairs.

I would arguably say that the Associated Press has a left-wing stance as well personally, although in any case neither the AP nor Der Spiegel could be said to have a right-wing stance.

My question is therefore: Why do leftists insist so strongly on calling themselves mainstream and center?

Re:Why do leftists call themselves mainstream? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451976)

Glenn Beck, is that you? It's well known that truth has a liberal bias. . .

no good (1)

chriz74 (1283034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34451862)

Wikileaks should publish everything without these advices. Newspapers have owners and editorial guidelines which are never free from partisan views. So if these newspapers are giving advices to wikileaks we can think that they are picking the cables to have other media outlets focus on some facts or people instead of others. It's time to release that key and let everyone have access to the whole collection.

Twitter is now censoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34451918)

Twitter is already censoring. Try this:
Started two searches at the same time.

Realtime results for #biebsmeetlouna
94 more tweets since you started searching.

Realtime results for wikileaks
2,138 more tweets since you started searching.

And compare with:

Top Trending Topics
#biebsmeetlouna
#thingsimiss
#hismajesty
Sundays
Thanking God
Fórmula Truck
Louna
Worlds Acoustic
Roberval
Taça Brasil

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...