Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

WikiLeaks Losing Support From Anonymous

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the all-about-the-benjamins-and-the-julians dept.

The Almighty Buck 140

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that members of computer hacker collective Anonymous have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange. A statement linked from the Anonymous Twitter account, AnonymousIRC, described WikiLeaks as 'the one man Julian Assange show,' and complained that the website implemented a paywall seeking donations from users who wanted access to millions of leaked documents. 'The idea behind WikiLeaks was to provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. Information we strongly believe the public has a right to know,' said the statement on behalf of Anonymous. The dispute could starve WikiLeaks of potentially newsworthy leaks in the future, as some of Wikileaks' recent disclosures – including the Stratfor emails – are alleged to have come from Anonymous."

cancel ×

140 comments

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

oblig (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41632973)

Soap Opera (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634409)

As the World Turns for freaks.

Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41632997)

Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation made up of a heirachy of people who all speak with the same voice, united under a single person.

Oh, hang on, no, they're made up of a whole slew of individuals who do not speak for each other. What was I thinking of.

Apparently, the Guardian didn't manage to break out of this incorrect belief about the structure of Anon.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633147)

No kidding. My head hurt when I was reading the summary due to the amount of not getting it that was present.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633153)

Exactly. And we both for example obviously are high ranking leaders of the organization, after all we're both obviously anonymous. Maybe we should hold a press conference right away...

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633291)

Also, I really need to stop having conversations with myself in public like this. It's so...awkward.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633743)

Then again, who really cares if I have these conversations? As far as I know I'm the only person in the world with actual consciousness. Maybe I'm the only person in the world worth talking to.

I feel this way sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634097)

...that I might be the only solipsist in the word...

Re:I feel this way sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634217)

Why am I telling myself that? I already know this!

Re:I feel this way sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634463)

Alternatively...I might have simply delayed myself from a proper respite for far too long.

Re:I feel this way sometimes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635139)

NO!

I'm split now...

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634417)

Everybody knows anons are all the same guy posting really fast.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633171)

Which explains why the LA times was running something saying that it had all blown over:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/10/wikileaks-and-anonymous-spar-over-fundraising-campaign.html

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633271)

Did they say anywhere that the group had a single unified voice? All they said is that some people are changing their minds about Wikilinks, and have broadcast the message to their Twitter followers. Maybe that is why the story here is titled with "losing support" instead of "lost support." A single voice would be the latter, a mass of people lacking hierarchy can still have trends in their actions and support though.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 2 years ago | (#41633837)

Did they say anywhere that the group had a single unified voice?

WTF? Did you even read the first paragraph? They use two verbs that imply a single voice:

The computer hacker collective Anonymous has distanced itself from WikiLeaks, claiming the whistleblowers' site has become too focused on the personal tribulations of its founder, Julian Assange.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634443)

It is not a single voice. It is, as stated in your quote, a collective, meaning a group of voices with similar views. The same could be said for people who are pro-Obama or anti-Romney. Just because you are against Romney, that fact alone does not say that you prefer Obama over all other candidates. In other words, just because some particular Anonymous member speaks for a group with similar views, that does not imply that all members of that group agree with that specific member's stated viewpoint.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635537)

Just wow. Your copy & paste skills are so bad that you had to rewrite the first sentence from your superior memory. And why bold "claiming?"

... members of computer hacker collective Anonymous have distanced themselves from WikiLeaks...

There FTFY.
Seriously WTF?

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635689)

Whoops! Found your problem. You actually RTFA. For shame.
My bad, bro.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | about 2 years ago | (#41634121)

Yeah, quoting one twitter account doesn't really show much more than a segment of "Anonymous"'s opinion. They [twitter.com] have [twitter.com] quite [twitter.com] a [twitter.com] few [twitter.com] . Tweet from the last one: "Anonymous not unanimous. We don't have to agree w/ each other all the time. We choose to take part in actions we support, or not. #Wikileaks".

It's the headline that's wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633305)

Regardless of whether the author fully grasps the structure of Anonymous, the summary clearly states that it's the members (i.e. individuals) who are disenchanted with WikiLeaks.

The fallacy lies with one member claiming to speak for the whole. "...on behalf of Anonymous"

Re:It's the headline that's wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634333)

So some members of Anonymous are easily cowed morons. Well colour me surprised! This tells us nothing than gives us an indication of the strength of the propaganda networks used against WikiLeaks. Or rather (since I doubt these people read the papers or watch the TV news with anything other than incredulity) how word of mouth from those that do watch the corporate propaganda influences the view of some of those that don't.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41633371)

Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation...

BZzzzzt! They're a movement, not an organization. An organization implies a level of accountability and membership is unambiguous. Why is it that al-Qaeda is called a terrorist group but Anonymous is called an organization? al-Qaeda was far better organized, had a clear leadership structure, and deliberately chose its targets, as well as having a clear mission statement. Anonymous has no real organization, leaders aren't vetted -- it's a popularity contest (at best!), and it chooses targets in a haphazard fashion, with varying levels of participation by its members. And Anonymous' mission statement goes something like "... lulz."

No, you're giving Anonymous too much credit: It's only barely managing to hold on to its identity as a "collective".

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633527)

I think that buzzing sound at the start of your post is your sarcasm detector going off. You should pay more attention to it.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633555)

You didn't actually read his post beyond what you quoted did you?

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

Raenex (947668) | about 2 years ago | (#41634227)

BZzzzzt!

Get out of the 1990s and grow up.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about 2 years ago | (#41633403)

The converse to that is that anyone can "speak for" Anonymous, insofar as they represent a sub-group with a certain opinion. And if the majority of people who identify themselves as "Anonymous" or at least the majority of the vocally active individuals who do so espouse a certain belief, then "Anonymous" can be said to be saying that. Of course, not all the individuals might say or think that, but it doesn't matter if the de facto leaders all do.

And Anonymous most certainly does have de facto leaders, it'd not be able to do anything if it didn't. Even a mob has certain individuals who it listens to (usually the loudest), and that is what Anonymous is, a mob. Anyone who incites a large group of people who identify as "Anonymous" to a specific action is a leader, no matter how much Anonymous protests that they don't have them.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633413)

Anonymous may not have a strict party line or hierarchy, but its spokespeople essentially define what it is because that is how the casuals know if they should adhere to the current operation and how to act in unison. In that way, they do not cause actions to happen by top-down direction, as in a hierarchy, but they still direct action by making the requirements known to a likely audience, of which, a loose group may form to execute that idea.

So, while the greater number of people who are involved are completely anonymous and have differing viewpoints, there's a lot fewer people out there doing the actual planning, communicating, and running support infrastructures. Those people do have views, and those people have had a much more consistent message than you might expect for a group that should be made up of anyone who wants to call themselves Anonymous.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41633747)

Anonymous may not have a strict party line or hierarchy, but its spokespeople essentially define what it is because that is how the casuals know if they should adhere to the current operation and how to act in unison. In that way, they do not cause actions to happen by top-down direction, as in a hierarchy, but they still direct action by making the requirements known to a likely audience, of which, a loose group may form to execute that idea.

So, while the greater number of people who are involved are completely anonymous and have differing viewpoints, there's a lot fewer people out there doing the actual planning, communicating, and running support infrastructures. Those people do have views, and those people have had a much more consistent message than you might expect for a group that should be made up of anyone who wants to call themselves Anonymous.

let me guess mr. AC, you think you're part of this _organization_ which isn't an organization. if I did something anonymously, sure, anonymousirc or some other fucker could take credit and probably would, provided it fit into their view of what should be done - if not then they'd condemn as not being the work of "anonymous". that's what fucked about running a pr service about anonymous: taking judgement and trying to hijack the anonymous word for meaning their group, their clique.

as soon as they start running a defined clique, they're no longer anonymous, rather they're just another hacker/activist group just like there has been groups for twenty years and counting, some of them do warez, some of them do defacing for political purposes, some of them do things for shits'n'giggles - but it seems that even "pool is closed due to aids" operations were more in the truly anonymous spirit of random, anonymous, people just jumping in than what anonymousirc's cliques operations seem to be nowadays. the consistency comes from the fact that there is an individual controlling AnonymousIRC. but that's how you get with every movement, some fucker will try to act as it's official king, make "official" irc channels, start claiming control in the press and act as kings. egoboosting fuckers, should just go release some revealing shit on banks and policies and documents documenting affects of shitty policies instead of going into trolling wars about wikileaks. plenty of those documents are public to begin with - use the amount of followers on the twitter account for something that matters - or is at least lulzy - or gtfo.

the entire point about bitching about wikileaks being petty for anonymousirc is that they could just call wikileaks bitches with their own fucking name - but nobody would give a rats ass so the individual controlling the twitter account instead posts it with that, since it's got plenty of followers - even if it has shit all nothing to do with any anonymous operation with any supporters at all.

Re:Yeah, Anonymous, that well known organisation (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#41636253)

Any guesses as to whether most individuals who participate/do/makeup/whatever anonymous individually support wikileaks though? It's all well and good that anonymous is mysterious and unknowable, but I'm more interested in whether or not Assange's issues are tiring the crowd or if this is some sort of smear campaign. Because I suspect it's the latter: that this reporter was lead to or ordered to say "Even his supporters are getting sick of him, don't pay attention to the stuff they're about to leak, just remember the spokesperson for wikileaks is doing... uh... something annoying."

I haven't heard anything particularly negative about the guy lately, so the timing is suspicious. On the other hand, if the talk on whatever medium anonymous exists on has turned lately to "Man, fuck wikileaks" then maybe my paranoia isn't completely justified.

Please don't misuse those terms (4, Informative)

trifish (826353) | about 2 years ago | (#41633013)

paywall seeking donations

Paywall by definition means REQUIRED payment (fee). In contrast, a donation is a VOLUNTARY payment (gift)

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633061)

paywall seeking donations

Paywall by definition means REQUIRED payment (fee). In contrast, a donation is a VOLUNTARY payment (gift)

Doesn't matter. Is there a request in any way, shape, or form to give money to someone that isn't part of Anonymous? Then it is WRONG and SINFUL and AN ENEMY OF OUR FREEDOMS ON THE INTERNET and it should be stopped right now because they're meanies who have more money than we do. Waaaaaaah!

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633489)

Uh, what? When have Anonymous ever asked for donations or money of any kind? Am I missing something?

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635141)

You missed the AC shitting his pants because he has no idea what he's talking about.

People don't generally mind donations, they mind actual paywalls on a site that is meant to share protected information.

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#41633113)

It quite obviously means required payment.
If you are saying that there is no such thing it is obviously a huge mistake or a lie was made (the entire summary is basically backed up by that one "fact").

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633157)

yes, this is at worst nagware.

Do we have a wikileaks rival with an axe to grind?

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633181)

And how do you otherwise get rid of the giant video they put in front of content/red overlay?

Re:Please don't misuse those terms (1)

rsxaeon (2506670) | about 2 years ago | (#41633379)

From TFA: "Some users are unable to view WikiLeaks material unless they choose to donate money to the site."

All wikileaks documents comme from Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633095)

That's the point of wikileaks, allowing anonymous leaks.

Silly story (3, Interesting)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 2 years ago | (#41633131)

So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.

Makes sense to me.

Re:Silly story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633541)

So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.

Makes sense to me.

You forgot that, because this group is not a group, they can't be wrong (since that requires groupiness), unless they're right, in which case they're not wrong, and they're not a group which is a group which we can all get behind while not being behind them, because that might be illegal, if it were a group, which it is not, which makes them right, which they are, because they're not.

It's so simple; I just don't see how these plebs keep getting this so wrong. Maybe it's because they're a group.

Funny (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633145)

Funny pictures ;) http://www.sutramasajes.com/fotos-eroticas-divertidas/

Dissent amongst thieves? (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41633149)

So basically, they're having a lover's spat between thieves, and this is news why? Wikileaks sunk itself because it put all it's eggs in a basket named Julian. When you're fighting the good fight against a government, exposing and embarassing them, they're going to target your leaders. The first duty of any political movement is to ensure continuity; Because your leaders will be taken out of the game. Wikileaks was too centralized, and so all it took was removing this one guy and making three phone calls (to paypal, visa, and mastercard) to take it out of the game.

Wikileaks died of poor planning. It died of ego. And you know what: Good. Enough people have seen the need for a secure and anonymous disclosure of documents that are in the public's best interest to know, but come from citizens in oppressive countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you). The next incarnation of Wikileaks will not be captained by one man, it will not rely on easily co-opted financial institutions to survive, and... hopefully, that decentralization will also help the next version stay honest. It'll keep any one person's ego from taking center stage, and that'll mean more rational thinking, and hopefully lead to people focusing less on hurting a government they have a bone to pick with and more on telling people things they actually should know. Yes, that was a veiled reference to the diplomatic cable leaks -- Bad Plan, Darlings. We don't need to know that our diplomats are sexually promiscuous, or that they're having marital problems, etc. Those are private matters -- diplomat or not, we need to respect the privacy of others unless there's a compelling public interest reason for disclosure. If you can't do that, you'll never have anyone's respect -- because you're just settling grudges, not looking out for your country's best interest. And to the former crowd... I hope the police do come and bust your door down and spank the everloving crap out of you so you learn some manners. -_-

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41633255)

Ugh. "Its", not "It's"... This is what I get for not having my morning mountain dew before logging in. *flogs self* Oh, grammar gods, forgive this young and foolish geek! *flogs self* I have seen the error of my ways! *flogs* ...

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633459)

Grammar is overrated, language is not something static but dynamic and evolving. Something that the mind of nerds just cant seem to understand :P

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 2 years ago | (#41634445)

Not true. Lots of nerds have deluded themselves into thinking "English is a living language" means "my ignorance, typos, and mistakes are none of the above, they're just the instruments of change! The future is now!"

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633295)

"So basically, they're having a lover's spat between thieves, and this is news why?"

Why would it not be news? Have you read a newspaper recently? A lover's spat between thieves sounds like a pretty decent story.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41633453)

Wikileaks got hammered by the government pressuring any businesses providing infrastructure. If your service providers and your financiers are willing to cave in, there's not much you can do *regardless*. Wikileaks isn't some guy in a basement FTPing PDFs.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#41633535)

... countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you).

Journalistic shield laws are a terrible idea. Freedom of expression should be recognized for all citizens, not reserved for a privileged elite.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41633963)

For them to be "theives", they would have to be stealing. Stealing != copying and publicizing.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634043)

And for you not to be a pedantic language douchebag, you'd have to shut your face, stop typing, and stop expecting language to never change or evolve. But, you're not going to do THAT, either.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41634007)

Yes, that was a veiled reference to the diplomatic cable leaks -- Bad Plan, Darlings. We don't need to know that our diplomats are sexually promiscuous, or that they're having marital problems, etc. Those are private matters -- diplomat or not, we need to respect the privacy of others unless there's a compelling public interest reason for disclosure.

If that's all you learned from the Diplomatic Cables, you should put down the gossip magazines and start reading serious news.

Things the diplomatic cables revealed:
1. The USA was bombing Yemen and lied to the American people about it. The Yemeni government provided cover for the USA's involvement.
2. Confirmation that the Chinese government directed the hacking of Google's servers in China
3. Our ally Kuwait refuses to take back the Kuwaitis we've picked up in Afghanistan and have been holding in Guantanamo
4. Funding for al-Qaeda, is still flowing from various rich individual in Saudi Arabia (our ally)
5. Ahmed Wali Karzai, brother of President Hamid Karzai, is on the CIA payroll and a major drug dealer.
6. Indian politicans were giving and receiving bribes in order to vote for a nuclear deal with the USA
7. The US Government was secretly lobbying New Zealand and Canada to institute shitty copyright laws
8. The State Dept pushed The Washington Post into watering down a story about security contractors bribing Afghans with drugs and teen partyboys
9. The USA used the acceptance of Guantanamo detainees as bargaining chips
10. US troops rounded up and shot 11 people, then called in a missile strike to cover their murders. [wikipedia.org]

Feel free to go point by point and argue why there isn't a "compelling public interest reason for disclosure"
From what we've seen, a lot of what gets classified is either embarrassing, illegal, or a war crime.
Not anything whose disclosure would be a threat to national security, unless you consider justice a threat.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41635933)

There might have been information in those cables that the public had a right to know, but a lot of it they didn't, and Wikileaks should have shown some discretion in what to publish and what not to. How would you like it if private communications with friends and family were leaked to the public because you happened to work for a company that engaged in unethical behavior that due to the leaks became public? Sure, the public had a right to know about that, but not your stuff too. And that's what the diplomatic cable leaks was about -- it wasn't just leaking information the public had a right to know, but everything. All of it. And no responsible journalist would do that because they're mostly decent human beings who understand a need to balance the public's right to know with an individual's right to privacy.

The "good" things they released do not erase the "bad" things they also leaked. You can't call people unethical while yourself being unethical and expect to get any kind of respect; You need to be an example of a responsible person or organization.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634285)

Wikileaks died of poor planning. It died of ego. And you know what: Good. Enough people have seen the need for a secure and anonymous disclosure of documents that are in the public's best interest to know, but come from citizens in oppressive countries without journalistic shield laws (Yes, United States, I am looking at you). The next incarnation of Wikileaks will not be captained by one man, it will not rely on easily co-opted financial institutions to survive, and... hopefully, that decentralization will also help the next version stay honest.

The "next incarnation of Wikileaks" is cryptome [cryptome.org] , and it's still around since 1996, despite not following your decentralized bullshit manifesto. Why? Because John Young cares about making information freely available, not about portraying himself as warrior/martyr-in-chief on some anti-US crusade, and because the US isn't really far enough down the police state path to be able to be seen as killing this sort of thing.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634361)

When you're fighting the good fight against a government, exposing and embarassing them, they're going to target your leaders.

Mr. Assange has done a perfectly good job of discrediting and ruining himself, there really wasn't any requirement for "governments" to target him.

Narcissists are, ironically, quite prone to self-destructive behaviors. Julian Assange is not the first to implode under the weight of his own ego and self-aggrandizement, and he won't be the last.

Re:Dissent amongst thieves? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635239)

Wikileaks died good??

Fuck off. Thousands of people have the ability to set up the next wikileaks, but nobody has the balls to do it - or it would be already done.

Easy to ridicule Assange, a shame that nothing you do will ever have the impact that his actions had on the world. Because he had (and has) courage.

The only thing stupider than... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633189)

It's as though the competitors with down syndrome refused to race for their very own country.

"Support" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633197)

With friends like Anonymous, who needs enemies?

I can't blame WikiLeaks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633203)

He is under attack by TWO Nobel peace prize winners!

Suspicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633219)

Uh, it's not showing a paywall right now for me. This all seems very suspicious.

Re:Suspicious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633299)

That's because they took put their donation nagging after people got pissed.

Re:Suspicious (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41635913)

Go here: http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html [wikileaks.org] (or any one of their leak pages)
Click on any one of the articles on the left hand side.
Enjoy your paywall.

Definite(ly bad) article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633287)

"The" anonymous twitter account...

This is how we shoot the messenger (4, Interesting)

NinjaTekNeeks (817385) | about 2 years ago | (#41633389)

To my knowledge Assange is just the face of the company, people provide wikileaks with the info and Assange is the messenger.

It is important to realize that the messenger is the one getting the flogging, not those who have committed crimes or broken the law. Just the messenger. It's specifically a message from the government "If you mess with us and reveal our secrets we will lock you away like Bradley Manning!".

Citizens pay taxes, which fund governments which are be accountable to the public who pay the taxes, that's how it *should* work. What Assange is going through shows very clearly that when we attempt to hold those in power accountable for their actions, actions which they have kept(hidden) from the public, they will go after you tooth and nail. That's the country we live in folks, keep paying taxes and keep your mouth shut, or face the wrath of the government.

Bullshit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633547)

Wikileaks is all about Assange's psychotically huge ego. Cryptome has been doing the right thing for much longer, much more effectively.

Re:Bullshit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633753)

Cryptrome do nothing, never have, never will. So, bullshit to yourself. Whether you like Assange or not, he has a face, he gets media coverage, which leads to media exposure of leaked information. At least until the CIA told Sweden to do a number on him.

If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks support (-1, Offtopic)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41633409)

then all you had to do was quote Julian about his comment that 9/11 is not a conspiracy and then point people to http://rememberbuilding7.org/ [rememberbuilding7.org] and http://www.ae911truth.org/ [ae911truth.org]

And there is plenty more information available that when all the puzzle pieces are put together, or enough of them..... you have to question Julian's intent, buit not his intelligence which he has shown is not lacking.

To be clear, I support transparency of government as they are suppose to be representative of the people, but worldwide its proving they are not.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (4, Informative)

EGSonikku (519478) | about 2 years ago | (#41633697)

All 9/11 conspiracy theorists can fuck off and die. Seriously, you're not clever, you're not fighting for truth. You're assholes who don't realize they make as much sense as birthers or moon landing hoax nuts.

Just stop.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633735)

But... but... but... melting point of steel! Secret radio communications! Planted explosives! Jet fuel doesn't burn! Sheeple! PLEASE LISTEN TO ME! I just want to sound smarter than everyone for once!

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 2 years ago | (#41633967)

I am the keeper of the secret knowledge! If it were not for my vigilance, the world would have plunged into the abyss by now! I've got a blog.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (0)

u64 (1450711) | about 2 years ago | (#41634211)

Yes there's *lots* of crazy theories floating around about 9/11. And we can't trust the US gov either. So we're practically clueless.
Please enlighten us, oh wise random internet user: Why exactly did Building 7 collapse?

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634475)

Because it was a very large building. Because it was on fire. Because two other very large buildings right across the street collapsed and showered it with debris earlier in the day.

When a rock gets kicked up by a truck on the highway and damages your windshield, instead of the guy next to you... do you automatically assume it's a conspiracy by the government to damage your vehicle? Or do you really not realize that sometimes bad shit happens randomly, and one building could be struck in a way that would weak it structurally without every other building in the surrounding area being struck in the same fashion?

Jesus christ, fuck off with your 9/11 bullshit.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634795)

Well my internet friend Its pretty simple and having been only a few blocks away when it happenand having watched 4 of the buildings collapse with my own eyes, I can explain.

World Trade I and II were very LARGE buildings, in fact they were some of the largest buildings in the World for a long time and they we not made of paper.
Two large airliners hit both (which I can confirm from watching it), causing them to catch on fire, melt and collapse causing massive damage to the buildings around them.

Every firefighter in the area who wasn't instantly killed in the collapse was busy trying to recover and save lives instead of worrying about putting out a fire next door from an empty building which was probably already doomed.

It is insulting to me and the people who died that day when people make up bullshit when the truth was bad enough.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634771)

So you can actually read the official 9/11 commission report and find nothing out of the ordinary? Nothing a little weird? No strange coincidences?

You're crazier than the worst tin-foil hat wearer if you said yes.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41633859)

Alright, I looked.

Not sure why people would think telling a *firefighting team not a demolitions team* to "pull it" would mean that the *firefighting team* should somehow collapse the building. The offered explanation is rather more logical, isn't it?

And based on the documentation from the site, the building was on shaky foundation to start with. Which means a number of factors could have caused it to collapse.

But alright. It was a conspiracy, I'm sure you can argue until I walk away in frustration, fine. But to what end? Cui bono? And ultimately, what difference does it make? If you're right, some dude conspired to get his building destroyed in the mayhem - one which he wanted destroyed anyway. His empty, evacuated building. So I'm really not getting it. What's the point? Who benefits and what does this have to do with anything else that occurred on 9/11? Maybe this is all perfectly clear to the folks who publish that web site, but to those of us looking for information, there's a distinct lack of it.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 2 years ago | (#41633983)

Steel doesn't need to melt in order to weaken. 'Nuff said.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#41634291)

Steel doesn't need to melt in order to weaken. 'Nuff said.

Shhh, don't tell the conspiracy nuts that. They just won't believe you. I mean obviously that's why cars run fine without oil in them, or have coolant in them. Oh wait...son of a...

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634649)

Whoever did 9/11, it is a drop in the ocean (a dead terrorist dropped in the ocean maybe) compared to the crimes commited by the US government that are on record and uncontested. So why focus on something that may or may not be true, and most people will dismiss you as crazy for suggesting is true anyway? There's no lack of damning facts, drop the crap that people won't swallow and may not even be the case and stick to those that are established. You will get further this way as they are powerful enough truths. Little good was done by "truthers" as far as the global ordeal against the empire goes, largely they've just helped undermine those putting forward arguments based on established facts. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And no I haven't forgotten that Rumsfeld declared a "War on Waste" on the 10th of September 2001 aiming to combat a hole in the pentagon budget of more than two trillion dollars. Then the next day it's forgotten about and the pentagon gets all the funds it wants. Yes, it does make me suspect that a group in the pentagon quite likely did it. A suspicion isn't enough to go around claiming something as a fact though. What kind of world would it be if we operated like that? One where we carry out the summary execution of suspected terrorists? Perhaps.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

3seas (184403) | about 2 years ago | (#41634863)

The comments to my post seem to support failure to see the puzzle pieces.

Actually this is all very interesting the motive of hiding financial investigation and spending which are bank related. Building 7 contained SEC investigation into various financial issues including http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2704stockmarket.html [pbs.org] and the day before on 9/10 Donald Rumsfeld publicly stated the pentagon cannot account for 2.3 trillion of its spending of taxpayer dollars. Guess what department of the pentagon got destroyed! Have people seen the supposed passenger list of the plane that was supposed to have hit the pentagon (plenty high security military related) somehow let a few guys with box knives detour a plane for how long? and to do a difficult maneuver cork screw flight path to hit that specific department. What does that say about those working in military security?

And there is Julian who threatened Banks.... only to have a former Wikileaks person vanish that information too? Really? Where is the backups any intelligent IT person would had done with such information???

So you see its really not difficult to distance supporters of wikileaks from wikileaks..... And that includes me who has a $100 wikileaks t-shirt.... The guy who got the brits panties all bunched up when I suggested live online (certainly the authorities were watching) Julian had left the embassy weeks before that early morning when they damn well near violated the embassy border when they force-ably entered the building only as far as determining with certainty he was still there.

Where does Anonymous fit in? Some think it's head up by CIA, But I say "they may have started it but who is gonna finish this?"

There are other directions and methods for leaking ..... I don't have to play the Anon card.... All anyone need to is think it out with honesty. of 7 billion people on this planet, it really is the few psychopaths in command positions whom are dangerous to the rest of us. What Wikileaks in sum has exposed is just that. Those "playing the game with the bravery (cowardice) of being out of range" - Roger Waters

 

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (2)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41635445)

Welcome to my foes list... you've demonstrated a remarkable lack of logic and basic thinking skills, and I wanted to be sure I never read anything you write again.

Re:If you really wanted to distance Wikileaks supp (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#41635491)

obligatory http://xkcd.com/966/ [xkcd.com]

A strategy that works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633465)

This is why it is better strategy to imprison leaders of movements than kill them. I'm not agreeing with the method, I'm just noticing the effects. If you imprison them there organization will try everything to get them out instead of focusing on the issues that they were started in the first place. If Osama bin Laden was captured instead of killed, everything would go into getting him freed... the purpose of the organization would be lost.

Julian Assange is for all purposes a prisoner. All wikileaks has been doing for the last year is trying to get him out.

If they don't like wikileaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633579)

why not make it superfluous by creating a content delivery network for all the leaked data? I bet at least a few anonymous members have a spare bot net lying around they could repurpose.

Leak the leaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633591)

Why doesn't Anon just pWn wikileaks and leak the leaks?

Computer hackers? (3, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41633701)

computer hacker collective Anonymous.

I stopped reading right there. Emphasis mine.

There are idiots on 4chan who spend all their time trolling forums, staring at gore pictures, and fapping to underage girls, and they call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are script kiddies who download LOIC and DDoS websites with their parents' internet connection, and call themselves "Anonymous". Then there are actual computer "hackers" (crackers?) who actually break into systems, steal data, and commit crimes, but I don't see very many of them flying the "Anonymous" flag nowadays.

Re:Computer hackers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634345)

You don't see many of them flying flags at all -- taking such work seriously and building a reputation for yourself or your organization are pretty much contradictory. But there are a few such characters more-or-less involved -- it's easily 99% skriddies if not more, but there are occasional legitimate bits of work done.

Somewhat in agreement (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#41633723)

Yes, JA is being railroaded, but it is beyond tiring of WL coyly dangling carrots to stay relevant by picking and choosing small drips what to release. Anonymous would probably dump everything at once and mirror it across the world a hundred times over.

Can't remember the particulars, but there was a former WL principal that took a goodly chunk about embarassing banking dirt and deleted it (or sold it back, or?). This info is too valuable to keep in a few precocious hands that think they alone can change the world. Dump it all. Now.

Sounds about right .... (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | about 2 years ago | (#41633773)

I suspect that might be true, but then the "leaks" movement is much more and greater than Assange:
http://globaleaks.org/ [globaleaks.org]
Recommended reading: Andy Greenberg's This Machine Kills Secrets

Recommended viewing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xA_glFb0oWs [youtube.com]

Re:Sounds about right .... (0)

coinschick (2751525) | about 2 years ago | (#41633853)

can you please tell me how you get your url's to show like that?

Re:Sounds about right .... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635879)

Example [w3schools.com]

Anonymous

Wiki Leaks (1)

coinschick (2751525) | about 2 years ago | (#41633807)

Ok maybe I am a newbie to this. But can someone please explain what is Wiki Leaks?

Re:Wiki Leaks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633971)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+wikileaks

Why can anon say things? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41633847)

Anyone that says Anonymous is making an announcement is ignorant of the term. Anonymous can do things, but they can't say things since the label requires action to be defined.

The forced transparency movement will evolve (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 2 years ago | (#41634047)

Just as file sharing evolved to make it more and more difficult to track people, so will this movement evolve. Another organization will arise to take the place of WikiLeaks, and they will learn from WikiLeaks' mistakes. They won't make it about one person, and if their leadership (if they have one) is discovered and exposed, the reins will be passed to protect the cause.

With firends like these... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634087)

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

So they dont realize that they are playing right into the hands of their enemies? This was the intent of targeting Julian. Discredit the man, and by extension, discredit Wikileaks.

It's patently ridiculous that they've fallen for it... but what else could you expect from a bunch of 12 year olds. Certainly not any kind of sophisticated understanding of political strategy. They've bought the simplest, most transparent gambit imaginable.

Next they're all going to start voting Republican/Democrat because they want to see real change in government.

Assange is Wikileaks to the Faithful. (-1, Troll)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 2 years ago | (#41634115)

Post anything negative about Assange and get modded way down.

Assange should not be Wikileaks. Wikileaks should abandon him. The fugitive sex offender suspect should be cut loose.

Wikileaks and Assange... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634643)

Of course Wikileaks in pretty fucking interested in what happens to Assange. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

On the other hand, even if the US tortures and murders Assange, Wikileaks will never stop as long as there are secrets in the world.

And Anonymous is a huge bunch and essentially you and me despite neither of us are a part of it. There are all kinds in it. That's the beauty of the beast.

Shocking! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634721)

NEWS FLASH!

Organization loses support from an unknown number of people who refuse to own up to their true identity.

You heard it here first, folks. We have no idea who isn't supporting Wilileaks anymore, but we do know that they claim to be numerous and belligerent.

The Guardian is MSM (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41634755)

The Guardian (as well as other MSM outlets) opposed publishing information regarding Israel, leading to Assange being called an agent of Israel. Assange managed to offend the ego of a Guardian 'journalist' so the journalist has it in for Assange. A Guardian 'journalist' leaked the key used to encrypt the so-called 'insurance' file. The Guardian as MSM is threatened by a successful Wikileaks model.

Who is the CIA contact at the Guardian?

Guardian Angels? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41635007)

The Guardian is not exactly an unbiased news source for matters related to Julian Assange and Wikileaks.

The Guardian was one of the newspapers given access to the unredacted cables that sparked global controversy. Initially, they honored their promise to keep the source material secret - after all, it contained names of sources whose lives might depend upon anonymity.

  The Guardian's "Investigative Editor" David Leigh decided it would be OK to publish a book about Assange and Wikileaks, which incredibly contained the password for the unredacted cables file already circulating on torrent sites.

How many lives David Leigh affected will never be known - but obviously after this, the relationship between Wikileaks and The Guardian soured dramatically.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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