It is reported that Assange is in court again. This time, he claimed that others spied on him and took his personal information on behalf of a German publisher. There is a certain irony in this.
Is the collecting of information more of a crime than publishing it ?
It surely comes down to the motive for its collection, and if disclosed, what damage it causes to the complainant?
Assange might have been damaged , and might have a case, but how can he claim damages, but deny that he has damaged others by his own actions?
Can you at least accurately portray whatâs going on? He was being spied on 24/7 by a Spanish security firm at the behest of the United States. Not only was it just Assange, it was his doctors, his lawyers, friends, every sacred tenet of privacy being shattered - client/patient confidentiality; client/attorney.
Explain to me where the irony is lol - Wikileaks has confidential information given to it by whistle blowers, they donât spy on private citizens 24/7. Those who have been damaged by Assange & WL are those in power who are corrupt.
Sure, I invited your response, by posting such a point of view. You are welcome, but I note that your response is highly emotional.
I often hear a particular argument which attempts to disengage Wikileaks from culpability in the process of information disclosure. It goes like this. " Someone else obtained the information, Wikileaks is just a journalist reporting what they heard."
I donât see it that way. Going back to personal relationships, do you repeat everything bad you hear about others? When you receive information that might be hurtful to another person, you realise that by spreading that info you are part of the process of damaging that person.
So far I have not said anything about a judgement that such information is of greater benefit being reported to an authority, or even publicly released. It very well might be. On a case by case basis.
Leaving that aside, the irony is that Assange has been subjected to the very same activity that he himself has been involved in. He has played a game, and he has had the game played on him.
From Outside 50. There is no doubt Wikileaks operates as part of a chain and participates in espionage. It promotes itself in an eponymous manner, that it will participate in release ( âleakingâ) of secrets. Why bother âleakingâ anything that is already known? its purpose is self evident.
The artifice of Wikileaks is to attempt to decouple the informer of ( âsecretsâ ) from the actual promulgation on a form of mass media. When a country is involved in a âwarâ such information becomes extremely sensitive.
Is the âwarâ justified? Is it symmetrical? Have there been incidents which contravened rules of engagement and thus constitute war crimes? Does the âenemyâ adhere to the accepted rules of engagement ? These are other matters.
If you want other examples of ironies, how about the USA. They invented networking, RSA data encryption and applications like PGP and now they have been used against them by Al Qaeda, Russia, China and IS.
Theyâre still around doing an amazing public service to the citizens of this planet - the last few weeks theyâve been dropping leaks from the OPCW which shows that the Douma âchemical attackâ was basically a false flag, naturally, this should be global headline news but for some reason not one major outlet wants to touch it (wonder why⌠)
Just going to respond to this part of your post - you say there is no doubt WL participates in espionage. Iâll ask again, what evidence do you have of this? Iâm actually a little disheartened that you have this view because I know many share your beliefs which is a huge shame. Youâve been conned into thinking that WL is some organisation with a hidden agenda who procures information in a clandestine manner. Nothing could be more further from the truth.
I think this famous Malcom X quote is pertinent here
âIf youâre not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.â
In any case, Assange is no journalist and Wikileaks just post without any substantiation of facts. I do not really care if it legal or not, but it is wrong. Though after all this time, if I was Boris, I would just deport him to Australia, and make it all ScoMoâs problem.
Not going to argue with you on whether Assange is a journalist or not, nothing I say will change your mind but I will pull you up on your comment that WL just post without any substantiation of facts. I donât care if you think Assange is the devil incarnate but ffs man, at least acknowledge that this is just utterly wrong.
Donât know how you can level a charge like that at an organisation which has a flawless accuracy record.
No doubt that Wikileaks published Cllinton campaign documents that were doctored before the Russians released them. Now the Clinton people would not co-operate with Wikileaks to verify the changes the Ruskies made, but one my argue that Wikileaks should not have published without that verification.
And they published thousands of Snowdon hacks without any verification as well, except of course for the unnamed secret CIA âofficialsâ.
Now I may live in fantasyland, but I have no time for those who steal information and peddle it to âjournalistsâ.
Every country has things that are illegal to publish. Some by legislation other through court order. For instance itâs illegal to publish identifying information on minors in sexual abuse cases. To publish this info is illegal and will get you jail time see Hintch.
Debate the merits of the system sure, but donât have some make believe reality where publishers can publish 100% everything. It does not exist.
Having been on the wrong side when a âWhistleblowerâ secretly and deliberately gave false information to the Ombudsman, I have no like at all for any of them. And Journalists are all snakes and weasels, so they get nothing but dislike for me as well.
I do not really care that much about Watergate or Pentagon Papers. I accept that all Governments lie, cheat and steal; and that I can do nothing about it.
Mate, give it up. Snowden collaborated with the Guardian in the UK (Glenn Greenwald and others).
WL doesnât âstealâ anything, whistle blowers anonymously give them information, WL will verify authenticity and public interest and if both, they publish.
Sorry, I should have qualified my post further, didnât mean to imply that anything could be published, was specifically referring to WL disclosures. The entirety of WL disclosures would be protected under press freedom laws or at least not considered âillegalâ in just about every Western jurisdiction that I know of.
Thereâs about half a dozen current cases in Australia for publishing classified information. Theyâve gone after reporters, media, defence personnel and even lawyers. Publishing classified information is illegal, itâs illegal here and in America. I donât particularly like it, especially some of the current cases here in Aus. But itâs a thing.
)