Julian Assange is the tech world's Donald Trump

[SidDithers]

http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/julian-assange-the-tech-worlds-donald-trump-discuss-205812

What do these megalomaniacs have in common? Start with weird hair and a constant need for attention, then dig deeper

Lately it has occurred to me how much Julian Assange has in common with Donald Trump: Both have a talent for attracting media attention. Both have really unusual hair. And both are addicted to the spotlight, so much so that if they go too long without some form of media attention they have to manufacture "news" to attract it.

This week, The Donald served up his "election bombshell" -- offering to give $5 million to charity in exchange for seeing President Obama's birth certificate and college transcripts. Because, as we all know, that kind of information is vitally important to the future of our country. (The Donald refused to share his, though, when asked by Adam Gabbatt, a reporter for the U.K.'s Guardian.)

Similarly, Assange sat down for a video interview with CNN this week in which he talked a bit about the latest Guantanamo documents released by WikiLeaks, as well as what life has been like for him cooped up in a windowless room in London's Ecuadorian embassy for the past four months:

Sid

[randome]

1. Very appropriate comparison.

[graham4anything]

2. YUP!

[Hissyspit]

16. Um, nope.

[Jumping John]

3. News flash - Trump didn't ask for Obama's BC again. n/t

[MADem]

4. HA! I saw "cringeley" in the url and I thought that might be a new meme working off

people or things that make one cringe....but it turns out to be the writer's name!

Assange "has to make all his own stuff?" He's never heard of AMAZON? They have a UK branch. AND...he's living across the bloody street from Harrod's. You can buy everything from an aardvark to a zebra there, damn near! Call them up and have them deliver!

The real meat of that piece is hidden on p.2--who knew the masked denizens of ANONYMOUS have "dumped" Assange? And they put it down to EGO as well! Fascinating development, that: http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/julian-assange-the-tech-worlds-donald-trump-discuss-205812?page=0,1

A lot of readers want to know why I'm so down on Assange. I realize that to some folks -- especially young impressionable types -- Assange is some heroic figure, like a cross between the Matthew Broderick character in "War Games" and Woodward & Bernstein, with maybe a little Mother Teresa thrown in. I have a more jaundiced viewpoint than that.

For the record, I think the allegations of sex abuse against Assange were trumped up, and I still don't understand why the Swedes couldn't interview the man in England. However, I believe Assange took something that could have been a force for good in the world -- WikiLeaks -- and turned it into a force for ego.

I'm hardly alone. Even Anonymous has dumped him. The Anons were easily Assange's most fervent supporters; my hunch is that most of the documents published by WikiLeaks originally came from Anonymous.

But earlier this month the Anons publicly abandoned its support via Twitter (of course):

The end of an era. We unfollowed @Wikileaks and withdraw our support. It was an awesome idea, ruined by Egos. Good-bye.

Assange's good long fifteen minutes of fame might be drawing to an end.

Be interesting to see what this TYLER PROJECT produces!

[SidDithers]

8. I especially liked this part...

I realize that to some folks -- especially young impressionable types -- Assange is some heroic figure, like a cross between the Matthew Broderick character in "War Games" and Woodward & Bernstein, with maybe a little Mother Teresa thrown in.

Fits St. Julian's acolytes to a T.

Sid

[MADem]

9. And you can be sure that they'll stop reading before page 2!

The ire will rise, and the hectoring will begin.

They won't even know that he's been unceremoniously dumped by the Cool Kids in the Guy Fawkes masks!

It'll percolate down...eventually. Then they won't say much of anything, but I'm betting it will take a month or three before the bloom is off that rose.

[Hissyspit]

17. Um, I knew about the Anonymous kerfuffle weeks ago

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Anonymous is.h

[MADem]

73. This is not a "kerfluffle." It's a divorce. Assange gets the house, but

Anonymous gets the furniture, the bank account, the kids, the fine china and silver, and Assange will be left trying to pay taxes on a white elephant and sleeping on the floor...figuratively speaking. He's under the bus, out the door, on his bike, hitting the bricks--he won't be a part of this Mayhem/Tyler schtick.

I understand quite fully what Anonymous is, and these reports are coming from sources that have been associated with release of info wrt Anonymous over the years. Check the links--I don't think the Guardian is making this stuff up for fun and games.

Assange has jumped the shark. It's probably why the Ecuadorians are making noises about how he's "sick" and they want safe passage to hospital (which they likely won't get) in case he needs medical treatment.

[AntiFascist]

91. Sounds like "Anonymous" profits from the deal...

perhaps some more have turned, just like Sabu.

[MADem]

93. I am not clear on how they intend to do this (not a geek by any stretch)

but it sounds a bit like Napster only harder to get one's hands on!

[Kurovski]

56. Mother Theresa was a right-wing authoritarian misery-enabling a-hole

Like a corporation that sells you the diseaes AND the cure, she labored to control women's bodies and force poverty into the world so as to rescue those she helped to entrap in that poverty. Another CEO control freak, who didn't even believe in the crap she sold.

So why would any kid who LIKED and admired Assange think such a thing?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Except that Assange actually has done and is doing things that are actually newsworthy.

Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Whereas, Trump has done nothing that is actually newsworthy.

[Zorra]

6. Silly, shallow analogy. Bad hair? Is Cringely a staff writer at Cosmo?

The unswerving loyalty to the Global Military Industrial Complex by the DU Anti-Social Justice Movement is very disturbing.

Some things are not right, even "when we do it".

And seeing so much blind jackbooted brownshirt type antagonism toward anyone who struggles against, or exposes, the ethically and morally corrupt actions of the Global Military Industrial Complex is doubly disturbing.

The Official Emblem of the DU Anti-Social Justice Movement
....................................................

[MADem]

12. If I had to guess, I'd wager he's a member in good standing at "ANONYMOUS." nt

[Zorra]

18. Yep ~ I bet he even has one of these ~

[MADem]

20. Well, he certainly knows the path of plenty of documents.

I'm thinking that people with Membership Cards aren't members, though -- they'd just like to be. I guess Assange will have to get one of those cards now, since he's no longer a member, if that's the case.

I have no idea if this guy plays both ends against the middle, but he seems to be slightly ahead of the curve when it comes to info about that outfit.

[randome]

14. The 'shallow analogy' is yours.

When you think criticism of Assange is the same as 'unswerving loyalty to the Global Military Industrial Complex', you are not willing to see opinions that differ from your own.

There is not a single poster on this issue that has 'loyalty' to the MIC. Not one.

[MADem]

21. I think many haven't read to page 2, or even clicked the link.

When the people responsible for finding a lot of the "good" documents say "Eff off, pal" the franchise has pretty much gone bust. Assange was just a guy with the servers--none of the material was his, he wasn't the one that did the grunt work to get the stuff, but he's apparently acting like it is his personal staff of goodies, and trying to charge people to see it. That isn't sitting to well with the people who did the work to get the stuff to him in the first place.

[randome]

28. My department where I work did exceptionally well this year.

We are overflowing with budgetary money. But I don't care about my boss. He's a chuckle-head. But he gets credit for everything we do. It's the same with Assange, IMO. He helped start Wikileaks but he got it into trouble when he started stealing military secrets.

If Assange truly cared about Wikileaks, he would disassociate his name from the organization so it could continue. But no, he has -and will- drag it down until there is nothing left of it. Because without Wikileaks, Assange has nothing else to fall back on.

[MADem]

39. The Anonymous people, apparently, are starting up their own "Wikileaks on Steroids."

They are calling it Project Mayhem/Tyler Project (apparently the "Tyler" has something to do with Brad Pitt's "Fight Club" character--these guys aren't terribly mature, even if they do know their way around the whole hacking scene!). They aren't going to let anyone like Assange filter or guard-dog or charge for access to the stuff, it looks like.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Anonymous-to-Launch-TYLER-WikiLeaks-on-Steroids-267533.shtml

“TYLER is a massively distributed and decentralized Wikipedia-style P2P cipherspace structure impregnable to censorship. TYLER will improve where Wikileaks could not. In other words TYLER will be a Wikileaks on steroids.”

The activists reveal that on the symbolic date of November 5, TYLER will be out of beta testing and in the timeframe between December 12 and December 21, 2012, it will be put to use.

During this time, everyone who supports the movement is advised to gather as much information as they can on illegality, fraud and corruption and upload it to the new service.

At the end of the video statement, Anonymous warns that TYLER is only a small part of Project Mayhem.

I think it's too late for Assange to step away--there's not much to step away from, anymore as his sources for info have moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he could sell the domain name for some needed cash, but I think a lot of his working acolytes, who have had to deal with him on a working level and aren't liking what they're seeing, have abandoned him. His fans-from-a-distance just haven't gotten the word yet. That's what it seems like, anyway!

[randome]

40. 'Mahem' sounds too 'anarchy' for my taste.

If they would publicly proclaim that they will not publish documents without vetting them first -or that they will only publish military documents that relate to whistle-blowing- I think they could keep the hot breath of world governments off their collective necks.

At least give lip service to something like that. If their only purpose is to cause shitstorms for the sake of shitstorms, then I don't have much use for them myself.

[MADem]

48. I think they are going for the " massive distribution with no vetting model," I'm afraid.

I'm afraid it'll be shitstorms...but I also will bet they're already infiltrated and they don't even realize it.

[AntiFascist]

32. Or, Anonymous has become infiltrated by those supporting the MIC...

I mean, of all organizations, how easy would it be to infiltrate one where all it takes is the ability to sign one's name "Anonymous", lacking any leadership and all? Case in point, the AnonNews.org website seems to censor much of what is submitted to it, and some claim it is actually run by the government.

[randome]

35. You're right about it being impossible to know who is Anonymous.

It's the same problem with the Internet in general -trying to be both private and public at the same time. Which is why security issues will NEVER be foolproof.

And why we will never know if 'Anonymous' is THAT 'Anonymous' or some OTHER 'Anonymous'.

By being a private group with a public face, they have screwed themselves, I think.

[MADem]

52. I'm sure that happened a long time ago--in fact, we know it did.

That big string of Lulzsec arrests was part of a piece. They're compartmentalized, but they don't have the Arafat-style cell thing down.

The idea behind this new effort on their part is to get rid of a gatekeeper who might want to get proprietary with the information and charge for access--like Assange was doing. The ego thing does resonate, even if fans of JA don't want to acknowledge it.

Even if they are infiltrated, their new "model" suggests that their leaks will be to massive multiple outlets all at once, unfiltered, and probably without much if any gatekeeping. The site where this first came out, the twitter account, is recognized as "authentic," whatever that means.

[AntiFascist]

55. Perhaps it would be a compromise...

for the government to allow unfiltered distribution of any information, but I have little doubt that they will try to be carefully tracking the sources of such information, and there's also the "counter-intel" approach of distributing false information, and then discrediting the whole system as being unreliable.

[MADem]

72. It would be a fine solution--but I just don't see that happening. I think your latter scenario is

much more likely.

[Fumesucker]

22. How would you know?

It's my opinion that there are at least a few MIC lovers here on DU and possibly more than just a few.

There are posters here for whom no right wing position is too extreme.

[randome]

27. You're right. I don't know. I'm just going by what I think.

But I'm not going to put you or anyone who disagrees with me inside a mental box and categorize you. The only thing I'm interested in is the current discussion. Not past positions.

[Zorra]

23. Oh, come on. No, it's compounded by the fact that

a certain faction of DU consistently and continually trashes other whistle blowers and Social Justice Movements who struggle against the Global Military Industrial Complex in their vigilant and eternal struggle4thepreservationoftheglobalstatusquo.

Search is your enemy.




Keep Hope Alive

[randome]

26. Yeah, well, I'm not afraid of my opinions.

And I'm not afraid that you know how to use a search function.

But I think most discussions on DU are best undertaken according to the facts and opinions expressed, not on where someone might appear on your hypothetical mind-graph of issues.

[MADem]

76. Don't berate the messenger, now.

This story has been generated BY Anonymous, through regular channels that they've used in the past to release information. They are the ones who are "trashing" Assange and saying that his ego and other behaviors are a problem and caused the rift.

This isn't mean old DUers being poopy to Assange--this is simply a parting of the ways between the guys who did the work, and the guy who tried to "gatekeep" the material and who, when he got in hot water, tried to sell access to it in contravention to the desires of the "hactivist collective" that is known as Anonymous.

[PowerToThePeople]

7. no

they both may be melodramatic, but that is where it ends. Assange worked to expose wrongs done by the ptb.
Trump is just a racist. Isnt infoworld some freeper site?

[MADem]

11. The guys who wear that mask you display in your avatar

have dumped Assange, owing to his ego. "The one-man Julian Assange show" is how they termed it. Oh, and his constant begging for donations, too. And inserting, in essence, a paywall in front of the wiki docs. Anonymous is pissed, I'd say. I wouldn't be surprised if the writer of that piece was an Anonymous enthusiast and NOT a freeper.

There's a video at this link as well as a text story.

http://mashable.com/2012/10/13/anonymous-wikileaks/

Is this a freeper site, too?

http://www.wikileaks-forum.com/index.php/topic,15316.0.html#.UIu0E-slo4w.twitter

Or this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/12/anonymous-distances-itself-wikileaks

I think "where it ends" is that Anonymous--which is where Assange got most of his juice--has kicked the white haired embassy denizen out of their "Circle of Friends." Unfollowed! Unfriended! Alas, alack! Hopefully the Ecuadorian President won't turn him in for a favorable trade agreement...but you never know...

[PowerToThePeople]

36. A few of things

First, the site I was thinking of is infowars, so the linked site is not the one I was thinking of.

Second, the mask Is a very vivacious victor of a valorous videotape. Just because another group has used it does not mean it is their's exclusively. I display it to support the views of said movie character against his rivals, as I believe we fight the same fight in real life. I do not display it in support of said group (even though I may support some of their actions.)

Third. Despite Assange's issues, there is plenty of information that would never have seen the light of day without him. Bradley Manning would probably be a free man as well. We should not be condemning whistle-blowers and those who assist them. We should be condemning those doing wrongs, those hiding wrongs such that whistle blowing is the only way the public ever learns the truth.

[MADem]

41. Hmmm. You do know that when you wear the costume, people do think you do the job associated with

it. If you run around in scrubs, people think "medical." Wear a police uniform, people think "law enforcement." Like it or not, the ANONYMOUS group have co-opted that symbol for a cult hit Warner Bros. film and made it their own. Ironically, when they buy one of those masks, WB gets a chunk of the sale! So, when I (and others) see that avatar, we think you're either a member or a fan-follower. You can say you're not (and I will believe you) but the assumption is there and you'll likely be misinterpreted again and again.

Those people with the masks have apparently tired of Assange, and I guess they have good reason. It's never good when someone who is "on a mission" decides to make his or her own personality more important than the cause--and that, apparently, is what is happening. So, the whole wikileaks thing (and Assange with it) is out, and in comes Project Mayhem. The Mayan calendar "end of the world" date is when they light that baby off--so December won't be a dull month, I'm guessing. Time will tell. In any event, it'll be about the info, not about Assange...

[Hissyspit]

10. Massive false equivalence.

Last edited Sat Oct 27, 2012, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

As offensive as "James O'Keeffe is the Right's Michael Moore."

[lunatica]

13. The writer is full of shit

And anyone who believes Trump and Assange are in any way alike are stupid. Trump has done nothing of value or worth. Assange has exposed the lying shenanigans of people in power. Not everything he says meets with my approval, but then I allow people to be 'imperfect'.

[randome]

15. What lies did he expose?

I think he revealed a lot of embarrassing diplomatic cables and some military mis-steps that deserved to be shown in the light but...lies? What lies?

[lunatica]

25. Cover ups and secrets are lies

Saying one thing in public and another in private is usually considered a lie.

[Tarheel_Dem]

29. You were asked for examples, not platitudes. Show us the "lies" that were exposed.

Or yours is just another case of empty hero worship.

[Hissyspit]

63. Yes, lies, but you all are really playing a semantics game.

and acting as if Cablegate was the only release by WikiLeaks ever.

WikiLeaks exposed lies, but that's only part of it's importance. Arguing about what constitutes a "lie" versus secret or plausible denial or lack of transparency or propaganda tactic is really just a tactic. Stuff we suspected revealed, stuff that was denied revealed (lies), stuff that was unknown revealed. Details about this have been posted her over and over for the past four years or so, and now, semantic games and parroting of mainstream pundit talking points ("there's nothing here&quot , show up here again and again to replace that for political reasons. Sad.

'WikiLeaks exposed US, British govt lies about Iraq casualties'

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/wikileaks-saudi-oil-lies-exposed/1423

WikiLeaks Exposes Saudi Oil Lies

Yesterday, the latest Wikileaks revelation indicated Saudi Arabia's oil reserves may have been inflated by about 40%.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149393/wikileaks%27_most_terrifying_revelation%3A_just_how_much_our_government_lies_to_us?paging=off

N.Y. Times headline announcing its publication of the Wikileaks "Afghan War Logs": "View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal Of War In Afghanistan."

These "Afghan War Logs", like the Iraqi war logs after them, and much material in Wikileaks' recent release of diplomatic cables, reveal above all that U.S. Executive war-making is marked by massive deception of the American people -- particularly lying about (1) the enormous civilian casualties the U.S. is causing and (2) its claim to be pursuing a "counter-insurgency strategy" designed to install a democratic Afghan government. The Times and Guardian stories describe how these official U.S. documents reveal constant U.S. Executive Branch lying to the American people.

When the Iraqi war logs were published 3 months later, they revealed even more shocking information -- particularly that U.S. soldiers had handed over Iraqi civilians to Iraqi police, knowing they would be hideously tortured employing electric drills, acid and other devices before being savagely murdered. Ellen Knickmeyer, the Washington Post Bureau chief in Baghdad in 2006, wrote that these revelations meant that U.S. officials had been lying daily to the U.S. media

-- and American people -- by saying they were not aware of this mass murder.

http://www.collateralmurder.com

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

[randome]

81. Knowing the extent of civilian casualties is, I agree, worth knowing and leaking.

But most of the rest of your examples are mostly conjecture on someone else's part. Even the guy in the video says they didn't see documents that admitted to 'mistakes' or atrocities but it was to be inferred.

But Wikileaks simply dumped hundreds of thousands of documents into the public domain. They were not, at that instance, in the business of whistleblowing. They just wanted to cause a shitstorm.

Well, they ruffled some feathers but beyond that...?

[Hissyspit]

86. Again, games with semantics.

Call them lies or don't. Say nothing's changed or something's changed.

[randome]

88. Tell me what's changed. I'm willing to listen.

[dionysus]

70. don't make fun of the sweet bebe jesus assange, you'll make someone have a sad...

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. Assange makes me have "a sad" for all the suckers who've forked over $$$$$.

[dionysus]

100. bein' sad makes me angry. being angry makes me feel like.. boxin'!

PUT UP YER DUKES11!11

[Tarheel_Dem]

101. Dion, I'm glad you still have that "fightin" spirit.

[99Forever]

61. Yep.

Willfully stupid.

Character assassination, the tool of choice by lowbrows with nothing else the world over. It's not just for Teabaggers any more.

[SomethingFishy]

19. So Assange is a lying, greedy, racist

who is trying to use his money to influence an election by extorting the President of the United States? And who at the same time Donald Trump made his "election changing" announcement, was interviewed by CNN?

Fuck I must have been really sleeping on the job to miss this one...

[Go Vols]

24. Cenk: @Wikileaks’ Julian Assange should be your hero

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/cenk-wikileaks-julian-assange-should-be-your-hero

[MADem]

53. That is over two months old. Things, apparently, have changed. nt

[Hissyspit]

30. How (not) to destroy Wikileaks: where it all began…

http://darkernet.in/how-not-to-destroy-wikileaks-where-it-all-began

How (not) to destroy Wikileaks: where it all began…


Posted on October 15, 2012 by admin

“Feed the fuel between the feuding groups… [create] disinformation”. This quote is taken from an infamous strategy document on how to organise the destruction of Wikileaks. The document argued classic divide and rule tactics and was authored by HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies and Berico Technologies. It was dated January 2011 but exposed a month later as part of a tranche of files taken by Anonymous from HBGary. Below, we reprise the circumstances that led up to the hacking of HBGary, details of the attack plan against Wikileaks, and what resulted in the aftermath.

The story illustrates how there are two ways in which an organisation like Wikileaks can be destroyed: a) from without by criminalisation, the use of dirty tricks and smears, and the cutting off of funds; and b) from within by promoting disagreement and acrimony. An obvious example of ‘disinformation’ (referred to in the quote) is the libellous comments from Julia Gillard that probably led to the banking blockade of Wikileaks. The story also serves to remind us of an old axiom: united we stand, divided we fall (and how no matter how valid the disagreement, in the interests of the greater good it is never too late for reconciliation).

A. HBGary introduction
HBGary and HBGary Federal promote their organisations as experts in computer security. Both offer software and services to the public and private sectors. On the software side, HBGary has a range of computer forensics and malware analysis tools to enable the detection, isolation, and analysis of worms, viruses, and trojans. On the services side, it offers expertise in implementing intrusion detection systems and secure networking, and performs vulnerability assessment and penetration testing of systems and software. A number of agencies, including the NSA, are in regular contact with the HBGary companies, as are Interpol. HBGary also work with the well-known security firm McAfee. At one time, Apple expressed an interest in the company’s products and services.

- snip -

D. The infamous presentation

The proposed attacks on WikiLeaks, according to the presentation hacked by Anonymous then leaked, included the following actions:
1. Feed the fuel between the feuding groups. Disinformation. Create messages around actions of sabotage or discredit the opposing organizations. Submit fake documents and then call out the error.

MORE

[randome]

31. Wikileaks stole and published military secrets.

Why would any government in the world not want to stop them from doing it again? Do you think Canada would just shrug and say, "Eh" if their military secrets were published? I doubt it. I think they would try to stop further thefts.

[Hissyspit]

67. Stole?

No, they didn't.

[randome]

77. Manning did with Assange's help.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that Wikileaks facilitated the publication of our country's military secrets.

Nothing of consequence changed because of this but no government in the world is just going to sit back and say, 'Take what you want'.

[Hissyspit]

82. "With Assange's help"

You have proof that Assange facilitated theft as opposed to just publishing received information? You used the word "stole." Assange stole what? When?

"Nothing changed" is the right-wing and mainstream pundit talking point. There are direct connections between revelations from the WikiLeaks Tunisia and the rise of the Arab Spring. And the children whose father was killed in the Collateral Murder incident, their world changed when the found out the truth of what the Pentagon was hiding from them.

Of course things changed.

[randome]

85. Fine. Assange was a fence receiving stolen goods. About the same thing.

I don't think Wikileaks had much to do with the Arab Spring any more than a UTube video had to do with Benghazi.

Sure, it may have provided some encouragement to those who yearned for more freedom but that was a long simmering pot.

And yes, in certain cases, some of the documents Wikileaks published helped individuals. Good for them.

The rest of the stuff? Potentially putting others' lives at stake? No, there is no proof of that, either, but with the sheer volume of unredacted and unvetted material that was put out, it sounds likely to me.

And, again, no government is going to stand by while some web site group runs roughshod over its military documents.

[AntiFascist]

92. Wow, you've really managed to villify Assange...

funny that the US government hasn't proceeded with their prosecution, I mean it's pretty well known that they have been investigating this alleged conspiracy with Bradley Manning. The rabid Republicans initially couldn't wait to have him executed. I wonder what's holding them back?

[msanthrope]

99. Actually, yes. There is proof that Assange did not merely recieive, but facilitated theft.

1) Mr Manning inserted software from wikileaks onto DoD database--

Prosecutors charge Manning put software on secure computers to allow him to download classified material and burn it to a compact disc. Manning was assigned as an intelligence analyst in Iraq and had a top-secret clearance. He worked in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, known as SCIF.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/#more-35191?tw_p=twt

After February 11: Unauthorized software on SIPRNET; the Collateral Murder, Rejkjavik-13 cable, and Defense Intelligence documents

Then, remember, Manning came to the US in January to February 2010. Adrian Lamo has long alleged that Manning got help from some folks in Boston. The timeline shows Manning returned to Iraq on February 11, which also happens to be the first date Manning is alleged to have put the first of two unauthorized pieces of software onto SIPRNET.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrative-chronology-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leaks/

2a-- Mr. Manning performed searches on behalf of Assange--

During the course of the government’s direct examination of Fulton, prosecuting attorney Capt. Ashden Fein asked Fulton if, in the course of his work, Manning had a need to conduct searches on SIPRnet for certain keywords – “GITMO SOP,” “Julian Assange,” “WikiLeaks” — or whether he had reason to visit a specific part of the CENTCOM web site. Fulton replied “no” in all cases.

Another witness, fellow intelligence analyst Sgt. Chad Madaras, was later asked similar questions. Madaras and Manning shared computers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, where they were deployed together. Madaras worked the day shift, and Manning mostly served on the night shift.

The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term “JTF GITMO” or the name “Birgitta Jonsdottir,” or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied “no” in each case.

The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Manning’s workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/manning-apache-video/

Understand that this search of Jonsdottir happened AFTER she was editing the Collateral Murder video, and BEFORE this was known to the public...in other words, Bradley Manning didn't pull these search terms out of his ass.



2b--And asked Assange for help in cracking military codes.....

In another chat, dated March 8, 2010, Manning asked “Nathaniel Frank,” believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked “Frank” if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably it’s a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). “Frank” replied yes, that they had “rainbow tables” for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/#more-35191?tw_p=twt

[Hissyspit]

108. Yeah, I read all that.

Pure speculation.

[msanthrope]

110. Um...no. As this was evidence offered at the article 32 hearing in

support of the charges against Manning, it's rather more than speculation at this point. I found the defense offered to this evidence by Mr. Coombs rather telling.

Bradley Manning is going to pay the price of Mr. Assange's ambitions. Assange should have kept his source safer.

[Zorra]

38. The directive was issued by the Global MIC...

...and their flying monkeys flew everywhere, sewing the seeds of deceit wherever they went...

[whatchamacallit]

33. I'd say those comparisons also fit the author of the OP

Congratulations to DU's Trump!

[Puglover]

34. +a Brazillion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Change has come]

37. Isn't that the truth?

Without that smiley, this cat would be mute.

[SidDithers]

42. ...

Sid

[Scurrilous]

59. Sid!!

I Am Julian Assange Donald Trump!

[Hissyspit]

60. Yes, it's all hilarious.

Especially the continuing illegal financial blockade of WikiLeaks by the Paypal and the credit card companies in conjunction with the government (also known as "fascism&quot . It's just hilarious.

[randome]

62. What do you think a government should do to prevent military secrets from being stolen?

Nothing?

[Hissyspit]

65. There are plenty of things they shouldn't do.

[randome]

78. Like what?

What did Wikileaks expose that resulted in any change in the world?

[Hissyspit]

96. "By longstanding first amendment tradition, third parties such as news organisations — even..."

"...an unconventional one like WikiLeaks — are not prosecuted for publishing leaked material, even if the person who gave it to them broke the law."

[randome]

98. That does not apply when stealing classified military documents.

At least I would it assume it does not. Spies are usually prosecuted.

And Wikileaks is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a news organization. News organizations usually have reporters, not some kid sitting at a computer and pressing a 'Publish' button on documents that were placed in front of him.

[Hissyspit]

107. Wow, not one valid defense.

WikiLeaks has not stolen anything.

Plenty of journalists and journalist organizations consider WikiLeaks a whistle-blowing journalism organization and it has received a number of international awards.

These whole thread has been nothing but ad hominem and right-wing and status quo talking points.

[mythology]

103. I can't imagine what you think is illegal about Paypal not allowing payments to Wikileaks

at least in the U.S. I'm not aware of any law that would mandate allowing that.

And that's not the definition of fascism. You're using it as a generic insult. It's no different than when Republicans call Obama a fascist for insurance reform or some other policy that they don't like.

[Hissyspit]

106. Read:

I forgot to mention unconstitutional.

http://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has openly criticized the financial blockade against WikiLeaks, as have the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. The blockade erects a wall between us and our supporters, preventing them from affiliating with and defending the cause of their choice. It violates the competition laws and trade practice legislation of numerous states. It arbitrarily singles out an organization that has not committed any illegal act in any country and cuts it off from its financial lifeline in every country. In Australia, a formal, US triggered investigation into our operations found that WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange have no case to answer. In the US, our publishing is protected by the First Amendment, as has been repeatedly demonstrated by a wide variety of respected legal experts on the US Constitution. In January 2011 the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy C. Geithner, announced that there were no grounds to blacklist WikiLeaks. There are no judgements, or even charges, against WikiLeaks or its staff anywhere in the world.

And, no, I'm not using the term fascism generically.

[randome]

43. Fascinating observation, given that the 'author' simply linked to an article and provided snippets.

[SixString]

44. +1

[argiel1234]

45. Donald Trump is a right wing blowhard

All I know about Assange is that he tried to expose governments of their lies and deceit. Im not quite sure I get the comparison

Edited for spelling error

[MADem]

46. Read page 2 of the linked article. You'll know more about him, and his

relationship -- or the termination of his relationship -- with Anonymous.

[argiel1234]

50. I read the second page in detail again

Im still not understanding what Anonymous separating the relationship has to do with what Assange exposed. Perhaps Assange does have a big ego. Im not all fully up on it other than what ive read online and on a few blogs. Also Im curious to the OP source article website. What is infoworld?

Ive never run across them reading stuff

edited again for spelling

[MADem]

71. My understanding from the article is this:

The ego is an issue. Apparently the Anon people didn't care for the "All About Me" POV he was shopping.

The material on the website was supposed to be for "free" dissemination to anyone interested in it.

Assange put up a paywall in order to get money for his Wikileaks enterprise. It could be circumvented by web-savvy people who know how to disable Java, but computer-thick folks wouldn't know how to do that, and they're part of the audience for this material, too. In effect, he was charging people who didn't know any better for access to the pages.

I provided a few other links elsewhere in this thread that are more "mainstream," e.g. the GUARDIAN, that are saying the same thing, pretty much. Stick a fork in Assange--when it comes to Anonymous, he's done, as far as they are concerned. Here is another link for your perusal:

http://www.zdnet.com/anonymous-to-launch-wikileaks-clone-tyler-7000006370/

Summary: Support is gone for Assange -- and now a new safe haven for whistleblowers may be on the cards.
...When asked about the future of Wikileaks and the role of Anonymous, the "representative" said:

"Julian has threatened on at least one previous occasion to pull the plug on the project because the fundraising was not meeting his expectations. It was at that time that Anonymous began planning to field our own alternative disclosure platforms. Julian desperately needs WikiLeaks, and he is the only one that can pull the plug on the project. I rather think that so long as he is in dire straits, he will not do so despite any threats from him to the contrary."
It is necessary to keep in mind that by the nature of the anonymous group, this may not reflect the intentions or wishes of the entire Anonymous community.

However, according to the hacker, the project has been spurred on due to the forced funding techniques recently employed by Wikileaks through a paywall blocking access the Global Information files. A statement was released by one or more members of the collective, claiming that Wikileaks "betrayed" them by such "rabid scrounging for money", and withdrawing support not only for the site, but for Julian Assange -- who is currently taking refuge in the London-based Ecuadorian embassy.

[argiel1234]

74. I get your point

but I fail to see how this discredits what Assange has exposed. He may very well have a an ego, but the article seems to be focused on the messenger(Assange) and not the message.

Is this what you are saying, that we should focus on the messenger instead of the message? Is this the point of this OP?

[MADem]

80. I don't know this for a fact, so don't come at me. This is speculation, some of it.

We know that much of the material that Assange has on his website was drummed up by people associated with Anonymous.

I'm getting the strong impression that certain people in Anonymous are sick to death of Assange, who is basically just the website host, acting like he's the main player here. The Anonymous people are a collective, and they like to do things anonymously (of course) and in a separate-but-part-of-a-group spirit. I think they got the sense that not only was JA selling the shit that they dug up, in essense, but that he was acting like the material was HIS and he was the "leader" when all he was is a facilitator.

It's kind of like being a host at DU--all hosts are supposed to do is act within the SOP of their forum. A host has very little authority--they can't shut down a thread because they don't like the topic, or they think the language is nasty, or they think the person is a troll, so long as it fits the SOP. That's for a jury to do. Assange is sort of the "host" for the Wikileaks material, but he's acting like he's the owner (moderator) of the stuff, and that has caused the rift.

So, it's really not me saying anything--it's Anonymous saying "We're going to a new model that cuts out the moderator/host/leader/middleman. This stuff is going from our collection point out to hundreds of sites simultaneously for rapid-fire dissemination, and it will be free as a bird and replicated over and over again without any gatekeeping."

The sense I get from Anonymous is that "the messenger" (Assange), by being such an ego-driven pain in the behind who was proprietary with the material the Anonymous people worked to obtain, has had his day in the sun, they're tired of his drama, and they want to move on without him.

[argiel1234]

89. Assange may very well be an egoist, criminal, etc.

the point stands that this article seems to try to blame the messenger(Assange) to try and discredit the message.

Unfortunately the message has been received loud and clear and the message is uncomfortable for some folks who have an interest in trying to suppress that message

The message is that not only the corruption and lies that have evidently been spread by the U.S. government, but more importantly the lies and corruption in middle eastern governments have been exposed to the light of day, and how our government contributes to these lies and cover ups

I dont think this article conveyed what was intended. Instead it has just opened up more conversations about the subject

Just my personal opinion

[MADem]

90. I truly think the writer of the article is carrying water for elements of Anonymous.

He's not come to this conclusion under his own steam. He's in contact with representatives of the group who have access to the cited twitter account. My sense is he's simply broadcasting THEIR POV, not creating one of his own.

The fact that Anonymous is splitting with Assange and firing up their own competitor to Wkileaks using a different distribution platform is the crux of the story.

The other stuff--the comparisons and characterizations (which, as I said, I believe come from Anonymous) of Assange as, in essence, an insufferable blowhard-- is just a hook to engage the reader by comparing one insufferable blowhard (Assange, per Anonymous) to another (Trump, per everyone). It's a way to make the story a bit "current," is all.

Bottom line--Anonymous has marginalized Assange. They are the ones who ferreted out the material that Wikileaks distributed, much of it. They are going their own way, making their "work" more about the "stuff" and not about the personality of an individual, and not including Assange on their journey. It's probably why the Embassy is making noises about transporting Assange to hospital in case he gets sick (they want safe passage, they aren't going to get it, I don't think). They might want to get rid of him but they can't come out and say that.

[Zorra]

47. I have a proposal ~ let's call a truce, let this thread die, and get President Obama re-elected.

And get as many other Dems elected as we possibly can.

We can discuss this issue after that.

But right now, there are important, pressing issues that we all agree on, and important things we need to get done.

I don't think Julian will be going anywhere before the election.

Let's close out this election, send republicans to total minority hell, and worry about this other stuff later.



Just my $.02 ~
Peace

[randome]

51. Ever see the 1997 movie, Event Horizon?

I just watched it again. THAT is the hell I'd like to send Republicans to. (Well, politically speaking, that is.)

I want the names 'Republican' and 'Conservative' to be curse words.

[grantcart]

58. agreed. we are in a no distractfion zone

[JI7]

49. didn't he try to compare himself to victims of Benghazi attack ?

[upi402]

54. Invalid as hell - in my college Logic course it's termed;

Complete horseshit



Yes, let's attack people who provide us information and gorge on the pablum that the News Celebrities feed us.

Like Amy Goodman, I can't call them journalists. And I can't call apples - oranges.

[Kurovski]

57. +1

[Odin2005]

69. Or to give the proper Latin: Argumentum ad Equum Merdem.

[Hissyspit]

75. I read what you did there.

[Odin2005]

79. Like my translation of "argument by horseshit", do you?

[MADem]

83. The characterization is a tiny part of the article, a hook--the big news is on page 2. nt

[Hissyspit]

94. This is from Page 2:

in the comments section. By the way, Lamo is a liar.

Let's get to brass tacks here. What have you accused Assange of in this article? Ego? Really, is that all? If ego is a crime, then half the journalists and all the leaders in the world are criminals, yourself included. After all, it takes an ego to write a smear.

'He's an egotist playing for the camera' is just a generic jibe that all egotists playing for attention (don't deny it) use on each other when they can't dredge up anything more substantial than that. That is why the mainstream press relies almost exclusively on this insult against Assange (that and the dirty socks thing); because quite frankly they can't come up with anything better. If you or they could come up with a better denouncement than 'this man has an ego', then obviously you would, because you should be smart enough to realise how empty of any real substance is this criticism.

Therefore it is quite clear that your criticism toward Assange is driven by some animus you don't wish to specifically name. You have this in common with most other mainstream jounalists — perhaps understandably since Assange's model for journalism is a technology that is disruptive to your business. Put simply, journalists feel threatened by the very idea of what Assange represents.

[MADem]

97. I'm talking about the piece, not the reader comments.

The angry writer you quote is focused in on the "hook" of personality quirks (and let's not pretend Assange doesn't have them, and some of them are, to be polite, obnoxious at a minimum) and ascribing nefarious motive to the author of this piece, but that hook is just a delivery system to talk about the story that Anonymous and Assange are, in essence, getting a divorce. There's a big dust up between major Anon players and Assange, and the rift will not be healed. THAT is the story--not Donald Trump.

If I had to guess, I would say that this Cringeley guy has some sources within Anonymous--he's not just reading their public discussion board or their twitter feeds and coming to this conclusion--he is broadcasting the animus that elements within Anonymous are carrying with regard to Assange, and he understands the animus because he's talked to people within the group and he relates to their frustrations.

The critique that "Waaah, you're being mean to Assange because you don't LIKE him" --and that's what that reply is saying, in essence--is just silly. This is not about the reporter--this is about Anonymous, Assange, and a parting of the ways that will put a new paradigm for leaking out on the world stage come December, if this report is accurate.

Like I said, I think the reporter is carrying water for Anonymous. He's speaking on their behalf, delivering their message, IMO. It doesn't matter if Lamo is a liar or not, this article reflects the views of the Anonymous people WRT Assange, who are firing up the new Mayhem paradigm for delivery of material. That's the crux of the matter, here, I think.

[upi402]

104. Reasonable thoughts

However, they may be undeserved. For me, I stopped when I read this;

" My take: The Albino Aussie thought ... "

Name-calling, says all I need to know.

[randome]

105. You have a point there.

[MADem]

111. As I've said elsewhere, I believe this correspondent is carrying water for elements of Anonymous.

It's their scorn he's transmitting, in far more vivid fashion than a simple "unfollow" or "unfriend" can communicate.

[Hissyspit]

109. I know you were.

[RomneyLies]

64. DU Rec and kick nt

[Hissyspit]

66. Why?

It's stupid.

[Odin2005]

68. Assange may be a blowhard, but at least he's doing something helpful via WikiLeaks.

The same does not apply to Ferret-Head.

[Puregonzo1188]

84. Wait leaking classified Gitmo documents is like asking for Obama college records?

Wow.

[MADem]

87. I think the suggestion is that they are both relentless attention seekers.

Read the second page of the article--that's where the meat is.

I think this reporter is in close touch with elements of Anonymous, and that's where he's getting these characterizations. He's not making this up out of whole cloth, I don't think. I believe he's expressing the disaffection of a cadre of dissatisfied Anon contributors. They're parting ways with Assange because of his ego, they said. They even UNFOLLOWED him on twitter!

[Comrade Grumpy]

102. Nice two-minute hate. It brought out most of the usual suspects.