HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hypocrisy pt.2-Hackers/Le...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:58 AM

 

Hypocrisy pt.2-Hackers/Leakers now vs. Hackers/Leakers then. Fake Bush same as everyone redux

I am getting sick of the Bush/Gore, Bush/Kerry, Bush/anyone else analogy

The making heroes of hackers/leakers like that JA guy overseas.
People idolizing him.

But let me please ask-

When the leakers released the info on Valerie Plame, everyone was aghast that it was happening, and people calling for lifetime in jail for Karl Rove and anyone else it touched.

Why is this guy idolized? Is it that he is a hunky blonde bombshell and fashion kingpin?
And Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are, well, not hunky blonde bombshells and fashion kingpins?

If people wanted Scooter Libby jailed, why the pass for this guy?

Before someone says it, i am MOST CERTAINLY NOT for Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
I am against all hackers/leakers. As-IMHO
Hacker/leakers are one and the same. I see no difference.
Both are for political gain on one side or another.

both have angles. Both are negatives with a score to fix.

imho

10 replies, 621 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hypocrisy pt.2-Hackers/Leakers now vs. Hackers/Leakers then. Fake Bush same as everyone redux (Original post)
graham4anything Feb 2013 OP
libtodeath Feb 2013 #1
graham4anything Feb 2013 #2
libtodeath Feb 2013 #3
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #4
graham4anything Feb 2013 #5
theKed Feb 2013 #6
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #7
graham4anything Feb 2013 #9
ljm2002 Feb 2013 #10
RZM Feb 2013 #8

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:03 AM

1. Putting someones career and perhaps life at risk isnt the same as finding some poorly done paintings

not defending hacking but analogy fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libtodeath (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:09 AM

2. what are you talking about? Paintings???

 

I am talking about the alleged blonde criminal guy from the Netherlands releasing political things

(and I am not unconvinced that Karl Rove isn't behind the things as a typical dirty trick anyhow)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:12 AM

3. I thought at least in part you were talking about shrubs hacked emails

sorry for the misread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:55 AM

4. About "that JA guy overseas"...

...First, he was/is not a hacker. He provided a means by which whistle blowers could send leaked data in electronic form without their own identity being compromised. He is also someone who has received journalism awards in his native country of Australia.

He is also not a leaker. He, through WikiLeaks, is a publisher of leaked documents. There is a difference. Many of the documents published by WikiLeaks were also published by other news organizations, such as the Guardian in the UK and the New York Times in the U.S., among others. Are you arguing that the New York Times editors should be arrested, as they chose to publish the documents provided to them by JA / WikiLeaks?

He is also not a citizen of the United States, and as such, it is difficult for me to see what US laws he has violated by publishing these materials. IF he had indeed hacked systems to obtain the information, then possibly the Espionage Act might apply.

Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA asset was leaked by members of her own government, high up members in the executive branch who were duty bound to protect people like Valerie Plame, not to release her identity. They are actually bound by U.S. laws and they violated those laws. Mr. Libby was tried and convicted.

Now you might believe that someone like Bradley Manning can be compared to those people high up in the executive branch. At least Manning is a better comparison in that he is someone who (purportedly) leaked classified documents that he had access to, in violation of his sworn duties and obligations. I'm sure we don't agree on the merits of what he may have done, but I do understand the position of people who hold the contrary position to mine. I just think there are other aspects to it, such as the moral duty to expose war crimes. But I can respect the position that says no, he had an absolute duty to guard those documents and videos regardless of what was in them. At least that position has logic to it.

But these screeds against Julian Assange, that call him a "hacker" and a "leaker" (neither of which applies), are just poorly reasoned emotional responses to the existence of WikiLeaks and its exposure of inconvenient truths that take the mask off diplomats and illegal military actions.

Yes, some of that WikiLeaks stuff was embarrassing for the USA. You might have noticed that over the years WikiLeaks has released lots of embarrassing materials applying to other governments as well. In every case, though, the materials were leaked by people internal to the agencies in question. If any hacking was done, it was not done by JA or WikiLeaks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

5. If he isn't a leaker why is the word leaks part of the title.

 

Now, if 3 people are in a car, one driver and two passengers and they go to a gas station and fill up the tank.
the driver stays in the car, and the other two use the facilities. While inside, they rob and kill the person behind the counter.

The car is filled, the passengers get back in the car, the driver drives off

Two weeks later, all 3 are arrested and charged with second degree murder

Or, someone receiving a bogus $20 bill and knowing it is bad, gets rid of it.
that person is just as guilty as the one who made it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:33 AM

6. If Fox doesn't

broadcast nees, why are they called Fox News?

Your analogy is flawed. Information leaks aren't murder, and the encouragement you show towards repressing and punishing whistleblowers is appaling. Your love of authoritarianism has come through elsewhere, and I hope you find, soon, it's not something that's nurtured here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:33 AM

7. "why is the word leaks part of the title"...

...so that is your argument?

Wow, just wow.

Your analogy of a crime being committed at a gas station is flawed. Yes, there are laws for people who aid and abet crimes. But we are talking about the press here, not about criminal law as it pertains to violent crimes.

There is ample precedent in US law protecting publishers from being charged when publishing leaked documents. See, here in the US, we have this thing called Freedom of the Press. It prohibits the government from engaging in prior restraint of content. When the press in this country published the Pentagon Papers, they were NEVER in any danger of being charged with anything, unlike Daniel Ellsberg, who had actually leaked the documents, and who could have paid dearly for it. The difference is, he WAS the "leaker", while the newspapers were "publishers". Our laws do distinguish these roles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:41 AM

9. He isn't American though, you said so yourself.

 

I didn't bring the NY Times into the argument either, so that is a strawman.

Nor did I bring the other two people into this argument, as that is military.

I don't look well on private people who in essence are using threats and/or blackmail.
Which is what this person does.
He is saying in essence is doing psychological blackmail or whatever you want to call it.

And in essence, isn't that terrorism? Scaring to attain a goal?

And does anyone consider him a journalist?Doesn't one have to have real credentials to call oneself that?

He reminds me in some ways of Quentin Tarentino. He knows he is doing bad, frames it as doing good, and loves the attention heaped upon him.

Or like a kid looking over and stealing a test answer while the teach's back is turned.

Or somewhere in the middle.

But I see no difference between leak and leak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:04 PM

10. Well the Guardian is not part of the US press either...

...but I hear no hue and cry to arrest their editors.

No, YOU did not bring the NY Times into the argument. I did since it directly applies to your argument. As such it is most certainly not a straw man. You talked about people who aid and abet a crime even if they did not themselves participate. One could argue that any organization that published the leaks in question are aiding and abetting the crime, namely, the original leak. But our laws regarding the free press make that argument null and void.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you reference threats, blackmail, psychological blackmail, and terrorism... Care to clarify? Because just saying he engages in such, without providing examples, is simply a drive by smear.

Does anyone call him a journalist?

Julian Assange wins Martha Gellhorn journalism prize

WikiLeaks founder praised as 'brave, determined, independent' by judges

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/02/julian-assange-martha-gelhorn-prize

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has won the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism.

The annual prize is awarded to a journalist "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel', as Martha Gellhorn called it".

"WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it's much more. Its goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism," Martha Gellhorn prize judges said in their citation.

"WikiLeaks has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine: a truth-telling that has empowered people all over the world. As publisher and editor, Julian Assange represents that which journalists once prided themselves in – he's brave, determined, independent: a true agent of people not of power."


Also see

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/28/walkley-awards-decide-julian-assange-is-a-journalist/

Walkley Awards decide Julian Assange is a journalist

So what is the core of the practice (of journalism)? First, it is finding things out and telling people about them. Assange qualifies, and then some.

Second, it is commitment to factual accuracy and verification. Again, Assange qualifies. Nobody has claimed that the material he released was not what he said it was.

Third, it is, at least sometimes, editing, curating and verifying. Assange has done some of this, and organised for more to be done through his relationship with media partners. Barbara Gunnell, the UK journalist, wrote in Griffith Review how WikiLeaks provided an edited movie — “Collateral Murder” — as part of its initial Iraqi related release and the raw footage, so viewers could assess the integrity of the editing.

Lastly, and certainly implied if ethical standards are to be taken as part of the accreditation of journalism, there is an ideology, or a vibe — a belief in transparency, and in the democratic effect of sharing information.

WikiLeaks qualifies.


So JA / WikiLeaks have won two journalism awards in Australia. Clearly there are many in the profession who consider him to be a journalist.

Whether you "look well" on him or not is really not relevant, except insofar as it demonstrates your preconceived position on the matter. It appears that you are not amenable to debate on this topic. That is to say, nothing I or anyone else brings up will ever change your entrenched position. Fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but your arguments in support of your position are flimsy to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:36 AM

8. 'Hunky blonde bombshell'

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread