Julian Assange slaps $20 million fine on leakers

Originally posted by Maxmars
Frankly, I am a bit unclear on the source of our disagreement, which I can only infer from the discussion.

Oh, sorry. It was this part.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Except for the part where they determine they 'own' the information leaked to them.

Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'

Claiming a legal right to own merely gives them the right to prosecute those who sell it or redistribute it. If they DONT claim ownership, any volunteer can do whatever they want with what goes through their hands. Including leaking something Wikileaks is refusing to leak because they are trying to avoid liability or public outcry for possible deaths of soldiers or agents. (Which has been an ongoing criticism of their leaking info, that it can cause the deaths of soldiers and agents. So far, they have managed to avoid doing so, and Im sure you can see why it is pretty important to their cause that they continue to not be held responsible for the deaths of soldiers and agents.)

Originally posted by Maxmars
My reason for interest in the article was the fact that apparently, prior to this point, the organization had no such non-disclosure agreements in place; lending credence to the altruistic nature of the endeavor.

Which is why I pointed out that ATS has also evolved defensive measures over time. In the beginning, when something is small, it isnt always possible to predict what you will and will not need in terms of legal protections. Its just not suspicious that as things have changed, within and without the organization, they are changing how they protect themselves legally. As your opponents strategy evolves, so must yours.

Originally posted by Maxmars

Now it is clear that this is a business.

Its clear that it is set up to take advantage of the protections afforded to businesses. They have said that all along. It was, I thought, one of the most brilliant parts of their strategy.

Originally posted by Maxmars
When commerce enters the picture it seems reasonable to assume that some organizations would be willing to pay more than advertisers for their information NOT to be released..... in the old days we called that blackmail.

This I cant agree with. I see no evidence that they are pursuing profit for profits sake alone. Therefore, I see no evidence that leads me to believe they are accepting bribes to withhold information that has been leaked to them. It COULD be the case, but nothing here really supports that. And like I pointed out, everything you are arguing about Wikileaks can apply to ATS even more so.

reply to post by tristar


No thank you. I dont use music to form my world view.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by tristar

 

No thank you.

I dont use music to form my world view.

You know, music is another form of exchanging algorithms.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Maxmars
When commerce enters the picture it seems reasonable to assume that some organizations would be willing to pay more than advertisers for their information NOT to be released..... in the old days we called that blackmail.

This I cant agree with. I see no evidence that they are pursuing profit for profits sake alone. Therefore, I see no evidence that leads me to believe they are accepting bribes to withhold information that has been leaked to them. It COULD be the case, but nothing here really supports that. And like I pointed out, everything you are arguing about Wikileaks can apply to ATS even more so.

I see now. Understood, and I certainly respect the perspective. As for the latter I agree there is no evidence that such a thing has happened; not to mince words, I never said it did, nor have you stated that I did. I understand the need for amplification though, since hyperbole is a dangerous thing.

I can't envision how it could happen on ATS, but that doesn't mean it couldn't. I suppose if a member in particular became embroiled in such a thing, but then, ATS would be only one choice among many for 'exposure' and that choice would entail more than a sense of community to moderate it.

Thanks for the conversation.

oh that was a good move...i enjoyed the google denial service

Originally posted by Maxmars
I understand the need for amplification though, since hyperbole is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. I agree.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I can't envision how it could happen on ATS, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

Well, virtually every argument made against Wikileaks is also floated here at times and on other conspiracy sites. That ATS is a CIA honeypot, a disinfo source, that they suppress real information, etc. I agree they dont need an NDA, because the posters own their own posts, in terms of liability, but ATS is not exempt from some of the problems Wikileaks has in terms of credibility.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Thanks for the conversation.

And thank you. I always like to discuss things with rational, open minds.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by Maxmars
I understand the need for amplification though, since hyperbole is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. I agree.

Originally posted by Maxmars
I can't envision how it could happen on ATS, but that doesn't mean it couldn't.

Well, virtually every argument made against Wikileaks is also floated here at times and on other conspiracy sites. That ATS is a CIA honeypot, a disinfo source, that they suppress real information, etc. I agree they dont need an NDA, because the posters own their own posts, in terms of liability, but ATS is not exempt from some of the problems Wikileaks has in terms of credibility.

Originally posted by Maxmars
Thanks for the conversation.

And thank you. I always like to discuss things with rational, open minds.

So i guess when the reverse procedure is used, i surely hope you don't cry wolf or agent ..! , just so we are clear.

reply to post by tristar


I have no idea what you are talking about. If the evidence for either website stacks differently at any point in time I absolutely reserve the right to shift my opinion. A stronger case can be made for Wikileaks legitimacy at this point in time than ATS's. Wikileaks is not an "entertainment" website, it verifies its info, and any nut who makes a claim is not free to post it unsupported there, unlike here.

Not that I am saying ATS is a honey pot, but it sure isnt Wikileaks either.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by tristar

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. If the evidence for either website stacks differently at any point in time I absolutely reserve the right to shift my opinion. A stronger case can be made for Wikileaks legitimacy at this point in time than ATS's. Wikileaks is not an "entertainment" website, it verifies its info, and any nut who makes a claim is not free to post it unsupported there, unlike here.

Not that I am saying ATS is a honey pot, but it sure isnt Wikileaks either.

I am not referring to ats, ats is public site for entertainment as you pointed out, although i am pointing out the methods used to obtain material that was obtained with methods that have been considered as a breach of national security on multiple levels. Simply pointing out the obvious here without being hostile.

Originally posted by tristar

I am not referring to ats, ats is public site for entertainment as you pointed out, although i am pointing out the methods used to obtain material that was obtained with methods that have been considered as a breach of national security on multiple levels.

Wikileaks isnt an American site. They are not in any way obligated to preserve our national security. And if they were leaking information about a nation about to attack us, and violating THEIR national security, I doubt we would be complaining much. Just like we dont complain much when we attack nations doing nothing to us, but complain loudly if anyone does it to us.

Wikileaks doesnt go in and acquire the info. Its merely a place concerned people from various nations can leak info they think the world should have. We cry "national security" for all kinds of reasons that make no sense, and the reason people support Wikileaks is because they have taken the cry for national security to the level that it is in fact just a way to do what they want behind our backs with impunity.

"National Security" should be reserved for just that. Issues that put our entire nation at real risk. It should not be used as a screen for back door dealing that serves only the economic and political interests of the few by hiding the truth from the many.