R.I.P. WikiLeaks?

• Report this Comment On November 19, 2011, at 5:08 PM, whereaminow wrote:

  Anonymous has no affiliation to Wikileaks. What thy do is far beyond anyone's control, even Assange. There is nothing he, you, I, or BoA could ever do to control Anonymous.

  http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anonymous-101/

  This is best article I've ever read on Anonymous and the lulz. Please take a look, as it will open your eyes to what Wikileaks is actually dealing with. It's not about Wikileaks per se, it's about the lulz.

  Long cat is LOOOOOOOOOOOONG

  David

• Report this Comment On November 19, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Daniellesbian wrote:

  Straight up disinformation, guilt by NON-association by the (apparently) aptly named (in this case) "Motley Fool". WikiLeaks EXPLICITLY dissociated itself from the hacking chaos of Anonymous and has never even mentioned, to my knowledge, LulzSec. Furthermore, They have time and again made the point that they NEVER published anyone's "top secret" information -- unlike the well-vindicated Daniel Ellsberg.

  "Lie down with dogs, you'll wake up with fleas." ... 'Siding with WikiLeaks in this argument are two groups even shadier than Julian Assange's own organization. Last year, the loosely organized international hacking associations Anonymous and LulzSec rallied to WikiLeaks' cause, launching a series of hack-attacks against any and all companies thought to be infringing on WikiLeaks' "rights" to publish others' confidential and top-secret information.'

  Especially on the factual error of the classification level of the information they have published, PLEASE issue a correction, thank you.

• Report this Comment On November 20, 2011, at 2:48 AM, Daniellesbian wrote:

  p.s., just re-read it again: 'Honestly, I can't say I'm surprised that the banks are leery of WikiLeaks, considering the company it keeps.' -- after tales of Anonymous' capers. You need to retract this as well. As I also know about 3 year olds, you still need to learn how to take respoonsibility and to clean up the mess that you've made, i.e., this entire piece, pretty much.

• Report this Comment On November 20, 2011, at 4:41 AM, kritik1 wrote:

  What WL did was no different than most major media (the so called big newspapers). When major media gets its information to publish it verifies the authenticity of the source before it is published. WL did the same but since WL is small publisher not affiliated with the major media, it runs the risk to be over-run, run-over and trampled by everyone, especially the governments and large-businesses.

  The same story or stories if exposed by the big media it becomes legit, but when WL publishes it is called terrorist, rogue publisher, spy and a criminal, and so naturally with all the negative adjectives used it becomes so-called-illegal concern.

  When big media exposes organizations and anyone in the White House, the Defence Department, the Pentagon the same way WL does , the only difference is it does with immunity, but why give immunity to WL? Why not prosecute WL to the full extent of the law?. Also senselessly attach WL with LulZec and Anonymous although there is no truth there is a legit business alliance between the organizations.

  There is no truth in saying any activity from any government or organization is legit while all of the activities of WL is illegit. When is it ok to be the whistle blower for the government but not against it? Where did the new rules come from? ... About ok to side with everyone on one side, and to boycott WL on the other side. Guess what? there are tens of millions of genuinely die-hard supporters of JA, who refuse to stop supporting JA. Can anyone challenge this statement of loyalty? Can anyone come even close to the popularity of JA?

• Report this Comment On November 20, 2011, at 4:56 AM, kritik1 wrote:

  You can illegitimately put a gag-order and a gag-clause on Julian Assange, but that dont mean it is legal. And that dont mean it will stick forever.

  Newspapers and publishers are free to publish and expose those that have done wrong doing or those activities that have proved to be un-ethical provided ofcourse it can prove that the source document is legit in nature. WL did the same thing but its director runs the risk of being charged with prosecution.

  This is not "prosecution" of Julian Assange, this is "persecution" of Julian Assange.

  To me this is the biggest universal corruption of bandits, banding together to hide their shameful activities and permanently silence the legit whistle blower.

• Report this Comment On November 20, 2011, at 5:14 AM, PhotonsFeather wrote:

  Say, Mr Smith, are you going after Der Spiegel, Le Monde, the Guardian, or the New York Times - all of which published the cables?

  You can't have it both ways. Want to prosecute Assange and shut down WikiLeaks? Then surely you advocate prosecuting the editorial staff of the above papers, as well as shutting down the papers themselves.

  Sorry, Mr Smith, your argument doesn't stand up.

• Report this Comment On November 20, 2011, at 10:45 AM, TMFDitty wrote:

  @Daniellesbian: No offense, but your arguments are just plain silly. First off, I did not say Wikileaks published anything labeled "top secret." I said Anonymous attacked companies who dispute Wikileaks' "rights" to reveal their confidential and top secret information.

  Second, do you honestly believe that if a company stamped a document "top secret" instead of "secret" or "confidential" or anything else, this would protect it from being leaked? If it were as easy as that, Wikileaks would be put out of business tomorrow, with the purchase of a new rubber stamp. The label on the information is not important. The content of the information is what matters.

  And more generally, you're welcome to applaud Wikileaks' revelations. But the fact remains that a bank being threatened with such leaks, and harassed by Wikileaks' supporters, is not going to feel the same way, and is not going to want to facilitate the leak. The banks' reaction to the threat is perfectly understandable.

  TMFDitty

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2011, at 3:26 AM, AustinHook wrote:

  "Please be respectful with your comments. Review our Fool's Rules."

  I question if the spirit of respectfulness is illustrated when analogies are as lame as the one in Rick Smith's column about the three year old and the candy. Wikileaks is not asking for special treatment, just equal treatment by the candy holders, the banksters in this case. That makes the analogy so lame, and inapplicable, as to be disrespectful of the intelligence of the readers here. The real juvenile here is the columnist. Any mature writer would not push such childlike prose upon us.

• Report this Comment On November 21, 2011, at 12:24 PM, WikiCPA wrote:

  You fools need your coffee this monday morning. This article puts the truth out there. Here's another good idiom: "Dont' bite the hand that feeds you". I think that's what the author is trying to say. And his analogy makes it clear, does the infant child ever win in the household? Maybe, if he wasn't such a brat about it and acted more maturely. This is a war that Wikileaks started, in what world would you receive equal treatment when you badmouth the people you are appealing to?

  As for Lulzsec and Anonymous, just like occupy wall street, you drag some dirt on your shoes when you walk on a mission. Like the deadbeats and rapists, they may not be affiliated with you and they may not understand your mission, but the world sees you as one.

• Report this Comment On November 24, 2011, at 2:14 PM, pj356 wrote:

  I think the parent-child analogy at the end of the article is quite revealing of the author. Who among us has accepted a big bank as a parent that can "lay down the law?" I wonder if Mr. Smith really wanted to say that, with all its implications?

Add your comment.