There has been something missing from Sharenator recently: angry, heated, thrusting debate that lets you release your aggression and leaves you feeling exhausted and needing a cigarette after. There's been endless stuff on 4chan recently but nothing here. So come on Sharenators, where do you stand on Assange? Hero or villain? Shoot him or shake his hand?

julian assange 470 1008

  • Ruleb
  • December 9, 2010, 12:27 am
You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 8

    anonymous has gotten behind him there is an article in the major newspaper of my city that says anonymous has hacked visa mastercard and a bunch of politicians websites bloggers have said franz ferdinand has just been killed ( reffering to wikileaks founder being arrested) and they think its the start of the first internet world war...we may be looking at something big here people authorities have got involved its crazy

  • 7

    There are basically two sides to this coin.

    1. They are helping the world to evolve. Freedom of information is a right, and when your government breaks it's own laws, the people have a right to know about it.

    2. They are threatening the safety of citizens by giving out confidential information that could possibly be used to extend or even start new conflicts.

    The biggest problem with Wikileaks is that the amount of information being leaked is biased toward the countries that police the world. I am still waiting to see them leak something about Al Qaeda, that we can use to our advantage.

    • Albane
    • December 9, 2010, 6:17 am
    And if somebody from Al Quaeda gave them information who says they wouldn't? You realize of course it's called Wikileaks, not Wikistolens?
    - Ruleb December 9, 2010, 6:52 am
    This "bias" occurs only because the same countries that allow a freedom of information are going to be able to foster these "whistle blowers". In a free country you may face consequences to leaking this kind of information, but you would still be able to do it. If you did it in a place like China where there are no privacy laws, it would be much easier for the government to find out who did it. Then they would be arrested then sent to a labor camp or simply executed.

    Free governments tolerate this sort of a freedom of information because they are usually based on the philosophy that the government is not always right, or that the voters need to be adequatly informed to make proper decisions.

    Again, I am fine with this so long as they do not put specific enough information that would endanger the lives of informants or witnesses. Unfortunatly, Wikileaks has not been very carefull about that, while they haven't released names, they have released detailed physical discriptions in addition to where some of these informants live. They have also released specific infastructure data that details every weakness in things like natural gas pipelines.

    The very least they should have done is released the general information to the public, but specifics that could be harmful in the hands of the enemy should have been sent to congressmen or other internal government agencies. That way everyone knows what's going on, no ones lives are put under increased risk, and Wikileaks wouldn't be considered illegal. Granted, even if they did do that perfectly there would still be some politition somewhere claiming that it was treason, but they would be one of those wing-nut ones nobody important really pays attention to.
    - BobTheJanitor December 9, 2010, 9:50 am
    I agree completely about the bias, although i think some leaks were made with regard to China, something about them favoring a united Korea, although obviously not to the same extent as the U.S leaks.

    As for the responsible reporting, these are the early days of a new phenomenon, and it isn't going to be perfect from the beginning. But Wikileaks has arisen in response to a need. If the existing media were more forthright in pursuing this kind of information, and reporting it, that need might not exist and we might get, as you say, the general information without the dangerous details. Would the Pvt. who gave the info to a foreign-run website have done so if he felt he could have handed it to a domestic media source who would be willing to safely make it public?

    There was an article recently in the UK in the Independent newspaper which claimed that Wikileaks is doing what the news media should be, but that too often editors were willing to blindly follow what they're told they can and can't publish when summoned to a 'D-Notice' briefing with the security services about an issue of national security, being blinded by the feeling of importance it gives them and not questioning what they're told.
    - Ruleb December 9, 2010, 1:13 pm
    That's a fair point, the current media really only cares about making money through ratings. Thats why Tiger woods' affairs were covered more than the situations overseas. Still, dispite these "growing pains" Wikileaks could -and should- have been alot more carefull about handling the kind of sensitive information that puts the lives of actual people at risk.

    Come to think of it, I do remember there being a couple of communications about China's relationship with N. Korea. Something along the lines of China viewing them as acting like a spoiled child.
    - BobTheJanitor December 10, 2010, 4:10 am
    "I am still waiting to see them leak something about Al Qaeda, that we can use to our advantage."

    1) What do you mean by "for our advantage"?

    2) What if Al-Qaeda isn't real and it's just a decoy created by the U.S. government to cover up some of the things we shouldn't know about?

    3) I'd consider my country's faults before looking at those of others.
    - mostafagalal December 10, 2010, 2:48 pm
  • 4

    Brave man, too brave

    • xdvx
    • December 9, 2010, 12:42 am
  • 2

    i've only heard the edges about this something about essentially blackmailing the world right?

    edit* wikipedia to the rescue, i think that while its good that these people are trying to get the word out of government acts that are wrong at the same time some things that need to be done are kept secret im not supporting alot of the in humane acts but keeping a country safe occasionally means stepping over the line, of course we need things like wikileaks to make sure that it is not too over the line and that it doesnt happen to often

  • 2

    Shoot him, the shit that he leaks is shit that is NOT supposed to be seen by the public for a reason. "The people have a right to know." This sentence comes up all too often and it's nothing more than an access to circumvent national security so you can know all the silly things the government does behind your back. It's obviously no secret that the government does things behind your back, but that doesn't mean that we need to go digging through and exploiting them for it. If half the shit the government does was made public, I'm sure that the American society would be afraid to walk outside just because of the things that the government is and is capable of doing. Wikileaks isn't helping the public, its only exposing things that is kept secret from the public for that reason. Would you want to know if some country was planning on attacking the U.S.? No, you wouldn't, because then you'd be afraid that something will happen. So the government simply keeps it secret so that way you can go about your daily lives in an oblivious state of mind like always.

    • Disco
    • December 9, 2010, 9:58 am
    I'd rather be a terrified informed person than a happy sheep.
    - Ertrov December 9, 2010, 4:36 pm
    - Jackylegs December 9, 2010, 8:59 pm
  • 2

    In my opinion, he's not doing this to change the world, he's just another narcissist who rose to fame by making lives harder for others. Some of the documents, like the Iraq war dairies, had a good reason for being shown, as the military has a way of underestimating the amount of civilian life destroyed. Otherwise he appears to be the major benefactor in the releasing of those documents. And now he's holding the US government hostage with the rest of the documents, which he will release if he is arrested, even by the Swedish.

    Think you meant beneficiary instead of benefactor, that confused me for a second.

    And I lol at the idea of the poor little, helpless U.S government being 'held hostage' by big bad Assange. That's quite some spin. There's an 'insurance file' that some have speculated may contain information to be released if anything happens to him or the website, if it even contains anything at all. And who can blame him when the state department already advised paypal to shut them down because wikileaks was illegal (bring some charges then), commentators like Glenn Beck are saying what he's doing is probably treason (despite him being an Aussie), and Sarah Palin is screetching that he should be hunted like Bin Laden (he's quite safe then).

    Also he was already arrested a few days ago. He handed himself in to the British police in regards to the charges in Sweden.
    - Ruleb December 10, 2010, 4:22 am
  • 1

    The only issue I have with what they do is when they give out specific information regarding witnesses or informants that could threaten their lives and reduce the chance that people will be willing to help us in the future.

    Personally, I just hope they don't get shut down before they leak the internal communications of several of the worlds large banks. That will be fun to see.

    Yeah, that stuff does need to be a secret. The rest is nice to know though lol
    - Ertrov December 9, 2010, 4:37 pm
  • 1

    I just found out that "Anonymous" actually crashed the websites of several donation agencies that have refused to process donations for Wikileaks. Apparently a couple of hackers were able to remotely use hundreds of other people's computers without their knowlege as a "Zombie Army"(I shit you not, those are the exact words of the reporter) to send a huge amount of messages to the wesites. The sites couldn't handle the traffic and they either ran slowly or crashed all together.

    i would gladly be a part of that Zombie Army
    - cary139 December 9, 2010, 4:09 pm
    Flawless victory.
    - Ertrov December 9, 2010, 4:37 pm
  • 1

    I'd shake his hand.

  • 1

    One of my biggest pet peeves is people not telling me things, so I love wikileaks.

    • Ertrov
    • December 9, 2010, 1:22 pm
  • 1

    There is a reason shit is classified. Sure the government might be shady, what government isn't? (dare you to tell me your government isn't shady). The point is, what he released put the lives of men and women across the WORLD in danger. Releasing classified locations of assets that could be severely damaging to National Security? Imagine if a terrorist picked that list up (no doubt they already have), and imagine the consequences. That PFC that leaked the documents deserves to be in Leavenworth prison now, and he deserves to be tried for treason and espionage. Assange, he's an egotistical prick that is also, in my view, a terrorist. A cyber terrorist, the first of a new breed, spreading chaos and using an AMERICAN RIGHT (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) as grounds for what he is doing. People need to realize that the world isnt a strawberry meadow with sunshine and rainbows. A lot of shady shit goes on. Thats why the government does a lot of things (legal or illegal) to ensure that we all get to enjoy our freedoms to do shit like debating about wikileaks. There are things that a government must do to protect its people, they aren't pretty, they arent nice, but they must be done.

    Just my two cents...

    Hey to the downraters, haters gonna hate ;)
    - WRAPPEDinBACON December 10, 2010, 2:28 pm
  • 1

    i have mixed feelings on the matter because on one have i want to kick his teeth in for leaking documents about operations in the middle east and on the other hand i want to thank him for other documents that were enlightening

  • 1

    im an IT for the united states navy, i work with systems and documents that no one would have any idea what i was talking about if i really started pouring into it. what you all have to understand is that that pvt. broke one of the top essential information dominance rules-sabotage. pure and simple.

    YES, i see the other side of the fence. if i was a civilian i would want to know where my money was going, the real reason taxes were raised, and why there were military ships riding along my shores.

    BUT, at the same time, you all have to understand that like previously stated, there are MEANS of getting our information. MEANS which dont need to be known because that in itself could start a conflict. SAFETY is PARAMOUNT.

    you pick up a squishy substance on a plate full of food, and eat it out of curiosity. its delicious! do you really need to know how it got there? do you need to know that its squid? no. not really. so does the end justify the means when you have millions of people in a large area, such as a country, when you have other countries trying to break YOUR country down?

    me, with where and what i work with, believe, that keeping secrets from the american people is alright. i mean, we cant even decide if we want gays to marry! how the FUCK do you think we are gonna be able to sit down with all of america with all of its free opinions (which those very secrets uphold) and come up with a solution to help a 4 team squad of SEALS in iraq? cmon now, be logical.

  • 1

    So could someone please explain to me what wikileaks is, or at least put up a link for something that explains this whole post?

    Sorry I should have done that at the start. I'll put it here and there now.
    - Ruleb December 10, 2010, 1:03 am
    - Jackylegs December 10, 2010, 1:37 am
  • 1

    I approve

    • peace
    • July 19, 2011, 12:48 pm
Related Posts