Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
How long before the contents of the New Zealand Police computing system is lodged onto Wikileaks? The confidential records of WINZ or the IRD or of the DHB’s uploaded by an anonymous employee, motives unknown? It will happen, it is only a matter of by who and when.
And then The People will rise up and say "We've had enough, Mr. Man", but only when they've had their fill, if ever, of perusing everyone else's no-longer-private details.
-
Assange calls what he's doing "Scientific Journalism". All we need is scientific journalsim to solve all the worlds problems. Just like Scientific Materialism solved all our problems.
Assange is another person who believes that if one has the Correct Information on an issue then there can only be one correct opinion on that issue and every other one must be due to nefarious influences.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I’ll just duck over and get the details of my elderly neighbour’s series of bowel ops, though from the number of times he’s attempted to corner me with the saga I should have the whole thing down pat by now. He’ll be rapt to know it’s going on line without having to wait for some hacker to get around to uploading the entire DHB archives. Let’s all spill our guts before they do it for us. Liberation from within, rather than wait to be liberated from without, as Che (not you, Tibby) used to say.
-
O. M. F. G. Has Naomi Wolfe read her first book recently -- apparently not. Don't know what bingo card to pull out: Sex Crime Enabling or WMCA Privilege.
-
If people bothered to read what it is that wikileaks [ [http://wikileaks.ch/about.html| publishes] ], before vomiting their ignorant claptrap across the net, they would discover that WINZ records, police gazettes and all the other exagerations which the enablers of crooked politicians can come up, with would never be published since it doesn't meet their criteria. Criteria which imo are far more rigorous than the average fishwrap, which are often more than happy to find a dog whistle method of engaging human prejudices when it suits.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Are you planning to introduce your point to the group at any time?
-
I think his point is "I think my argument is so powerful that it's not necessary to talk about it."
-
James George, in reply to
According to HORansome pointing out the similarities of the flaws which the same sad brown-noses to power that defend the abuses of the powerful use to attack Mr Assange, is engaging in conspiracy theory.
I can’t wait until he refers to a post “as being all PC” or is that too last week even for him?
Perhaps Ransome never heard of Adam Smith's theory of the invisible hand?
Blog owners who chose to defend the powerful in the knowledge that doing so will endear them to the powerful don't need to conspire with anyone to come out in harmony with all the other sucks.
There are only a limited number of ways that attacks on Assange can be spun, and spun they will be because in the world of quid pro quo where 'opinion leaders' who base their profile on support of the status quo, depend on one another to keep each other’s profile 'out there', so as to remain opinion leaders. Not simply opinion leaders but ‘responsible opinion leaders' whose point of view is likely to be repeated in the major media outlets with a link, byline or reference, because they are 'responsible'.So all the usual apologists for power discovering they understand how awful rape is and that the things men accused of rape say can be made to appear weaselly no matter what they say or do, is no different than all the local dairy owners getting many more bunches of roses in on the second week in February than they do any other week of the year.
They didn't have to sit down with all the other dairy owners and plan to all have lots of roses, each individually perceived there would be a demand for the smelly things come Valentines Day because people would want flowers on that day as they always do, & there are only a limited species of flowers that always sell. So roses were ordered up by the dairy owner whether or not the other dairies did the same. Of course the other dairy owners/ 'opinion makers' did the same because they too knew the commodity would sell well too.
This is how opinion slanted information gets about in 2010. It doesn't require whispering or backroom deals, as so-called new media has evolved, self-interest by ambitious people creates the model without too many boring hook-ups with other flabby halitosis sufferers.
Of course various sock puppet representatives of large interests push talking points, embassies big corporations and the like, that is one of the things WikiLeaks has demonstrated time and time again over the years.
That wasn’t what I was addressing in that post, I was commenting on the awful sameness of the arguments those unoriginal thinkers posing as community activists or whatever usually present. -
So all the usual apologists for power discovering they understand how awful rape is and that the things men accused of rape say can be made to appear weaselly no matter what they say or do, is no different than all the local dairy owners getting many more bunches of roses in on the second week in February than they do any other week of the year.
Thanks for that. It's a lesson no one will ever forget.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I'd have thought James was making an obvious point. If someone sent a set of patient records or the WINZ client database to Wikileaks, they'd refuse to publish them, because they are not material of ethical, political and historical significance.
Which refutes the suggestions made upthread that Wikileaks *would* publish such data.
Deliberately pretending that somebody is posting non-sequiturs comes close to bullying in my book.
-
, they'd refuse to publish them, because they are not material of ethical, political and historical significance.
wikileaks can guarantee that all 250,000 cables fall into that category? And who decides what private correspondence is of such ethical, political and historical significance that that privacy should be breached?
were there really 250,000 grotesque injustices that demanded such action?
-
Tim Hannah, in reply to
If the comment made that obvious point without gratuitously tossing out such pearlers as "vomiting their ignorant claptrap" and wasn't part of a string of posts which show a certain pattern, I'd agree with you.
-
I'm mortified that the irony in my last post (several aeons ago) flew straight over RB's head - I was trying to be cleverly snide about the continuing attention paid to one man and his genitals rather than the political fallout of events ... however I was also highly amused that RB then went on to contribute yet more huge slabs of prurient comment.
Unlike everyone else it seems I think Naomi Wolf DID hit the nail on the head as well as being very funny. Perhaps her angry irony whizzed past as well:-
"Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone -- there is an entire fraternity at the University of Texas you need to arrest immediately..." -
I can't say for sure that Wikileaks wouldn't publish WINZ records, but the goal of their organisation is nothing to do with government privacy as regards the state and the individual citizen, but government privacy as regards the state keeping its activities secrets from the citizens that fund it. So I can't see how they'd justify leaking, say, the welfare records of private citizens. I'd also point out that the New Zealand media has done just that several times in the last year.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I was trying to be cleverly snide about the continuing attention paid to one man and his genitals rather than the political fallout of events …
And here was me thinking you were failing to be as clever as you think you are about sexual abuse of women, and winning the Oscar for best performance as a twatcock in a public forum.
Thanks for clearing that up. Here’s a nice, shiny Rape Apologist Bingo Card to be “cleverly snide” about. You and Ms Wolfe also need a refresher course in Advanced Slut-Shaming (Passive-Aggressive Privilege Division), but I can't be bothered.
-
Unlike everyone else it seems I think Naomi Wolf DID hit the nail on the head as well as being very funny. Perhaps her angry irony whizzed past as well:-
Oh, mate, that wasn’t even the best bit. The bit where she explained that the rape allegations weren’t even a political hitjob but actually the hysterical inventions of a couple of slappers who were totally up for it and only got angry cos he didn’t pay them enough attention? That bit? Fucking hilarious.
-
How much does the government know about you or me? What do government records really have to say about you or me? We don't know, or rather we didn't until Wikileaks came along.
You just have to write them a letter and request a copy of your file under the Privacy Act. But if that doesn't suit your thesis...
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
"Waaah - shut up stupid poopy ca-ca head." That an accurate summary?
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
yeah, i've worked with government data and records for a few years now.
the first thing to note is that there is no, "file on citizen X". you'd need to compile that information from a range of highly uncooperative agencies, all of whom are extremely cognizant of the Privacy Act (although the paranoid in me says the SIS or whoever the hell could likely get this stuff. the question is whether they're in fact smart enough to know what to do with it. i leave you to answer that one).
second, most of your and my data is trivial in the extreme.
third, what data i've seen is usually anonymised (income data in the LEED dataset for example). if i tried really really hard, using some pretty big deductive leaps, i *might* be able to work out something like "John Key's income". but the effort required would be both tedious and time-consuming.
now, an agency releasing data to discredit me or anotherindividual? as you rightly point out...
finally, none of this is anything like the stuff wikileaks wants to release. for example, the income and perks of elected officials spending public money. or, any and all of the information you and i have access to via the OIA.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
Liberation from within, rather than wait to be liberated from without, as Che (not you, Tibby) used to say.
speaking of womanisers... (and murderers.)
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I’d have thought James was making an obvious point. If someone sent a set of patient records or the WINZ client database to Wikileaks, they’d refuse to publish them, because they are not material of ethical, political and historical significance.
Which refutes the suggestions made upthread that Wikileaks *would* publish such data.
Wikileaks did publish Wesley Snipes' tax returns (and while he's a rather peculiar tax cheat I fail to see the "significance" of their publication), so pardon me if I'm every so slightly sceptical that they'd never ever publish personal data.
-
the first thing to note is that there is no, “file on citizen X”
But you would say that, wouldn't you. Hope you're putting in for time off in lieu.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
weirdly, after i typed that, someone called and asked if i enjoyed gardening...
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
weirdly, after i typed that, someone called and asked if i enjoyed gardening...
Like that's classified information.
-
<che writes "the italian knows too much” in his book>
Post your response…
This topic is closed.