wiki wikiwa wikileaks

[0kult13]

[bayonetbrant]

^  here's your difference:


Assange: exposes stolen private information that was gathered by hackers illegally breaking into accounts

Zuckerberg: exposes information you have authorized to provide in return for a service for which you pay no money

One is legal, one is not.

One is a villain because he broke the law.

[Jarhead0331]

^  here's your difference:


Assange: exposes stolen private information that was gathered by hackers illegally breaking into accounts

Don't forget, he also exposes classified information obtained through acts of high treason.

One is a villain because he broke the law.

...and through his criminal activities, he risks the lives of thousands.

[0kult13]

A crime exposed either legally or illegally is still a crime exposed, i believe the goldman sachs files are next.  ;D

Of course classified information is exposed , would not be much of a leak site if it was not. Wikileaks are given data to leak they dont get it themselfs.

And what of the crimes exposed in the leaks why are they not investigated. A good example is climategate, where the scientist where caught falsifying data to back the need for a green tax and all the other nonsense elements of the governments where up to with global warming, or climate change as they call it now. 

[bayonetbrant]

List the crimes exposed.  Cite the specific act, the specific law they broke, and the specific person (by name!) who broke the law.
Not a law you *think* should be a law.
Not poor judgment.
Not some random "guys in ___ unit."

List the person's name, the act they took, and the law it broke.

[0kult13]

List the crimes exposed.  Cite the specific act, the specific law they broke, and the specific person (by name!) who broke the law.
Not a law you *think* should be a law.
Not poor judgment.
Not some random "guys in ___ unit."

List the person's name, the act they took, and the law it broke.

Its stratfor dont think they organise in units as such, but i will look around for lists but they only leaked yesterday.

[LongBlade]

List the crimes exposed.  Cite the specific act, the specific law they broke, and the specific person (by name!) who broke the law.
Not a law you *think* should be a law.
Not poor judgment.
Not some random "guys in ___ unit."

List the person's name, the act they took, and the law it broke.

Its stratfor dont think they organise in units as such, but i will look around for lists but they only leaked yesterday.

Please do.

[0kult13]

Not some random "guys in ___ unit."
ahh you mean from the iraq leak ages ago, well i can name one who was part of that, still to be convicted mind..






bradly maning 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division  ;)

[bayonetbrant]

...  still waiting  ...

[0kult13]

Its a tricky one, some of the examples googled dont fall into your rather stringent criteria and citing any of them here i think would be akin to a chicken floating into a samurai bar on a helium balloon. Short lived and messy.

[LongBlade]

Well, if by "stringent criteria" you mean "actually breaking the law" then I guess we're all on the same page.

[bayonetbrant]

You said both

A crime exposed either legally or illegally is still a crime exposed

and

And what of the crimes exposed in the leaks why are they not investigated.

I am challenging you to list the crimes exposed.

If there is a crime, it is because a specific law was broken.
Name the law, and name the person that broke the law.

If you cannot definitively say that "x" law was broken, by "v" person then you shouldn't be talking about crimes being exposed.

Assange published stolen classified information.  That is a crime.  There is some speculation that he paid for some of what he published.  That is also a crime.

Zuckerberg did not steal information, and has not (AFAWK) committed any crimes.  Neither did Stratfor.  But I think we're all pretty sure Anonymous did in stealing private information from Stratfor.

So unless you're prepared to go to bat with the crimes you think were exposed, then spouting off-the-cuff quasi-radical talking points like "A crime exposed either legally or illegally is still a crime exposed" characterize you as someone with a lot of hot-air rhetoric, and very little grounding in reality with which to back it up.

[Jarhead0331]

^Okult's problem is that he is talking about corporate crime.  He doesn't really care about the lives that have been jeopardize by the theft of classified government and military information.

Unfortunately for him, capitalism = corporate crime...so, in his world, anytime someone profits, it is at the detriment of somebody else and therefore, a crime has been committed.  "Crime" is defined very loosely by Okult and his ilk, because they don't really care about, understand or abide by the actual "law."

[0kult13]

"And what of the crimes exposed in the leaks why are they not investigated." granted worded wrong  :-[ , exchange crimes for greedy corruption.  I'm sure the shady goings on in stratfor will take time for a picture to emerge but it is the goldman sachs ones i look forward to. 

"Unfortunately for him, capitalism = corporate crime...so, in his world, anytime someone profits it is at the detriment of somebody else and therefore, a crime has been committed." not true, i do share trade (hot tip energi oil) I love the ideal of capitalism.
But its the evil spread from fractional reserve banking, the twisted corrupt, to big to fail white shoe boys of global banking which buys the people who decide the actual law, that create wars to control whole populations through debt. The banksters who really do profit at the detriment of everybody else are the "crimes" i mean.   

[Gusington]

 :o