Venom Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Nije te sramota da cinicno poredis prave novinare sa Asanzom? Ocekivano - sve je to isto. Po citatu iz SZ, ispada da je Pacov kriv zato sto je Manning u zatvoru, a dzelati sa snimka koje je Manning objavio na slobodi. I onda ces ti nesto o sramoti. I btw, zena koja je ubijena nema veze sa objavljenim Panama Papers, nego se bavila time u kontekstu korupcije na Malti. Umesto sto su je ubili, bilo bi svakako bolje da su joj nasli da zlostavlja decu itsl. Link to comment
Anduril Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 Andurile, ne seri, Venoma nema šta da bude sramota, treba da bude sramota one koji su nazvavši Asanža pacovom priželjkivali da on doživi istu sudbinu kao i ova nesrećna i hrabra žena. Ako kažeš da je neko pacov onda za tom štetočinom ne treba žaliti, njegov život, njegova sloboda i njegova prava su bezvredni. Već si mu nacrtao metu na leđima. A Asanžu su nacrtane mnoge mete, mnogi bi želeli da ga nema. Zato troskok... Gde sam ja ikada Asanza ili bilo koga nazvao pacovom? Lazes po obicaju. Tema nije Asanz nego cinicno poredjenje njega, koji zbog lenjosti ili zlobe objavljuje privatne podatke ljudi, sa pravim novinarima koji profesionalno shvataju svoj posao i prvo provere sta objavljuju. No, ne cudi da ne shvatas razliku - sve se to, zajedno sa troskokom, slaze u siri kontekst. Uzivaj. Link to comment
Eraserhead Posted October 17, 2017 Share Posted October 17, 2017 (edited) Ja sam ga nazvao. Ova zena je otkrila nesto stvarno i zato je mrtva a on nije nikakav novinar vec jedno malo govno zeljno paznje. No forum trpi svakakav nitkovluk pa tako i ovu igrariju i poredjenje. Sledece je da se DJ Vucicevic uporedi sa njom. Edited October 17, 2017 by Eraserhead Link to comment
Venom Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Otkrio je npr. ovo Naravno, neki od nas nemaju vremena da se fokusiraju na takve stvari; previse su zauzeti istragom o nenavlacenju kondoma, brojanjem intervjua na RT-u, i ostalim krucijalnim stvarima od kojih zivot zavisi. Link to comment
dillinger Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Pa to ne valja što je uradio, kako ono beše, izložio je opasnosti toliki broj US operativaca diljem ME. Link to comment
Venom Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Naravno, naravno. Uvek zaboravim na tu cinjenicu da je to sto ce neko mozda da strada daleko vaznije od toga sto je neko stradao. Link to comment
pacey defender Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 (edited) Asanž je trebalo drugačije da objavi informacije baš zbog zaštite nečijih identiteta. Ali to ne menja činjenicu da je objavio neke bitne stvari koje su vlasti neopravdano skrivale jer su znale da su kompromitujuće. Još važnije - njegov tretman i naročito tretman Maninga bio je flagrantno kršenje prava. Tako da, moj koordinatni sistem kaže da je bavljenje Asanžovim karakternim osobinama i motivima manje bitno od toga kako postupaju institucije i ljudi koji na pozicijama koji odlučuju o tuđim životima. No, tu očigledno nemamo svi saglasnost. Edited October 18, 2017 by pacey defender Link to comment
Anduril Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Maning, Snouden i mnogi drugi su carevi a Asanz je nesto sasvim drugo. To sto ima svoje fenove koji misle da brane nesto kad brane samo njega je neka druga, navijacka tema na koje smo vec navikli. Ja vise verujem recimo Snoudenu. In April 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted criticism of the Panama Papers, which had among other things revealed Russian businesses and individuals linked with offshore ties (Vladimir Putin's associates had as much as $2 billion in offshore accounts).[351][329] The WikiLeaks Twitter account tweeted, "#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID and [George] Soros".[21] Putin would later go on to dismiss the Panama Papers by citing Wikileaks: "WikiLeaks has showed us that official people and official organs of the U.S. are behind this.”[21] According to the New York Times, both Assange claims are substance-free: "there is no evidence suggesting that the United States government had a role in releasing the Panama Papers."[352] Assange also falsely asserted that the Panama Papers gave Western figures a free pass, when the leaks in fact reported on a number of high-profile Western politicians, including UK Prime Minister David Cameron.[329] In 2012 when WikiLeaks began to run out of funds, Assange began to host a television show on Russia Today, Russia's state-owned news network.[353] Assange has never disclosed how much he or WikiLeaks were paid for his tv-show.[353] Wikileaks has drawn criticism for violating the personal privacy of a multitude of individuals and inadequately curating its content. These critics include transparency advocates, such as Edward Snowden, the Sunlight Foundation and the Federation of American Scientists.[22] Wikileaks has published individuals' Social Security numbers, medical information, and credit card numbers.[23] An analysis by the Associated Press found that Wikileaks had in one of its mass-disclosures published "the personal information of hundreds of people — including sick children, rape victims and mental health patients".[23] Wikileaks has named teenage rape victims, and outed an individual arrested for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia.[23] Some of Wikileaks' cables "described patients with psychiatric conditions, seriously ill children or refugees".[23] An analysis of Wikileaks' Saudi cables "turned up more than 500 passport, identity, academic or employment files... three dozen records pertaining to family issues in the cables — including messages about marriages, divorces, missing children, elopements and custody battles. Many are very personal, like the marital certificates that reveal whether the bride was a virgin. Others deal with Saudis who are deeply in debt, including one man who says his wife stole his money. One divorce document details a male partner's infertility. Others identify the partners of women suffering from sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and Hepatitis C."[23] Two individuals named in the DNC leaks were targeted by identity thieves following Wikileaks' reveal of their Social Security and credit card information.[23] In its leak of DNC e-mails, Wikileaks revealed the details of an ordinary staffer's suicide attempt and brought attention to it through a tweet.[365][366] Wikileaks' publishing of Sony's hacked e-mails drew criticism for violating the privacy of Sony's employees and for failing to be in the public interest.[367][368] Michael A. Cohen, a fellow at the Century Foundation, argues that "data dumps like these represent a threat to our already shrinking zone of privacy."[367] He noted that the willingness of Wikileaks to publish information of this type encourages hacking and cybertheft: "With ready and willing amplifiers, what’s to deter the next cyberthief from stealing a company’s database of information and threatening to send it to Wikileaks if a list of demands aren't met?"[367] The Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for open government, has criticised Wikileaks for inadequate curation of its content and for "weaponised transparency," writing that with the DNC leaks, "Wikileaks again failed the due diligence review we expect of putatively journalistic entities when it published the personal information of ordinary citizens, including passport and Social Security numbers contained in the hacked emails of Democratic National Committee staff. We are not alone in raising ethical questions about Wikileaks' shift from whistleblower to platform for weaponised transparency. Any organisation that 'doxxes' a public is harming privacy."[369] The manner in which Wikileaks publishes content can have the effect of censoring political enemies: "Wikileaks' indiscriminate disclosure in this case is perhaps the closest we’ve seen in reality to the bogeyman projected by enemies to reform — that transparency is just a Trojan Horse for chilling speech and silencing political enemies."[369] In July 2016, Edward Snowden criticised Wikileaks for insufficiently curating its content.[24] When Snowden made data public, he did so by working with the Washington Post, the Guardian and other news organisations, choosing only to make documents public which exposed National Security Agency surveillance programs.[24] Content that compromised national security or exposed sensitive personal information was withheld.[24] Wikileaks, on the other hand, makes little effort to remove sensitive personal information or withhold content with adverse national security implications. Wikileaks responded by accusing Snowden of pandering to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.[24] Link to comment
Simon Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Изгледа да поједини овдје не схватају да су Assange, Snowden i нпр Manning жртвовали себе за више идеале. То су људи који су сами кренули против система због тога што то није систем у коме желе живјети. Они су данашња ријеткост јер су жртвовали своју слободу за опште добро и правда је за њих виши смисао живота. Сва тројица имају моје дубоко поштовање. Link to comment
iDemo Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Ovo vredi da se procita ko nije procitao a misli da zna sve sto moze civil da zna o Wikileaks-u... Snowden i Manning su jedna kategorija a Assange malo drugacija - on covek ima istoriju onoga sto posten svet zove 'attention seeker' i taj rad. Sto sam (lose) mislio o njemu ovaj gore DDB je samo potvrdio/overio. Decko mu je bio desna ruka i lice WL jedan lep period vremena... Link to comment
iDemo Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/daniel-domscheit-bergs-inside-wikileaks/2011/03/25/AFdc37jD_story.html?utm_term=.b836d65f5bff Once Domscheit-Berg began to challenge him, their friendship fell apart. “Do not challenge leadership in times of crisis” became Assange’s favorite slogan. Link to comment
iDemo Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Kako možete da me pitate za trafiku dok gori Hilandar”, čuvene su reči nekadašnjeg ministra unutrašnjih poslova Dragana Jočića... Link to comment
bradilko Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 Asanž je trebalo drugačije da objavi informacije baš zbog zaštite nečijih identiteta. Ali to ne menja činjenicu da je objavio neke bitne stvari koje su vlasti neopravdano skrivale jer su znale da su kompromitujuće. Još važnije - njegov tretman i naročito tretman Maninga bio je flagrantno kršenje prava. Tako da, moj koordinatni sistem kaže da je bavljenje Asanžovim karakternim osobinama i motivima manje bitno od toga kako postupaju institucije i ljudi koji na pozicijama koji odlučuju o tuđim životima. No, tu očigledno nemamo svi saglasnost. + milionposebno je hrabro i onako ljudski "kritikovati" asanža kojem se krše prava na jedan neverovatno bezočan i bezdušan način. ovi čuvari vetrova sa zapada ćute o ljudskim pravima jednog asanža. zašto li je to tako?zašto dvostruki aršini? Link to comment
Venom Posted October 18, 2017 Share Posted October 18, 2017 + milion posebno je hrabro i onako ljudski "kritikovati" asanža kojem se krše prava na jedan neverovatno bezočan i bezdušan način. ovi čuvari vetrova sa zapada ćute o ljudskim pravima jednog asanža. zašto li je to tako?zašto dvostruki aršini? Zato sto je attention whore, a zna se kako treba s takvima. Link to comment
Recommended Posts