whistleblowers: wikileaks, snowden i...

[Weenie Pooh]

jedam moj kolega, fox gledalac, ne znam da li je prosecan, verovatno ne, je danas ludovao kako treba da ostave asanza na miru jer nije nista lose uradio. mislim da ova hajka o izdaji i slicnim glupostima moze malo i da se vrati desnicarskim jastrebovima jer u ovom trenutku je anti-vasingtonsko raspolozenje jace od patriotizma kod dobrog dela fox populacije. tu se malo tetka zaigrala.

To ti pričam. Odavno lože stoku da ih zla vlada kontroliše, nadgleda, i pljačka (pa sve što napljačka daje ilegalnim imigrantima). Teško će sad da pucnu prstima i pretvore Teabaggers u branitelje svetog reda, poretka, i poverljivih informacija.Mislim, nije nemoguće, ali morali bi žestoko da se potrude. Ne vidim motivaciju za takvu akrobatiku dok su još opozicija.Ali verujem da će sad WTF da uskoči i objasni nam kako, gde mi živimo, svi Amerikanci mažu Bezbednost na hleb, a defense contractors su divni ljudi koji tu i tamo iznajme sveže oslobođene žene & sitnu decu u svrhe seksualne gratifikacije...

[Eraserhead]

Po meni jako dobro sagledavanje wikileaksa pre cele ove priče:

Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Reviewby Steven Aftergood In the past week, both the Washington Post and the New York Times have referred to WikiLeaks.org, the web site that publishes confidential records, as a “whistleblower” site. This conforms to WikiLeaks’ own instructions to journalists that “WikiLeaks should be described, depending on context, as the ‘open government group’, ‘anti-corruption group’, ‘transparency group’ or ‘whistleblower’s site’.”But calling WikiLeaks a whistleblower site does not accurately reflect the character of the project. It also does not explain why others who are engaged in open government, anti-corruption and whistleblower protection activities are wary of WikiLeaks or disdainful of it. And it does not provide any clue why the Knight Foundation, the preeminent foundation funder of innovative First Amendment and free press initiatives, might have rejected WikiLeaks’ request for financial support, as it recently did.From one perspective, WikiLeaks is a creative response to a real problem afflicting the U.S. and many other countries, namely the over-control of government information to the detriment of public policy. WikiLeaks has published a considerable number of valuable official records that had been kept unnecessarily secret and were otherwise unavailable, including some that I had attempted and failed to obtain myself. Its most spectacular disclosure was the formerly classified videotape showing an attack by a U.S. Army helicopter crew in Baghdad in 2007 which led to the deaths of several non-combatants. Before mostly going dormant late last year, it also published numerous documents that have no particular policy significance or that were already placed in the public domain by others (including a few that were taken from the FAS web site).WikiLeaks says that it is dedicated to fighting censorship, so a casual observer might assume that it is more or less a conventional liberal enterprise committed to enlightened democratic policies. But on closer inspection that is not quite the case. In fact, WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals.Last year, for example, WikiLeaks published the “secret ritual” of a college women’s sorority called Alpha Sigma Tau. Now Alpha Sigma Tau (like several other sororities “exposed” by WikiLeaks) is not known to have engaged in any form of misconduct, and WikiLeaks does not allege that it has. Rather, WikiLeaks chose to publish the group’s confidential ritual just because it could. This is not whistleblowing and it is not journalism. It is a kind of information vandalism.In fact, WikiLeaks routinely tramples on the privacy of non-governmental, non-corporate groups for no valid public policy reason. It has published private rites of Masons, Mormons and other groups that cultivate confidential relations among their members. Most or all of these groups are defenseless against WikiLeaks’ intrusions. The only weapon they have is public contempt for WikiLeaks’ ruthless violation of their freedom of association, and even that has mostly been swept away in a wave of uncritical and even adulatory reporting about the brave “open government,” “whistleblower” site.On occasion, WikiLeaks has engaged in overtly unethical behavior. Last year, without permission, it published the full text of the highly regarded 2009 book about corruption in Kenya called “It’s Our Turn to Eat” by investigative reporter Michela Wrong (as first reported by Chris McGreal in The Guardian on April 9). By posting a pirated version of the book and making it freely available, WikiLeaks almost certainly disrupted sales of the book and made it harder for Ms. Wrong and other anti-corruption reporters to perform their important work and to get it published. Repeated protests and pleas from the author were required before WikiLeaks (to its credit) finally took the book offline.“Soon enough,” observed Raffi Khatchadourian in a long profile of WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange in The New Yorker (June 7), “Assange must confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most–power without accountability–is encoded in the site’s DNA, and will only become more pronounced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institution.”Much could be forgiven to WikiLeaks if it were true that its activities were succeeding in transforming government information policy in favor of increased openness and accountability — as opposed to merely generating reams of publicity for itself. WikiLeaks supporter Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com wrote that when it comes to combating government secrecy, “nobody is doing that as effectively as WikiLeaks.” But he neglected to spell out exactly what effect WikiLeaks has had. Which U.S. government programs have been cancelled as a result of Wikileaks’ activities? Which government policies have been revised? How has public discourse shifted? (And, by the way, who has been injured by its work?)A less sympathetic observer might conclude that WikiLeaks has squandered much of the impact that it might have had.A telling comparison can be made between WikiLeaks’ publication of the Iraq Apache helicopter attack video last April and The New Yorker’s publication of the Abu Ghraib abuse photographs in an article by Seymour Hersh in May 2004. Both disclosures involved extremely graphic and disturbing images. Both involved unreleased or classified government records. And both generated a public sensation. But there the similarity ends. The Abu Ghraib photos prompted lawsuits, congressional hearings, courts martial, prison sentences, declassification initiatives, and at least indirectly a revision of U.S. policy on torture and interrogation. By contrast, the WikiLeaks video tendentiously packaged under the title “Collateral Murder” produced none of that– no investigation (other than a leak investigation), no congressional hearings, no lawsuits, no tightening of the rules of engagement. Just a mild scolding from the Secretary of Defense, and an avalanche of publicity for WikiLeaks.Of course, it’s hard for anyone to produce a specific desired outcome from the national security bureaucracy, and maybe WikiLeaks can’t be faulted for failing to have done so. But with the whole world’s attention at its command for a few days last April, it could have done more to place the focus on the victims of the incident that it had documented, perhaps even establishing a charitable fund to assist their families. But that’s not what it chose to do. Instead, the focus remained firmly fixed on WikiLeaks itself and its own ambitious fundraising efforts.In perhaps the first independent review of the WikiLeaks project, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation considered and rejected an application from WikiLeaks for financial support. The Knight Foundation was actively looking for grantees who could promote innovative uses of digital technology in support of the future development of journalism. At the end of the process, more than $2.7 million was awarded to 12 promising recipients. WikiLeaks was not among them.“Every year some applications that are popular among advisors don’t make the cut after Knight staff conducts due diligence,” said Knight Foundation spokesman Marc Fest in response to an inquiry from Yahoo news. “WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board.”

[Roger Sanchez]

7.55pm: My colleague Ewen MacAskill points us towards these quotes from State Department flack PJ Crowley, suggesting that foreign governments are getting cold feet about talking to their US counterparts in the light of the WikiLeaks cables:Crowley told journalists today:"We have already seen some indications of meetings that used to involve several diplomats and now involve fewer diplomats... We're conscious of at least one meeting where it was requested that notebooks be left outside the room."

[Weenie Pooh]

Po meni jako dobro sagledavanje wikileaksa pre cele ove priče:

Užasno tendenciozno i providno.Zamisli ti to, nisu im dali da pristupe the Knight Foundation, the preeminent foundation funder of innovative First Amendment and free press initiatives. Znači, očigledno su u pitanju info-teroristi kojima je samo dupe zinulo na pare, i uopšte ne rade na tome da restruktuiraju programe Američke vlade. Kao sve druge, praaaave whistle-blower organizacije koje su toliko toga postigle svojim aktivnostima :isuse:Ovo mi zvuči kao kad je pre Parade Ponosa krenulo 138 različitih lokalnih gay rights organizacija (za koje niko pre toga nije čuo) da sapliću jedni druge. Sladak je kolač medijske pažnje, a tako se brzo ubajati...

[adam]

sad osecam grizu savesti sto se sprdam na ozbiljnoj temi. najebao je asanz, to je ocito. americka fatwa je neumoljiva a ovo sa hapsenjem je jedna jako gadna farsa. britanija ima naoko nezavisno sudstvo ali se zna da sudije imaju i ambicije i afinitete i da se moze na osnovu karaktera, ambicija i afiniteta sudija, ovom slucaju dodeliti odgovarajuci sudija koji ce doneti odluku koja odgovara trenutnoj vlasti a i dalje je naoko sve u skladu s nezavisnoscu. letece asanz u svedsku u rekordnom roku. a znamo kako su svedjani glasali jesenas. jedina nada je javnost. britanska javnost, za razliku od raznih drugih evropskih, nije bas aktivna dok joj zaista ne dodje do grla. trenutno asanz skaklja prepone - i to manjini. grlo je jos jako daleko. kod mene na poslu ljudi ovo prate informativno, slabo ih se tice, kao da se desava negde na drugom kraju planete. ima nesto malo ljudi koji se interesuju s uplitanjem emocija ali vecina broji bozicne zurke i smislja poklone za familiju. a ja sam vec neko vreme pod ugovorom u Associated Press-u. pa ti vidi...

[Musharaf]

Po meni jako dobro sagledavanje wikileaksa pre cele ove priče:

Трећепуташење, ФТЊ!

[pacey defender]

Fino. Vikiliks je neprijatelj otvorenog društva i načela vladavine prava, tako što je objavio nekakav ritual nekog sestrinstva sa nekog koledža. Istovremeno, Rasmusen drastično krši načelo vladavine prava što Vikiliks objavljuje, ali o tome ni reči. Kolumna dostojna Slobodana Antonića.

Edited December 7, 2010 by pacey defender

[dragance]

Eraseru, mogao si barem da procitas ono sa Washington Posta, pre nego sto si ovo prekopirao. A ni Guardianov editorial od pre par dana nije bio los.

[WTF]

Kako moze SAD da Asanza goni za "izdaju"? Kako australijski drzavljanin moze da "izda" SAD? Sta prica ova curka sa FOX Newsa?

Ti pokusavas da nadjes logiku i zdrav razum u izvestaju na Fox Noise?

Zar je i to moguce? Daj neki primer.

http://www.thenation.com/article/blackwater-downhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/opinion/main878822_page2.shtml

jedam moj kolega, fox gledalac, ne znam da li je prosecan, verovatno ne, je danas ludovao kako treba da ostave asanza na miru jer nije nista lose uradio. mislim da ova hajka o izdaji i slicnim glupostima moze malo i da se vrati desnicarskim jastrebovima jer u ovom trenutku je anti-vasingtonsko raspolozenje jace od patriotizma kod dobrog dela fox populacije. tu se malo tetka zaigrala.

Tezak je zivot desnokrlinih mamojebaca ovih dana. S jedne strane patriJotski zanos koji tera da se zbiju redovi i slozno zaurla "ubij zakolji da Assange ne postoji" a onda te neko podseti da ti je predsednik iza koga stajes u stroj u stvari 1 muslimanski marksista rodjen u Keniji, pa te taj zanos naglo popusti. Zivot je definitivno bio mnogo jednostavniji za vreme W.

Ali verujem da će sad WTF da uskoči i objasni nam kako, gde mi živimo, svi Amerikanci mažu Bezbednost na hleb, a defense contractors su divni ljudi koji tu i tamo iznajme sveže oslobođene žene & sitnu decu u svrhe seksualne gratifikacije...

Nema ja sta da objasnjavam. Dovoljno je samo da pogledas mainstream americke medije pa da vidis koliko je tu ogorcenja i besa zbog nedostatka transparentnosti. Jos malo pa ce milion ljudi da se skupi da demonstrira ispred SD i trazi ostavku HRC. A za ovo drugo, vidim da si jos pod utiskom onog retorickog pitanja od pre neki dan, pa ti se prividja nekakav apologizam za svinjarije koje prave defense contractors.

[Eraserhead]

Eraseru, mogao si barem da procitas ono sa Washington Posta, pre nego sto si ovo prekopirao. A ni Guardianov editorial od pre par dana nije bio los.

Jebavam se sa poslom ovih dana pa stignem samo tu i tamo da pratim. Može link za te tekstove.

[adam]

Po meni jako dobro sagledavanje wikileaksa pre cele ove priče:

ja razumem da ti smatras da je wikileaks govno i da ne doprinosi slobodi informacija ali da li je to dovoljan razlog da se digne hajka na sajt i ljude koji to rade?ovde se radi o progonu ljudi zarad pustanja informacija u javnost - i to ne bez rezerve i ograde vec su ponudili urednicima vrlo bitnih i odgovornih novina da oni proberu i odluce sta je za stampanje posto su vlasti odbile saradnju. da li si kad su onog nesrecnog danca proganjali muslimanski ekstremisti za crtanje muhameda branio manijake tezom da crtezi ne valjaju ili si smatrao da ga ne treba proganjanti zbog toga sto je uradio bez obzira na kvalitet crteza? na kraju, sta ako se sutra ili za par dana pojave informacije koje su po tvom misljenju vredne hajpa? sta ces onda?

[dragance]

Evo iz Washington Posta, videcu da nadjem Guardian - nisam sacuvao link

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011Press Statement Philip J. Crowley Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs Washington, DC December 7, 2010The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press....

Jebeno fenomenalno.edit: članak nije zajebancija ni satira. Edited December 7, 2010 by Marvin (Paranoid Android)

[dig_chohano]

Kasnish, cico.

[Marvin (Paranoid Android)]

Bah. Nema veze, dovoljno je jako za repete.