News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by JunkDNA on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @08:50AM (#1982898)
Reading about these stories the last few days, it occurs to me the Wikileaks strategy is a major factor here. They have not been selective and released actual stuff that rises to the level of true whistle blowing. While the things released (thus far) might be interesting in the way a tabloid article about a celebrity is interesting, they are hardly at the level of the Pentagon Papers. The world has not learned any deep dark secrets about how the US government operates. Given this situation, when the government leans on PayPal and Amazon, there's nothing for them to hold on to and say, "We're going to fight this because we think the public has a right to know X". X needs to be something pretty important to take that position and all the heat it brings.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by mike-cardwell on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @08:55AM (#1982917)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212910/wikileaks_founder_prai...

First paragraph

"Daniel Ellsberg, the man responsible for outing the now famous Pentagon Papers in 1971, and a group of ex-intelligence officers have thrown their weight behind WikiLeaks and its founder, saying the current attempt to label WikiLeaks' leaks as trivial compared to the Pentagon Papers is wrong."

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by mike-cardwell on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @09:15AM (#1982971)
Also, it's worth noting that the Pentagon Papers were released by a US citizen for the benefit of Americans.

Julian Assange is not a US citizen, is not subject to US law, and did it for the benefit of the World, not the benefit of the US.

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by JunkDNA on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @09:41AM (#1983035)
He's entitled to his opinion, but I'm still waiting for someone to point me to information in the wikileaks dump that is a genuine public service. I'm not arguing that the wikileaks dump is trivial. There is information in there that is genuinely harmful from the perspective of the State Department and US government. What I'm arguing is that there's nothing actionable there. I haven't read a single thing that made me say, "wow, what I thought I knew about US foreign policy is all wrong". If that were there, it would be a different ballgame.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by ajays on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @10:31AM (#1983217)
Are you still waiting for someone to put some food in your mouth too?

These leaks are more than just about the US foreign policy; they're a glimpse into the shady dealings of the "Powerful" all over the world!

Want examples? How about the revelation that Jordan, UAE, Saudis, etc. are urging the US to attack Iran? The details about who ordered the hacking of Google in China? The revelation that rich royals in Saudi Arabia are snorting cocaine, while the average citizens there are caned for showing some skin? Come on! Open your eyes and read the damn things.

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by zcid on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @03:58PM (#1984580)
Again, it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing revolutionary there. Any surprise at these items serves to demonstrate your naivete more than any groundbreaking insight into the lives of the rich and powerful.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by potatolicious on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @02:05PM (#1984141)
> "Are you still waiting for someone to put some food in your mouth too?"

This is not the level of discourse I've come to expect from HN. Please, lay off the ad hominem snarkiness.

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by mikeklaas on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @06:22PM (#1985149)
"Ad hominem" doesn't mean "arguments that are phrased meanly/snarkily"
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by potatolicious on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @06:52PM (#1985276)
You're right, it isn't quite ad hominem - it is however uncivil, mean-spirited, and a personal put-down, all of which IMHO does not belong on HN.

That's the problem with this WikiLeaks thing, even highly educated, supposedly level-headed people start frothing at the mouth and lose any semblance of rational discourse. There are few moderates and way too many extremists - on both sides.

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by bumbledraven on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @03:17PM (#1984452)
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by Caspian on Thursday December 09, 2010 @04:44AM (#1986802)
The stuff about pressuring the Germans not to prosecute a kidnapper may be useful for any anti-kidnapping factions in the US government. I doubt the US government has a united perspective about that.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by ryoshu on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @11:45AM (#1983551)
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/12/wikileaks_te...

A US government contractor was running a child sex slave ring in Afghanistan. It's not the Pentagon Papers, but it shows a pattern of behavior that company has engaged in for over a decade.

But the individual leaks aren't the larger goal of WikiLeaks. Addressing the wrongs the leaks uncover is fighting the last war. WikiLeaks is trying to change the system.

Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by michaelchisari on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @09:52AM (#1983071)
I keep hearing people say this, but it's an absurd criticism. Wikileaks has released 817 of the over 200,000 cables. They're working with five news services from around the world to comb through them. This isn't over.
Re:PayPal: "State Department Said It Was Illegal" by aero142 on Wednesday December 08, 2010 @11:38AM (#1983521)
I disagree. The press had largely made the story about Wikileaks, Manning, and the tabloid gossip comments about foreign leaders, but if you go look at the contents of the cables, there are some serious issues. The biggest to me is about the corruption and drug production in our puppet government in Afghanistan. The vice president was caught at the border with $52 million in cash http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contents_of_the_United_States_d... and was allowed to keep it. This actual stuff.