WikiLeaks - Hero or Troublemaker?

[Will]

A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It seems to me he could be, at most, prosecuted for receiving stolen property.

Sarah Palin was earlier calling for him to be pursued "like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

Given that we pursue them with Predator drones firing Hellfire missiles, it makes me wonder if she knows how we chase them.  Or if she wants him taken out.

If it's now open season on anyone who embarrasses the US, well then it's time for Sarah to find herself a good hiding place.

If only she were wise enough to take your advice ....  

Also, like your Christmas decor.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

I still think Wikileaks mishandled this and should've acted as an intermediary anyway.  Even if OpenLeaks only disseminates to the alternative press, that will get picked up online and snowball, and perhaps add a layer of protection to the sources.  

Now, I'm not addressing the judgment of what should be leaked and not.

[Sophus]

A rival to WikiLeaks, called OpenLeaks, will be launching soon. The only real difference between them will be that OpenLeaks will not post documents on their website for all to read. They will only be the middle man for passing info to other media sources.

Do you think this is a better approach than WikiLeaks? I think it may certainly be less controversial since nobody can claim about "sensitive" details being released.

That's an interesting idea. The problem is that it's entirely reliant on media outlets to have the fortitude to publish things which could threaten or damage the status quo in government or business. I read Time Magazine's article on Julian Assange and it was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. Apparently there were a lot of complaints, among them a scathing article by Glenn Greenwald (one of my favorite political analysts), and they offered a half-hearted correction. If Time Magazine is any indication, I'm worried most media outlets would be scared to death to publish something like a Texas company's direct involvement in male child prostitution in Afghanistan, which is one story from the recent wikileak.

I think Wikileaks and OpenLeaks should both operate independently and for the foreseeable future.

I had to look that up. Yikes.

I remember Sam Harris referring to some reporting on Afghanistan's pedophile problem a few months back. I can't remember what news source it was but, you're right, it certainly wasn't anything like TIME, or the Guardian, etc. I suppose there certainly is an advantage to posting some material online. However, I don't know if that means they can't be more selectively about what does go on the internet. For instance, I'm not entirely sure sharing what diplomats say about other shady politicians behind their backs is of any real importance if no new information is revealed about these global affairs. Putting on a front can be very helpful to keeping the peace. That's my one complaint with WikiLeaks.

[Tipttt]

Putting on a front can be very helpful to keeping the peace. That's my one complaint with WikiLeaks.

It seems most people nowadays prefer using a front to help keep the war.

[Whitney]

I think another problem with anything like wikileaks is that it requires putting a lot of trust in one group...what if they create counterfeit documents?  I'm not saying that they do...just that the potential for abuse is there especially if slipped in with a lot of real documents to make people assume they are real too.

[Will]

I still think Wikileaks mishandled this and should've acted as an intermediary anyway.  Even if OpenLeaks only disseminates to the alternative press, that will get picked up online and snowball, and perhaps add a layer of protection to the sources.  

Now, I'm not addressing the judgment of what should be leaked and not.

I probably would have handled it slightly differently, too, but I think the idea behind wikileaks is radical openness and in that goal they've succeeded tremendously. Their goal isn't so much getting the leaked information out. The true goal of wikileaks is for corrupt people to think twice before they hurt or take advantage of people because if someone finds out they could leak it and there will be consequences. If people can't be good on their own, and looking at government and the market they clearly can't pretty often, there could be significant consequences.

[McQ]

I think another problem with anything like wikileaks is that it requires putting a lot of trust in one group...what if they create counterfeit documents?  I'm not saying that they do...just that the potential for abuse is there especially if slipped in with a lot of real documents to make people assume they are real too.

I also think that even though many of our trusted true journalistic sources may have been failing us lately, that there still needs to be some standard of journalistic integrity in any organization that deals in disseminating information like this. With Wikileaks, there simply is none. So I have an immediate issue with them right from the beginning and have to take what they do with a dose of salt. It is possible that they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the personal politics and beliefs of their leader, Mr. Assange. Possible. No accusation, but had to throw that out there too.

I want a truly open and free press, and one with some actual teeth as well as credibility, but my opinion is that wikileaks just doesn't fit the description. So I don't feel they need to be treated as journalists when confronting them on this stuff, as some supporters have said they should be treated. But neither should they be vilified as terrorists just because some people say so.

[Sophus]

I know it's not WikiLeaks doing this but these hacks are stupid, petty and juvenile.

[The Magic Pudding]

Bubble bubble toil and trouble, arise zombie thread, Julian is running for the senate.

It is possible for non mainstream people to be elected to the Aus senate.  Twelve senators from each of six states but only half of the positions are contested at each election.  It's a preferential voting system so who knows, he may have a chance.