WikiFreaks in pithy summary

[digitaldiscipline]

Friend A: "I want to support freedom of speech and government accountability, and I do not want to support rapists, misogyny, authoritarian Big Brothers, or being a jerk."

Friend B: "Good idea, bad implementation, by an asshole."

Regardless of Asange's guilt or innocence (he'll have his day(s) in court to figure that out one way or the other), his behavior has no bearing on the merit of WL's calling attention to governmental shadiness.

As others point out, exposing OpSec info that puts people at risk sucks, and is stupid, but shaming the government into behaving less like a bag of assholes is certainly worthwhile IMNSHO.

Comments

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Everything on wikileaks got there because someone in a trusted position either fucked up badly (if you're a diplomat or spy, don't take work home with you, much less leave it in a taxi) or decided that the information was better known than not known. Oddly, there's not much public ire for those people.

If it were embarrassing or harmful to (for example) Libya instead of the US, the opinion would be that it was the responsibility of the press to get the information out there. That's where the line of principle is.

And, of course, the "don't be a bag of assholes" fits nicely under an overriding philosophy that I think would be much more important to strive for: depend on nothing remaining secret.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

Yeah, individuals who have been involved with technology have been aware for at least a decade that secrets rarely stay secret, unless you devote a huge amount of time and money to it (and even then there are no guarantees). Why it's taken so long for governments to work it out, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Assange may or may not be guilty of the sex offence, but whether or not, the amount of time the authorities have devoted to him, supposedly over the sex offence, is frankly offensive to all the victims of other sex offenders who get largely ignored by the authorities.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

First, even though I think you probably know how to take geekly abrasiveness in stride, I have a viciously sarcastic person disclaimer: I am kind of an academic (I know you're thinking of that scene in Cryptonomicon. You know the one. Suffice to say I'd pick a fight with both sides) and I have a tendency to come off as attacking when I'm not. I'm not (honest!) I am picking on your point because I find it more interesting than anything else about this whole stupid Assange to-do. It's a riff on your post, not a rip on your intelligence or you personally. This message brought to you by my tendency to come off as a jerk.

So...

You're wrong on the survivors of sexual assault thing, and I'll tell you why: yes the government put a lot of resources into bringing him to trial than they do on bringing most suspects to trial, but they wouldn't have had to if he hadn't put more a lot resources into avoiding going to trial than most suspects could muster. Governments allocate resources to catching people according to what it takes to catch them all the time, and I don't think that people who are expensive to catch shouldn't have to stand trial, even if others accused of the same crime are cheaper to catch.

Think about it: if Assange weren't richer than Croesus, he would still be in Sweden, so extradition wouldn't even be an issue. He'd either have to go underground without leaving the country or stand trial like anyone else accused of a crime.

And the thing is that therein lies the logical flaw in your point because if governments' spending more money to apprehend him is offensive to survivors of sex assault, isn't his ability to avoid standing trial until he pissed off the US therefore also offensive to people accused of crimes?

The money spent to catch Assange was, of course, a function of the US government's desire that he be caught for something, but it was also a function of how much money it took to catch him. It's a lot cheaper to catch a suspect who is living on payday loans than it is to catch a suspect who owns homes in several countries and has money and connections coming out of his ass, but that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't deserve to get caught.

And of course I don't think Assange would have been prosecuted if he hadn't pissed off the US, but I don't think that is by itself a reason not to prosecute him, in large part because unless Sweden has time travel, what everyone agrees motivated Britain to arrest did not motivate Sweden to accuse/hear the allegation. In other words, of course Britain's decision to arrest and extradite him was politically motivated, but the fact that one country's decision to act on an allegation is politically motivated does not prove that the allegation itself, is necessarily politically motivated.

The political effect arguably just counteracted the shitloads of money effect, and since he'll get his day in court (a court that doesn't really have that much invested in the outcome), I'm not sure if net injustice is higher than the standard level of injustice in any court system-- or for that matter which way it goes.
...I'm going to try and knock the cobwebs off of some algebra (and you'll see a teensy bit of Unix too), because it's clearer.
Let:
effect of pissing off the US = p,
effect of his money = m,
normal background level of injustice in any court system = b.

Now, you can't prove that
(p - m) > b , or for that matter that |p-m|>|b| or that (p-m)!= 0
without either knowing all three quantities in advance or having some way to determine their values and/or evaluate their relative values.
Q.E.D. leave it to an institution that is equipped to evaluate it.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

I can't prove any of it. I was quite influenced by Naomi Wolf's article here, though, because she is much more knowledgeable about this stuff than I am, and I am lazy and thus easily influenced by bona fide experts (I won't bark myself if that might make a dedicated bark-machine unemployed).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/jaccuse-sweden-britain-an_b_795899.html

I'd like to see Assange brought to justice, if he is genuinely guilty of sex crimes. I don't have a great deal of faith in the courts to make justice happen, though, particularly given that it's fairly clear already that political pressure is likely to be as much of a factor as actual evidence.

Don't worry about geeky abrasiveness though -- personally I will happily pick a fight with anyone interesting, and call them "friend" after if they fought well. Better geeky abrasiveness than dull agreement any day!

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Wolf is wrong on this one. I'm not much on feminist theory (in large part because, even though there is some good feminist anthropology out there, there is a great deal of really bad feminist anthropology-- I have probably read at least one ethnography by the inspiration for the Charlene character, although I don't know if it was English-Lueck or Traweek-- the latter moved me to say "if I read another feminist critique of physics like that, I will puke" or something to that effect).

it is true that all kinds of gendered violence are consistently ignored worldwide, but it is the "high-born playboy" that I think is the most applicable here. This is a case where something else prevented a high-born playboy from hiding behind privilege. It should have been done for a lot more cases, it should have been done the right reasons rather than the wrong ones, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done.

We should continue to try to bring perpetrators to justice, but backing off of prosecuting somebody who should be prosecuted (whether or not it was for the wrong reasons, whether or not he is convicted) does not bring anyone closer to that goal.

more later-- I have already procrastinated way too much.

[serpentstar.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing -- and I didn't read Wolf as arguing either -- that Assange shouldn't be prosecuted, if he's genuinely suspected of committing a crime.

I'm quite willing to accept that a human can be complex, and fallible -- that Assange can be an anarcho-philanthropic exposer of government evil, *AND* a sex criminal too. But I would hate to live in a world in which anyone who pissed off the US government was falsely accused of sex crime, just as much as I would hate to live in a world in which privileged men could commit sex crimes and get away with it... so I remain annoyingly ambivalent on the issue, I suppose. I'd like to see him tried fairly, but I'm not convinced that can happen.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

I suppose my whole issue with the deal is that I can't see him as an anarcho-philanthropic exposer of government evil. I still think this is part of his personal vendetta against the US government for banging on his buddies in Operation Sundevil and that he's probably in the pay of a foreign intelligence agency as a deniable asset. That makes far more sense to me than any idea of altruism, simply because I believe that humanity is by far more corrupt and venal than we give credit for. *shrug*

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Then what are you/ is she arguing?

As for fair trial, he's being tried by a country that doesn't really have a dog in the race, and I don't know how much leverage the US even has with Sweden right now. They're small, but they haven't particularly pissed anyone off. And the last I heard, they were doing okay for themselves financially too. Last I heard, the Euro was tap-dancing on the dollar because we're in the process of getting looted by our upper classes.

As for the accusation being false and a reaction to this leak, the accusation predates the leak.
Q.E.D. either the accusation is unrelated to this particular leak or one of the injured parties has a time machine. That's part of why I think he did it. If you're arguing that it's because of what he's leaked, you're arguing that it's because of an earlier leak. Or you're arguing something we've already established you're not arguing (i.e. that women just level false rape accusations at men, just for the hell of it, all the time).

As for him being an anarchist and a rapist, the two are pretty much fundamentally incompatible. He may be some kind of stupid Objectivist, but that's not actual anarchism. Property rights require a state to uphold them (and no, they aren't necessary to human societies)

BTW, if you don't want to live in either type of society, then remember Kitty Genovese, and do not trust that someone else will step in. Really, eveyone thinks they would, but then upon hearing something, people conclude it's nothing, or assume someone else called the police/ will step in/ whatever. Really. And that goes for all kinds of situations. That's something practical you can do.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that last one should have been |p-m|>0
As I said, cobwebs.

I'm just anti-hype.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

I'm not anti-Assange, or pro-Assange, just sick of hearing about him, especially because there are real news stories being ignored. I mean, he strikes me as a douche, but that's not the point. In the spirit of Rafe's post, I'll try to be pithy too. However, I really suck at pithy, so...

Rape accusation up to Swedish court & I think he did it anyway.
-Britain invested enough to time arrest conveniently.
-Sweden not invested enough to make up rape accusation, especially given that they'd need time travel to get an agent to level a false rape accusation against someone _before_ he does something that might mildly embarrass an ally.

Latest revelations underwhelming AFAIK
- Mild embarrassment seems to be what's at stake, although OpSec is really not my area of expertise (I mean really--I'm what you call "religiously scrupulous of military service"), so I don't feel qualified to comment on the security aspect.
- I can, however, comment on his release of such thoroughly non-earthshattering revelations as "foreign policy professional thinks Sarkozy is a 'thin-skinned control freak'" and "nobody likes Ahmedinijad." Here's my comment: shock and horror. say it isn't so. etcetera.
-If he's a spy, he's really bad at it. Likewise if he's an investigative journalist.
-Which is why I don't give enough of a shit to comment on what either side is saying.
- at least not on anything I feel I know enough about to comment on.

Silencing someone for criticizing the symbol of free speech (as Assange-heads did to Gawker-- see (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/12/anonymous_hacks.php) NOT a defense of free speech
-and NOT COOL.
- Mastercard however is on their own. If the Assange-heads think they're being Libertarian, attacking someone for not wanting to do business with them indicates that they have their heads up their asses, but I don't care about that. It does say something about the pro-Assange contingent, though, don't you think? I don't think it's about what they're saying it's about on any of it.
- I repeat, what the Assange-heads did to Gawker was NOT COOL, and I feel that way because I actually believe in free speech, not just some celebrity I've been told is the annointed symbol thereof.
- I know it wasn't Assange's action, but I'm talking about my anti-hype position here, rather than my personal distaste for Assange.

US government has also done things that are not cool, but WL's non-interest in pointing them out when US gov't was under Bush makes me wonder about Assange's motivation, contributes to my impression that he's a douche, detracts from my inclination to give a shit about him. The ends don't justify the means, but it's hard to muster a lot of enthusiasm for the whole thing.

[cheez-ball.livejournal.com]

My issue with this is that I'm more upset at the person/people who supplied the info to wikileaks than I am at wikileaks for posting it.

I'll leave it to the courts and such to decide about his rape charges. If he's found guilty treat him just like any other rapist. If he's found not-guilty treat him like everyone else who's been found not guilty.

Do I think the newspapers are to blame? No, and I appreciate ones like the NYT who redacted names and some sensitive info. If the US news hadn't reported on this people would have just gone to foreign news websites. Now that we can translate in real time I don't see how any newspaper or any country that supports freedom of the press could even consider censorship.

Do I blame US companies for not wanting to do business with wikileaks or Asange? Not at all. They can choose customers as much as they want.

Do I think Asange should be brought up on espionage or treason charges? That's silly because it would be uneven enforcement of espionage laws, which are rather out dated. And he's not a US citizen so treason charges would be silly. I do think the person who supplied the info, if it was that guy, should be court martialed (sp?) and brought up on treason charges. Then his chain of command needs to be questioned as to why this guy had this info and was able to take it off base with him. I mean, c'mon, that should never have happened. You shouldn't even have a cell phone or iPod on you at these places. And I believe his actions violated the oath he took when joining the military.

As far as much of the leaked content is concerned, I think most people with enough education to understand what's going on with international politics already knew most of this. The leaked info just gives validity to what everyone suspected. And I will say some of the stories have been entertaining - it's more of what you'd expect to read in a memoir than a report. It was kind of like reading f-locked blog posts. While, yes, it's embarassing for everyone involved and will likely harm diplomatic relations (as in a violation of trust between diplomats and nations), it's not as bad as it could have been. Unfortunately the cynic in me believes that next time it'll be much more devastating.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

out of curiosity -- as I mentioned, it's not my area of expertise -- but you mean by "uneven enforcement of espionage laws?" what is the usual standard (officially) for dealing with situations like this? I ask because I really don't know and it sounds like you do.

Also, what is there that would even bear on security? I mean, I really don't see how the fact that US diplomats privately believe the same things about world leaders as everybody else who knows anything about those world leaders would even seriously compromise our relations with them. I don't get it but then I wouldn't.

[cheez-ball.livejournal.com]

People have been calling for Assange, or however it's spelled, to be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). It's something that's very rarely ever invoked and rather inappropriate to this case. I believe there were ~2 cases since the 20s that were brought before the courts, but both were later thrown out because of technicalities and such.

From wikipedia (because it's the easiest source to find): "[The Espionage Act of 1917] prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment." I, personally, don't see how the "leaks" had anything to do with interfering with military operations or supporting America's enemies during wartime. This guy is an anarchist and is only supporting his own agenda.

International relations might be damaged because foreign leaders will be less likely to trust US diplomats to keep certain operations secret. For example, if you secretly let the US take credit for dealing with dissidents in your country but publicly take credit for it yourself so that your citizens see you as a badass, leaks like this that say otherwise will be embarassing and could cause you to lose political clout in your own country. So in the future, will you allow the US to help you out or will you strike some sort of deal with your own dissidents so that you can stay in power?

Also, look at Italy. The prime minister was elected on a platform that stated he was well-respected by the US. The leaks said otherwise. He barely survived a no-confidence vote and there were riots at Piazza del Popolo as a result. So will he trust a US diplomat when talking with them in the future? Or will he very carefully measure each and every word?

Much of US security depends on maintaining good relationships with our allies. These leaks were a violation of trust. It was kind of like someone publishing your diary where you dish on your friends but never meant for them to read it. You'll likely lose some friendships as a result. And those friends now won't help you the next time you get into trouble with the school bully.

What do I think will likely happen to Assange? The following is just my $0.00000000002 worth. Assuming he's found not guilty for the rape [I honestly have no opinion of this. My inclination is to leave it to the courts.] he'll likely find himself with very few choices in where he can live and travel. He has, after all, pissed off just about the entire Western World and more than a few Eastern and Middle Eastern heads of state. He's probably on a bunch of don't fly/watch lists which will limit his travel. If he was smart he'd disappear from the radar for awhile so that tempers can simmer down. He's a bit of an anarchist so I'm going to guess he'll release another bunch of documents soon and piss off even more people. At some point he'll end up dead and no one will be entirely certain who did it or why it happened. Then some Hollywood type will make millions when this is all made into a movie. And the conspiracy theories will start, if they haven't already.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Very informative, thank you.So it's not the content of the leaks, it's the fact that it was leaked (?)

I don't know if I'd consider him a real anarchist though. Long story. Probably thinks of himself as one though.