What's the Difference between NOTW and Wikileaks?

[lostalex]

It seems to be the Guardianistas that are celebrating hardest over the demise of the NOTW, yet it's hipocritical, I wonder if the Guardianistas would be celebrating as enthusiastically if it was the end of Wikilikeaks??

NOTW is guilty of nothing more heanous than anything Wikileaks has done.

So all the little trolls celebrating the end of the NOTW, explain to me how what NOTW did is any worse than anything Wikileaks has done?

I guess if it's about celebs or military families, it's bad, but if it's about politicians or government officials it's okay??


If NOTW is to be shut down then so should Wikileaks.

Eigther you believe in transperancy, or you don't! you can't pick and choose... eigther you believe it's okay to spy on everyone, or you believe it's not okay to spy on anyone.

Which is it? Should we have access to everyone by any means necessary as NOTW and Wikileaks says?

OR are people entitled to privacy?

I think people have a right to their own secrets.

[arista]

I read the Guardian
and I read NOTW , The Times.


Wikileaks is fun
look at Bill 'O Rielly on UnBalanced Fox News
saying he should be shot dead.


Normal working people
in the UK have far more important problems
than King Rupert can give out.

[GypsyGoth]

I think when governments are doing things which they say they aren't, that is in peoples interest, after all they are voted into office to carry out a role.

And on the other hand, celebs and their sex lives are not really in peoples interest. I think only if they are breaking the law doing it, it becomes a news worthy story. But other than that, what they do in their own bedrooms is their own business.

So I think it's fine to want some people spied on and not others.

[lostalex]

I think when governments are doing things which they say they aren't, that is in peoples interest, after all they are voted into office to carry out a role.

And on the other hand, celebs and their sex lives are not really in peoples interest. I think only if they are breaking the law doing it, it becomes a news worthy story. But other than that, what they do in their own bedrooms is their own business.

So I think it's fine to want some people spied on and not others.


and so what has wikileaks exposed about the american diplomats that was wrong? The wikileaks cables exposed no wrong doing by american diplomats at all, so why was it okay for their e-mails to be exposed, but it's not okay for celebs or common people?

[GypsyGoth]

and so what has wikileaks exposed about the american diplomats that was wrong? The wikileaks cables exposed no wrong doing by american diplomats at all, so why was it okay for their e-mails to be exposed, but it's not okay for celebs or common people?

I've never been on the wikileaks site, so i don't know a lot about it. But I think I recall from a news show that american diplomats were asked to get dna samples of the officials/politicians from the country they were in. That seems a bit messed up to me.

And sure if a celeb was going around collecting the dna of other celebs, then I think that would be news also.

[lostalex]

I've never been on the wikileaks site, so i don't know a lot about it. But I think I recall from a news show that american diplomats were asked to get dna samples of the officials/politicians from the country they were in. That seems a bit messed up to me.

And sure if a celeb was going around collecting the dna of other celebs, then I think that would be news also.

lol, well not to be to crude, but i believe alot of the stories NOTW printed, had everything to do with "collecting DNA samples" lol

[GypsyGoth]

lol, well not to be to crude, but i believe alot of the stories NOTW printed, had everything to do with "collecting DNA samples" lol

:laugh2:

[AJ.]

If NOTW is to be shut down then so should Wikileaks.


:joker:

[Tom4784]

I'll take the bait.

The difference is in the fact that NOTW pretty much broke the law and hacked into people's private lives while (as far as I know) Wikileaks simply publishes leaked information, I'm sure if they did anything like NOTW then the governments would use it as an excuse to take it out since all they need is a reason and illegal hacking would pretty much give them all the ammunition they need. Again I don't know about Wikileaks' methods but I'm guessing it's not illegal like NOTW's since they're still standing.

People leaking sensitive information is different to an outside source hacking their way in and taking it for themselves.

[lostalex]

I'll take the bait.

The difference is in the fact that NOTW pretty much broke the law and hacked into people's private lives while (as far as I know) Wikileaks simply publishes leaked information, I'm sure if they did anything like NOTW then the governments would use it as an excuse to take it out since all they need is a reason and illegal hacking would pretty much give them all the ammunition they need. Again I don't know about Wikileaks' methods but I'm guessing it's not illegal like NOTW's since they're still standing.

People leaking sensitive information is different to an outside source hacking their way in and taking it for themselves.


ic, so you agree with bradley manning being being shut down like the NOTW, but let jullian assange continue parading around like the paris hilton of the hacker world?

[patsylimerick]

Very, very interesting question, Lostalex. I think there is a difference between the two, but the chasm is a lot more narrow than people are comfortable wth. The indignation has made me smile, given the huge sales figures enjoyed by the NOTW for decades. These are all products that meet a need - sometimes a demand. We have to recognise ourselves for what we are and stop trying to sate our unease with mob attacks on selected fall guys.

[Niamh.]

I suppose the difference is who the targets were. Right or wrong people are going to care more when it's victims of horrible crimes and their family

[lostalex]

Very, very interesting question, Lostalex. I think there is a difference between the two, but the chasm is a lot more narrow than people are comfortable wth. The indignation has made me smile, given the huge sales figures enjoyed by the NOTW for decades. These are all products that meet a need - sometimes a demand. We have to recognise ourselves for what we are and stop trying to sate our unease with mob attacks on selected fall guys.

satiate.

[lostalex]

I suppose the difference is who the targets were. Right or wrong people are going to care more when it's victims of horrible crimes and their family


I propose that there is no difference. victimizing right wing media or the USA government feeds into the same xenophobic mindset about USA BAD, globalization BAD, private media BAD.

The tail is wagging the dog, but there is no dog.

[patsylimerick]

satiate.

No. Sate.

sate/sāt/
Verb: Satisfy (a desire or an appetite) to the full: "sate your appetite at the restaurant".
Adjective: Satisfied completely; fulfilled.

You might want to stop typing for ten seconds and reflect upon the fact that you're American before you start correcting other people's English.

[lostalex]

No. Sate.

sate/sāt/
Verb: Satisfy (a desire or an appetite) to the full: "sate your appetite at the restaurant".
Adjective: Satisfied completely; fulfilled.

You might want to stop typing for ten seconds and reflect upon the fact that you're American before you start correcting other people's English.


That was incredibly rude. apologize. (i doubt you realize the irony of this, but seriously, yur proving my point)

[patsylimerick]

Oh dear. A little defensive, are we? The POINT was that we on different sides of the Atlantic have differing interpretations of the language. I, for instance, would always be conscious of the fact that I was reading something written by someone from America if the spelling or grammar jarred.

And where's your apology for trying to correct something that was, in actual fact, correct?

[lostalex]

And where's your apology for trying to correct something that was, in actual fact, correct?

brits are better at apologizing, so you first. :)

btw, did you see the france/england game at the WWC the other day?

I didn't catch it, but i sure caught the USA vs. Brazil game, man it was a good one :P

[patsylimerick]

brits are better at apologizing, so you first. :)

btw, did you see the france/england game at the WWC the other day?

:joker: I see your geography is as good as your lexicography. (the hint's in the username) :joker:

I came on here to commend your argument, Lostalex. I'll leave you to it :xyxwave:

[lostalex]

:joker: I see your geography is as good as your lexicography. (the hint's in the username) :joker:

I came on here to commend your argument, Lostalex. I'll leave you to it :xyxwave:

My apologies, i forgot, Britain hasn't finished conquering ireland yet.

if we sleep together would you like me better? :)

[patsylimerick]

My apologies, i forgot, Britain hasn't finished conquering ireland yet.

if we sleep together would you like me better? :)

Might not respect you, though :spin:

[lostalex]

Might not respect you, though :spin:

If you respected me after then i definitely didn't do my best :P

[Niamh.]

My apologies, i forgot, Britain hasn't finished conquering ireland yet.

if we sleep together would you like me better? :)

:suspect:

[lostalex]

:suspect:

you know i was just being a troll, you know where my true heart lies:P

[Niamh.]

you know i was just being a troll, you know where my true heart lies:P

:love:

[lostalex]

*snuggles niamh* how come yur so snuggable? it's unfair :P

yur snuggability always pwns me :P

[patsylimerick]

*snuggles niamh* how come yur so snuggable? it's unfair :P

yur snuggability always pwns me :P

God, you're fickle :joker:

[Niamh.]

*snuggles niamh* how come yur so snuggable? it's unfair :P

yur snuggability always pwns me :P

Just born that way I suppose :lovedup:

[lostalex]

Just born that way I suppose :lovedup:

sins of the father, just genetically adorable i suppose. ;)
it's not you're fault lol

[Niamh.]

sins of the father, just genetically adorable i suppose. ;)
it's not you're fault lol

ew no, you haven't met my father :shocked:

[Vicky.]

you know i was just being a troll, you know where my true heart lies:P

:love:

*snuggles niamh* how come yur so snuggable? it's unfair :P

yur snuggability always pwns me :P

Just born that way I suppose :lovedup:

*ahem*

Serious debates :p

[Niamh.]

*ahem*

Serious debates :p

I was serious :hmph:

[lostalex]

I agree with Vicky, stop taking me off topic from my serious debates plzzz...
lol

[Tom4784]

ic, so you agree with bradley manning being being shut down like the NOTW, but let jullian assange continue parading around like the paris hilton of the hacker world?

Wikileaks aren't guilty of hacking anything though (I don't think) Julian Assange has got a lot of enemies that could take him down if he was doing anything illegal but Wikileaks is still standing. Acquiring information through leaks and actively hacking to get it are two different things, only a fool with no sense of subtlety would think they are similar.

Unless it's discovered that Wikileaks ever did anything illegal to acquire their information then it's incomparable with NOTW since one is using illegal means to get their information while the other reports on leaks.

[lostalex]

Wikileaks aren't guilty of hacking anything though (I don't think) Julian Assange has got a lot of enemies that could take him down if he was doing anything illegal but Wikileaks is still standing. Acquiring information through leaks and actively hacking to get it are two different things, only a fool with no sense of subtlety would think they are similar.

Unless it's discovered that Wikileaks ever did anything illegal to acquire their information then it's incomparable with NOTW since one is using illegal means to get their information while the other reports on leaks.

lol, wikileaks dfoesn't hack anything whwre do you think they get their stuff from then?? they just read it in the NOTW? lol

[patsylimerick]

The main issue with Wikileaks, as I see it, is that it might turn out damaging what it purports to defend; free speech. If communications between diplomats around the world have any semblance of confidentiality removed from them, a lot less will be said in those communications. Information will be moved around much more cautiously and much less freely. There has to be a certain amount of information that remains protected from indiscriminate distribution and exposure.

In relation the the issue of legality, it's still very much up in the air - because its such a global phenomenon - whether or not individual nations can apply legislation targetted at tackling espionage in the case of Wikileaks.

[lostalex]

The main issue with Wikileaks, as I see it, is that it might turn out damaging what it purports to defend; free speech. If communications between diplomats around the world have any semblance of confidentiality removed from them, a lot less will be said in those communications. Information will be moved around much more cautiously and much less freely. There has to be a certain amount of information that remains protected from indiscriminate distribution and exposure.

In relation the the issue of legality, it's still very much up in the air - because its such a global phenomenon - whether or not individual nations can apply legislation targetted at tackling espionage in the case of Wikileaks.

you understabnd. thwe same epole sayihnf the the USA should be diplomatic are the epople exposing diplomatic cables, making american dipolomacy more difficuilt.


the epople wanted to end ear and wishing america to be more peacelike, are makinfg it HARDER for america do do that!

it makes no sense.
\
i don;t care vcare about spelling, i don't wanna be in love :(

[lostalex]

WHY DO YOIY MAKE IT HARD FOR AMERICA TO BE GREAT??? :(

we try and try but you won't let us make it rirght.

we honest;y are trying. we arn't evil by nature i promise you. :(

[Tom4784]

lol, wikileaks dfoesn't hack anything whwre do you think they get their stuff from then?? they just read it in the NOTW? lol

Where's your evidence that they hack anything though? You haven't got any which makes your comparision and argument pointless. If they are hackers then why are they still operating given the sensitive nature of what they are revealing? I remember a few years back when the American government tried to extradite a UK citizen for hacking into a Pentagon computer and just playing with the mouse settings, do you really think they'd sit back and let Wikileaks carry on if it was built on illegal practices?

[lostalex]

we wanna do right :( we try.

[Olivia]

Glad to see someone asking this question; I was googling it. :lol :)

Wikileaks has been hyper-careful to avoid breaking the law, by simply "inviting" people to submit "potentially interesting material" to them in such a way that Wikileaks knows *neither* WHO is sending them the data nor precisely HOW it was obtained, :) ... ( ie. keeping any "crime" entirely separate from its "own" activites" ) ...

... BUT I am thinking that this NOtW hacking scandal could serve as exactly the sort of "9/11 of media/press" which US and UK govts need ... to introduce new laws requiring all media outlets planning on publishing any material to follow a process of "official authentication" of an informant's real identity, the nature of the source, and HOW the material was obtained ...

Such laws would mean that any "media body/agency" publishing/disseminating material from anonymous sources, ( as Wikileaks does ) and/or info which looks like classified material, ( ie. "stolen"/criminally or illegally obtained data, eg. from phones, personal computers, ... and govt files, etc ... as WL does ), could be prosecuted ...

NOtW is the perfect "excuse"/justification for such laws.

:( :( ? ? :?

[patsylimerick]

Glad to see someone asking this question; I was googling it. :lol :)

Wikileaks has been hyper-careful to avoid breaking the law, by simply "inviting" people to submit "potentially interesting material" to them in such a way that Wikileaks knows *neither* WHO is sending them the data nor precisely HOW it was obtained, :) ... ... ...

... BUT I am thinking that this NOtW hacking scandal could serve as exactly the sort of "9/11 of media/press" which US and UK govts need ... to introduce new laws requiring all media outlets planning on publishing any material to follow a process of "official authentication" of both an informant's real identity and the nature of the source, ...

Laws which would mean that any "media body" publishing material from anonymous sources, or info which looks like classified material, ( ie. "stolen"/criminally or illegally obtained data, eg. from phones, personal computers, ... and govt files, etc ), could be prosecuted ...

NOtW is the perfect "excuse"/justification for such laws.

:( :( ? ? :?

Precisely, Olivia. It's a developing story and the rules are being re-written - or written anew - as we speak. Ergo, the potential to prosecute under espionage legislation. Interesting times we live in, eh? Again, though, very thought-provoking comparison Lostalex :wink:

[Omah]

I'll take the bait.

The difference is in the fact that NOTW pretty much broke the law and hacked into people's private lives while (as far as I know) Wikileaks simply publishes leaked information, I'm sure if they did anything like NOTW then the governments would use it as an excuse to take it out since all they need is a reason and illegal hacking would pretty much give them all the ammunition they need. Again I don't know about Wikileaks' methods but I'm guessing it's not illegal like NOTW's since they're still standing.

People leaking sensitive information is different to an outside source hacking their way in and taking it for themselves.

Wikileaks aren't guilty of hacking anything though (I don't think) Julian Assange has got a lot of enemies that could take him down if he was doing anything illegal but Wikileaks is still standing. Acquiring information through leaks and actively hacking to get it are two different things, only a fool with no sense of subtlety would think they are similar.

Unless it's discovered that Wikileaks ever did anything illegal to acquire their information then it's incomparable with NOTW since one is using illegal means to get their information while the other reports on leaks.

Yeah, you've summarised the difference as I understand it ..... :cool:

[MTVN]

I don't even think it's a case of the legality of the two, that's not where the important difference between the two is. I think that, like Claudia said, the point is that Wikileaks release information concerning the actions of governments/diplomats/etc. people with power, and people who have the public to thank for their power. When the public are funding governments and they are acting in the name of the public then it is surely in peoples interests to know exactly what they are up to. Information shouldn't be concealed and it sets a dangerous principle when such a thing occurs.

To compare releasing footage of innocents being shot, or people being tortured, with hacking into the mobile of a dead 13 year old girl is ridiculous and it is not even remotely similar. And I know this thread is over a week old but I only just saw it and felt like commenting :p