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

yur snuggability always pwns me :P

God, you're fickle :joker:

Just born that way I suppose :lovedup:

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:

*ahem*

Serious debates :p

I was serious :hmph:

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

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

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 :(

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. :(

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?

we wanna do right :( we try.

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.

:( :( ? ? :?

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:

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

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