About Us ThisisBigBrother.com

lostalex · 11-07-2011, 02:19 PM

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 · 11-07-2011, 02:40 PM

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 · 11-07-2011, 02:42 PM

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 · 11-07-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11-07-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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 · 11-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GypsyGoth

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 · 11-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

AJ. · 11-07-2011, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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

Tom4784 · 11-07-2011, 03:31 PM

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 · 11-07-2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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 · 11-07-2011, 06:51 PM

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.

lostalex · 11-07-2011, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

satiate.

patsylimerick · 11-07-2011, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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.

Tom4784 · 11-07-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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 · 11-07-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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 · 11-07-2011, 08:43 PM

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.

Tom4784 · 11-07-2011, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostalex

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?

ChristmasNeeve · 11-07-2011, 06:54 PM

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 · 11-07-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.