[Tom4784]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Tom4784]

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?

[Omah]

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.

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.

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