[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

*ahem*

Serious debates

I was serious

[lostalex]

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

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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, ... ... ...

... 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

[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