wisconsinforward said: when half the links on a site are broken, it’s hard to take it seriously…
» SFB says: In their defense, they’re probably getting a lot of attention today and probably underestimated exactly how much they needed to spend on hosting. Standard WordPress installs aren’t well-designed to handle a ton of traffic (get these guys a copy of W3 Total Cache, stat!). When a new site scores a Julian Assange interview, that’s a pretty big get. It’s called the Slashdot effect: See it as a symptom of unexpected popularity, not a symptom of them being rinky-dink. — Ernie @ SFB
(Source: shortformblog)
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has defended the organisation’s release of all 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables that it held without the redaction of the names of informants mentioned in them.
In an interview with New Scientist, Assange said the leak publishing outfit’s usual editorial “harm minimisation” procedures had become irrelevant after other websites published the full text of the unredacted cables. [more]
Or … y’know, Julian, you could’ve set the example and show that you disagree with the other sites by not following their example. As an example, if one news outlet publishes a photo of a domestic violence victim, it doesn’t mean every other outlet should publish it. Instead, it means that you can show your higher standard by not doing so. Denounce the sites leaking the unredacted cables, not The Guardian.
And he said: ‘These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.’ And a silence fell around the table.ProducerMatthew just reminded us of this quote, regarding the redaction of the names of informants, from Frontline’s coverage of Wikileaks from a while back. Seems more relevant than usual today.
Wikileaks is an important organization being tarnished by a very bad, bad man named Julian Assange:
Was Julian Assange prepared to publish some of the leaked documents without adequately redacting the names of people who could have been harmed by the disclosures? “Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them.” David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. “And we said: ‘Julian, we’ve got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.’ And he said: ‘These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.’ And a silence fell around the table.”
Well now.
And Wikileaks is very unhappy about this. The mega-director, known as much for his Hollywood films as his historical pieces, has secured the rights to a book about Wikileaks, “WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy.” (It’s written by two journalists for The Guardian, who have kind of been on the front lines of all this.) Now, Spielberg has done great work before, but he is not a man known for keeping his films 100 percent accurate. For example, “Catch Me if You Can” was based on a real guy who pretended to be a pilot, but Tom Hanks’ character didn’t exist in real life. (Frank Abagnale is OK with this.) It’s understandable, then, that Wikileaks would say, in response to this, that “this is how bull#(&@ ends up being history.” Your move, Spielberg. source
» In case you were wondering, like us: Assange’s people brought up this witness, Brita Sundberg-Weitman, who had some harsh words about Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. Those words apparently weren’t enough to sway the judge, who noted that she had no direct knowledge of the case – just commentary on Ny as a person.
I’m moving back to New York in a few days. Unlike past...
OMG. I got so...
In this week’s Newsweek, a little...
Tumblr this morning. [h/t anne]
#@#$%!.tumblr.com
Here’s a hidden feature that shipped in...
Watch: PCB gets a visual shout out on GMA’s Yahoo/Tumblr...
Well, that’s one way to win your extradition trial, Julian Assange. In what might be one of the more unlikely legal tactics out there, the WIkileaks founder’s defense team flew in former Swedish appellate court judge Brita Sundberg-Weitman to rip on the prosecutor in the case against Assange. Why? Because Sundberg-Weitman is willing to say in a court of law that prosecutor Marianne Ny has a ”rather biased view against men.” Oh, and there’s more: “She seems to take it for granted that everybody under prosecution is guilty. I think she is so preoccupied with the situation of battered women and raped women that she has lost balance.” Damn. How about them apples? source
Julian Assange’s extradition trial starts back up in the UK: The defense in the extradition trial suggested that there was real risk Assange could be sent to Guantanamo Bay. The prosecution pooh-poohed that. source
So, to clarify: “Bottlenecks” does not appear to specifically be a euphemism for “Julian Assange.” There appears to have been some sincere thought on how to cleanly decentralize the system. We wish Openleaks the best of luck in their mission. source
You’d think, seeing that the guy on the right (former Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer) probably risked his hide to give Julian Assange detail on prominent individuals who used Swiss banks to evade taxes, Assange would muster up enough happiness to show a smile. But no. He still looks like an Eeyore-ish version of James Bond. Turn that frown upside down, Julian! source
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
