On Mar 5, 2011, at 21:16 , alm...@riseup.net wrote: >>> Why does noone discuss whether it wouldn't be safer for >>> whistleblowers to directly contact a news medium like The Guardian >>> instead of using an intermediary? (Credits to Dmytri again.) >> >> Safer than what? And safer to whom? So far, WikiLeaks has been very >> successful in protecting its sources. The fact that Manning was >> arrested is most definitely not related to any security breach by >> Wikileaks. Manning chatted with Adrian Lamo who called the FBI. > > The setup should have been such that nobody, including Lamo, had any > idea who submitted the material. > > Certainly the Guardian has a bad record, e.g., Katharine Gun was > quickly discovered.
Le Monde Diplomatique (Norwegian issue) has an article on how the EU Data Retention Directive has been used explicitly, in Poland, Germany and the Netherlands, to disclose journalists' anonymous sources: http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=12347 Google translate to English: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lmd.no%2Findex.php%3Farticle%3D12347 > > Other little issue about wikileaks - there's a chance, which many on > the left-liberal side wish to ignore, that Assange is actually guilty > of rape. People don't seem to want to consider the possibility, > however unlikely, that the accusations are true. This has no direct > bearing on wikileaks, except that Assange is becoming a guru - in the > worst sense of the word - and it's going to do a lot of damage to > those blindly believing him if/when he falls. A service like this > should not be so dependent on one person. If Assange had any control > of his ego, he would have resigned as spokesperson until he cleared > his name. I agree with that point entirely. His decision not to do so was a clear sign of his political immaturity (see the latest row over his "jewish conspiracy" remarks). Similarly, his big mistake was not "submitting" to Swedish investigation in the first place. Assange has taken all of his supporters on a long journey into conspiracy for which there was very little evidence (yes, lots of smoke about the prosecutor in Sweden but I have yet to see any actual evidence of a Swedish attempt to work on behalf of the US - there are alternative explanations for the Swedish prosecutors behaviour). If we can believe the leaked police reports, it is possible that the accusations are true. It is, however, not clear yet if the prosecutor will decide to prosecute on the basis of this evidence. That is another issue all together. If he ever is convicted of rape after all of this, he will be seriously tarnished as untrustworthy (and WL along with him?): that is the damage of his cover up (it always makes it worse). It is possible that his admirers will dismiss the evidence and a conviction in court, if it comes. We have already seen the massive condemnation of Swedish law and EU extradition law and the horrible harassment and character assassination of the two women involved. Personally. I refuses to choose between the struggle over the control over my body and struggle over the control over information. I think it is the height of political naivite to force us into a position of making this kind of choice. Assange's position at the head of this movement (de facto) has already done enough damage. His ego-driven libertarian neoliberalism (!) should be fought instead of cherished. Yes, if Assange had any control over his ego, he would have resigned a long time ago. But he will not do it now, thanks to the help of his admirers and blind followers. Maja # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
