b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 625673 | Random

This is a link post Just how much of an arseclown is Julian Asshat?
Quite a lot, it would appear.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:15, , Reply)
This is a normal post Don't agree with that at all.
It's not like Wikileaks simply gets info and then sells it on, they have to painstakingly make sure that each document is legit and then redacting personal info. Sure it may be a high valuation, but they're the ones taking risks against what are effectively nation states and their security services.

In it's simplest terms it's only slightly different from an investigative journalist protecting his hard work against unauthorised publication (plagiarism).
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:26, , Reply)
This is a normal post Well...
... Don't you find the idea of placing such an extensive (and unenforceable) gagging order on the employees of an organisation that is supposedly devoted to the dissemination of information just a little bit, um, ironic?
Don't you think that it stinks that Wikileaks presents itself as working pro bono publico at the same time as explicitly spelling out its commercialism (as in para. E(a) of the document)?
Don't you wonder how they can be so sure that all their information has a market value of £12m?
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:36, , Reply)
This is a normal post
1st point - No, not at all. Doing what they do, and employing people to do it while ensuring their safety, isn't free.

2nd point - I would take a guess that part of their need to turn to commercialisation, other than their own living costs etc., would be "persuading" potential whistle blowers to blow their whistles (look at Bradley Manning) while also having enough financial clout to guarantee that they themselves have a formidable legal backup when necessary.

3rd point - I'm wearing a pair of jeans that I really like, I don't want to lose them... if YOU wanted to buy them off me I wouldn't take any less than £15 billion. Don't like my overinflated valuation for a pair of £90 Papfar jeans? Tough shit. Although to make my analogy fit more accurately; these jeans are one-of-a-kind, potentially contain evidence for the deaths of XX amount of people and the CIA, KGB and MI5 all would love to steal them themselves and burn them.
 (I helped save b3ta! mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:49, , Reply)
This is a normal post I accept it's not free
and they possibly do have to sell their information to stay afloat. However, that's somewhat at odds with their representation of themselves as disinterested defenders of the public good; it means that they're simply a kind of information broker - a middleman between the person who has the information, and the person who wants it. (Does Wikileaks give the people who leak them information a dividend based on its value? I'm not sure. If they do, then they are basically a brokerage - which is fine, but they should be upfront about it. If they don't, then it looks like they're horrible exploitative of the people who actually take the risks.)

Now, they might want to charge to provide legal cover and so on; but presumably, that'd be factored into the price that they charge the media outlets to which they sell information. It's not obvious why it'd justify a gag on employees. In rather the same way, a shopkeeper will want to insure against theft, and the price of this insurance will be part of the cost paid by the consumer. She wouldn't normally have to threaten employees with a strangely precise and undiscriminating bond of their own in addition.

And in respect of your DNA-laced jeans analogy: well, if I don't want to pay your price, I don't have to. I'm assuming you don't want to sell them, so you can set any notional price you want. Wikileaks, on the other hand, presumably does want to sell what it has. By appealing to the market value, though, that means that they lose any entitlement to dictate the price. They can try to, as would any other seller; but in the end, information (or any other good) is only worth what people are willing to sell. And you don't know what that'll be in advance.

Also, you pay too much for your trousers.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 20:05, , Reply)
This is a normal post They take no risks... all the US iraq/Afghan leaks saw one man in prison
and wikileaks stand there watching him being hung out to dry... betcha can't name him without a google.
 (PhosphorBurnedEyes Swastika Shop opening here soon, Wed 11 May 2011, 22:41, , Reply)
This is a normal post Bradley Manning, isn't it?

(The Empress it seems you CAN polish a turd!, Thu 12 May 2011, 10:35, , Reply)
This is a normal post I'll reserve judgement until I hear a more balanced report
Possibly one where he explains the reasoning behind it
 (I helped save b3ta! Hellzapoppin, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:30, , Reply)
This is a normal post Read
the document itself. res ipsa loquitur, surely?
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:38, , Reply)
This is a normal post Meh
The guy was and is the focus of an international shitstorm, he was and is being hounded on all fronts. If you want to work for liki-weaks then you sign that form, if not, don't. It just seems like is makes Assuage harder to get at through the people he employs, you want to bribe his staff you have to pay their legal fees also. Raises the bar.

I wouldn't sign it, but somebody will and has. Was there a complaint from staff? I just see a paper criticising something out of context.
 (I helped save b3ta! Hellzapoppin, Wed 11 May 2011, 20:41, , Reply)
This is a normal post Maybe its a way of stopping arsehat journos infiltrating and nicking stuff?

(Captain_lambkin adifferent.me, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:32, , Reply)
This is a normal post You mean
doing pretty much what Wikileaks does? It's not as if they obtain their information legitimately.

Imagine you have a business model based on selling what you know to be stolen goods. In what sense do you have any rights over them? And why is this different?
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:37, , Reply)
This is a normal post There are finacial imperatives and moral imperatives
I doubt very much the average journalist is motivated by their morals.

Hope fully wikileaks is trying to make a difference and correct injustices and tell the truth, not something I would expect from a journalist.
 (Captain_lambkin adifferent.me, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:43, , Reply)
This is a normal post Huh?
But if Wikileaks really is acting pro bono publico, why force its employees to sign a gagging order with a £12m price tag? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense for those with access to a given piece of information to be informed of the strategy for its release, so that the moral high ground could be occupied by Wikileaks whatever happened? (That is: wouldn't an explanation to employees of what's what and what's at stake be much more in keeping than issuing them with legal threats?)

And if Wikileaks is acting wholly for moral rather than commercial reasons (not that I see how the two necessarily conflict), then why stress the commercial value of the information and the financial loss to Wikileaks as rationales for the gagging order?
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 11 May 2011, 19:48, , Reply)