PBS hacked because of Frontline Wikileaks episode

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Wikinuts are at it again. Interesting how these Lulzsec guys, along with Anonymous, want even classified information to be "free" even if it puts actual lives in danger (oh right, collaborators deserve to die), but not any information that makes their precious Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning look bad.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/29/pbs-hacked-in-retrib.html


y07HO-thumb-600x374-39832.png
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
I fucking hate wikileaks and the faggots who support it.

I've been in lots of rAIDS, plenty of lulz have been had, chanology was fucking awesome, but when wikileaks' shit hit the fan my LOIC was pointed firmly at wikileaks and mirrors (didn't make a difference but it was more a symbolic "fuck you assange, I hope you die of AIDS" gesture).
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Seems disingenuous to be wanting such free access to information, .gov docs, and names to the point of doing illegal hacking to get it, but hide behind anonymity at the same time.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Seems disingenuous to be wanting such free access to information, .gov docs, and names to the point of doing illegal hacking to get it, but hide behind anonymity at the same time.

Actually, no, that's you not understanding what they're trying to do.

They're opposed to the massive bureaucracies' evil actions that are enabled by being able to do things in secret they shouldn't be doing.

Remember a lot of the holocaust was run by a bureaucracy unknown to most people, nicely efficient in their secrecy. Similar idea.

Remember the terrible invasion by Indonesia into their neighbor, East Timoor, when they killed 250,000 people with American weapons, violating their agreement in receiving those weapons they were only for defense - it only recently came out that President Ford and Henry Kissinger had lied for decades about their actually approving that invasion illegally. That sort of thing is a type of thing secrecy helps enable.

Your saying that it's hypocritical for Wikileaks to try to keep its secrets is not correct. They're not opposed ot secrecy just because it's secret. Your argument is like saying the police should not use guns because criminals use guns. Or doctors should not use vaccines because that's using bacteria when they're trying to stop bacteria. Wikileaks isn't off doing the sort of operation they're trying to make harder to do in secret. Now, if Wikileaks wanted to arm Indonesia and secretly let the weapons be used in a slaughter illegally, that would be hypocritical of them; trying to keep their operation going in the face of opposition by about every government in the world and many others - for example, almost every donation system cutting them off - is not that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I fucking hate wikileaks and the faggots who support it.

I've been in lots of rAIDS, plenty of lulz have been had, chanology was fucking awesome, but when wikileaks' shit hit the fan my LOIC was pointed firmly at wikileaks and mirrors (didn't make a difference but it was more a symbolic "fuck you assange, I hope you die of AIDS" gesture).

With citizens like you, we don't need enemies. You are our enemy.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I didnt understand first two posts but I read wiki leaks. Especially interesting is detainee interrogations and how much Arab leaders hate Iran.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Actually, no, that's you not understanding what they're trying to do.

They're opposed to the massive bureaucracies' evil actions that are enabled by being able to do things in secret they shouldn't be doing.

Remember a lot of the holocaust was run by a bureaucracy unknown to most people, nicely efficient in their secrecy. Similar idea.

Remember the terrible invasion by Indonesia into their neighbor, East Timoor, when they killed 250,000 people with American weapons, violating their agreement in receiving those weapons they were only for defense - it only recently came out that President Ford and Henry Kissinger had lied for decades about their actually approving that invasion illegally. That sort of thing is a type of thing secrecy helps enable.

Your saying that it's hypocritical for Wikileaks to try to keep its secrets is not correct. They're not opposed ot secrecy just because it's secret. Your argument is like saying the police should not use guns because criminals use guns. Or doctors should not use vaccines because that's using bacteria when they're trying to stop bacteria. Wikileaks isn't off doing the sort of operation they're trying to make harder to do in secret. Now, if Wikileaks wanted to arm Indonesia and secretly let the weapons be used in a slaughter illegally, that would be hypocritical of them; trying to keep their operation going in the face of opposition by about every government in the world and many others - for example, almost every donation system cutting them off - is not that.

Funny you bring up the Nazis.

What if Wikileaks had leaked the true information about D Day? According to you, governments shouldn't have secrets, so we should have told the Germans when we were going to attack.

Remember, Julian Assange, even though he claims to not be against all secrecy, WANTED to leak the names of informants because he thought they deserved death.
 

davmat787

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2010
5,512
24
76
Actually, no, that's you not understanding what they're trying to do.

They're opposed to the massive bureaucracies' evil actions that are enabled by being able to do things in secret they shouldn't be doing.

I was referring to anon's actions in the OP's post, not wikileaks themselves. But thanks for the remedial history lesson and those false equivalencies. :)
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
With citizens like you, we don't need enemies. You are our enemy.

first of all, I'm not a citizen of the US.

secondly, I served in Afghanistan so dumbfucks such as yourself have the freedom to be as retarded as they want, so don't go around calling me the enemy.

thirdly, you have got to be a complete fucking moron not to see Assange and wikileaks for what it is.
Assange doesn't care about freedom of information or transparency of government, he's an attentionwhore who wants to fuck shit up as much as he can for maximum drama and income.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20026597-503543.html
the more drama surrounding wikileaks, the bigger the payout.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/26/assange-book-deal-wikileaks-autobiography_n_801287.html
why would someone not in it for the money sign a $1.5 million bookdeal?

Assange doesn't care what is posted on wikileaks, just as long as it's full of drama, good journalism be damned!
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Wikinuts are at it again. Interesting how these Lulzsec guys, along with Anonymous, want even classified information to be "free" even if it puts actual lives in danger (oh right, collaborators deserve to die), but not any information that makes their precious Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning look bad.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/05/29/pbs-hacked-in-retrib.html


y07HO-thumb-600x374-39832.png

I still don't understand the idea behind this - are they arguing that there should be no privacy? All information is "free" and available? That's astoundingly misguided.

Even when it comes to the diplomatic wires, there should certainly be a venue for off the record discourse; otherwise diplomatic deals like the one that resolved the missile crisis would never happen. There's a reason why journalists believe in anonymity of sources and OTR.
 
Last edited:

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
secondly, I served in Afghanistan so dumbfucks such as yourself have the freedom to be as retarded as they want, so don't go around calling me the enemy.

Thanks for defending our freedoms against the Empire of Afghanistan, their troops were so close to invading. It would have been WWII all over again, maybe a WWII+1. Possibly a 3. Definitely not a III though.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Remember a lot of the holocaust was run by a bureaucracy unknown to most people, nicely efficient in their secrecy. Similar idea.

Wikileaks are doing what they do to prevent Holocaust 2?

When you put it that way, maybe they are not such bad people?
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Funny you bring up the Nazis.

What if Wikileaks had leaked the true information about D Day? According to you, governments shouldn't have secrets, so we should have told the Germans when we were going to attack.

Remember, Julian Assange, even though he claims to not be against all secrecy, WANTED to leak the names of informants because he thought they deserved death.

No, you still don't understand it. All information generated by the government must pass through the true "progressives" and they will declare what is acceptable for the public and what is not. Progressives are our friends, they do the right thing 100% of the time.

The Republicans, on the other hand, only serve for evil and thus their powers to secrecy must be thoroughly destroyed.

So sayeth the left.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Actually, no, that's you not understanding what they're trying to do.

They're opposed to the massive bureaucracies' evil actions that are enabled by being able to do things in secret they shouldn't be doing.

Please, with all your wisdom, do list the evil actions that Wikileaks has exposed.

Maybe it's my dumb rightie brain but when I saw the recaps of the grand Wikileaks exposures, I didn't see really anything of significant revelations, pretty much only a brat who enjoys seeing the world pissed off. Not a single thing did I look at and feel grateful that Assange is out there fighting the good fight for mankind.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2011
33
0
0
secondly, I served in Afghanistan so dumbfucks such as yourself have the freedom to be as retarded as they want, so don't go around calling me the enemy.

Thank god you slaughtered all those impoverished Afghani civilians who were encroaching on our freedoms, you are a true American hero.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Maybe it's my dumb rightie brain but when I saw the recaps of the grand Wikileaks exposures, I didn't see really anything of significant revelations, pretty much only a brat who enjoys seeing the world pissed off. Not a single thing did I look at and feel grateful that Assange is out there fighting the good fight for mankind.

The goal of Wikileaks is to DISRUPT the ability of powerful bureaucracies to conspire for evil in secret, by publishing leaks.

It's not to say, 'oh, look, there's a holocaust being done', it's to say 'the Mubarak regime and the US have a far closer, more cynical relationship at the expense of the people than is understood, let's make it harder for them to continue conspiriing by being a bit afraid what they say might not stay secret'.

Wikileaks exposing things about the Tunisian government not only did that, it helped lead to the popular reaction forcing the regime to fall - which was contagious.

When in the US the Church commission exposed widespread wrongdoing by the CIA abroad and at home, it also led to restricting the ability of the government to do wrong.

Not enough, but a help.

There's only so much a few people on the internet can do. Look at the big whistleblowers - Daniel Ellsberg found the government was lying to the American people about Vietnam, and faced life in prison for exposing the truth. Bradley Manning, whatever his motivation but it seemed at least in part to be that he felt he'd seen evidence of crimes and coverup, has been treated horribly in prison for a year, facing a long time in prison.

How would you like to be the next whistleblower, if you were put into a government position and learned of wrongdoing and wanted to serve the American people?

I'm sure you would jump at the chance to 'do the right thing' and tell the American people of the wrongdoing, and face decades in prison. Right?
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
Thanks for defending our freedoms against the Empire of Afghanistan, their troops were so close to invading. It would have been WWII all over again, maybe a WWII+1. Possibly a 3. Definitely not a III though.

Thank god you slaughtered all those impoverished Afghani civilians who were encroaching on our freedoms, you are a true American hero.

so you're both going to argue that there is no Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and never has been?

inb4 tinfoil-hat theories.
 

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,587
3
81
ahhh the al quaeda boogieman, great justification for absolutely anything.

I'm betting you didn't feel that way right after 9/11 or were you glad that so many innocent americans were killed by cowards hiding in caves (and mansions)?

again, inb4 conspiracy BS.
 

ahenkel

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2009
5,357
3
81
I've always liked Frontline and I've seen this episode. I didn't really gather any perceived bias against or for the Wikileaks organization. Most of the episode focuses on Bradley Manning and what lead to him allegedly leaking the information.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,556
30,777
146
I fucking hate wikileaks and the faggots who support it.

I've been in lots of rAIDS, plenty of lulz have been had, chanology was fucking awesome, but when wikileaks' shit hit the fan my LOIC was pointed firmly at wikileaks and mirrors (didn't make a difference but it was more a symbolic "fuck you assange, I hope you die of AIDS" gesture).

Seems disingenuous to be wanting such free access to information, .gov docs, and names to the point of doing illegal hacking to get it, but hide behind anonymity at the same time.

yes and yes x1000.

I understand, and can appreciate the intent behind wikileaks, but in reality, it has become a massive whore that needs to be eliminated.

simply b/c the nuts in charge are megalomaniacal asshats and the basement-dwelling children of anonymous are naive little pussies.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,556
30,777
146
I've always liked Frontline and I've seen this episode. I didn't really gather any perceived bias against or for the Wikileaks organization. Most of the episode focuses on Bradley Manning and what lead to him allegedly leaking the information.

yep. it was a really good episode.

it does paint Assange out to be a hypocritical hyper-douche. showing that even his organization of Wikileaks appears to see him as going well off the deep end.

With the evidence from Manning, it also shows Assange (understandably, I must admit, from the perspective Manning's own defense) to be very duplicitous and possibly in contempt.

If fucktards at Anonymous have a problem with this episode, it's that it paints their God out to be an assholish pariah within his own organization.