WikiLeaks risks really high?

[Balstrome]

So if an organisation has evidence of a crime, but it is considered to be biased, then that evidence must be distrusted? Should the evidence be checked to see if it's true first or does calling it biased help the people the evidence seeks to expose.

 

[PeterCH]

So if an organisation has evidence of a crime, but it is considered to be biased, then that evidence must be distrusted? Should the evidence be checked to see if it's true first or does calling it biased help the people the evidence seeks to expose.

If I had evidence of corruption within Wikileaks, do you think Wikileaks would publish it too?

Someone on Slashdot posted an email from Assange from 10 years back where he asks for the details of a civil case he was involved in not to be published because as he put it - people would not understand. This was posted with full headers about a week ago on /.

 

[BobsLawnService]

So if an organisation has evidence of a crime, but it is considered to be biased, then that evidence must be distrusted? Should the evidence be checked to see if it's true first or does calling it biased help the people the evidence seeks to expose.

The deal about whistleblower document repositories is that they need to be beyond reproach themselves. They need to check their facts and they need to present them in a completely objective view on the documents. It is not their job to editorialize and push their own objectives.

 

[MidnightWizard]

MAGIC

Perhaps if Wikileaks was around in 1944 they could have published the details of the D-DAY Landings too.

Oh -- but they WERE leaked -- by the ALLIES themselves -- in a very sophisticated operation.

It kinda fooled the Germans -- Hitler still believed the landings were going to be in NORMANDY

but

We all know what happened in the end.

Secrets -- it is a deep dark hole -- just like Platos cave

Trust NO-ONE

The TRUTH is OUT THERE

 

[Palimino]

Look wikileaks might be good for some kinds of sensitive information (shady deals etc.)

Things like the witness protection program are shrouded in secrecy for very good reasons. Wikileaks should be very careful about which information they choose to publish, or they WILL have blood on their hands.

Unless there is major scumbaggery around the witness protection program (selling the ID’s of witnesses to the mob?), Wikileaks wouldn’t be interested.

 

[Palimino]

If they host foreign CLASSIFIED material they are in fact then aiding and abetting an act of aggression against the US. Are foreign diplomats immune from prosecution or expulsion if they engage and are caught in acts of sabotage or spying against the host country? Of course they aren't.

At the same time, believe it or not Sweden has state secrets they want to keep secret too. The CIA will just use ECHELON to get some of that and happily publish it too. This is really stupid - hopefully the Swedes are not this retarded to go along with this.

<snicker> Panties in a twist? Is that mounting hysteria I hear?

 

[Palimino]

It was incredibly irresponsible for wikileaks to publish documents that have details of individuals that have collaborated with NATO soldiers. As the organization publishing the leaks they have the moral duty to ensure that identifying information is censored.

They should have maintained their stance as a neutral repository for documents. Instead Assange seems to have become personally involved and this means that wikileaks is now too biased to be trusted.

You haven’t a clue, have you?