Wikileaks - latest leak

Von Smallhausen · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:06

It was going to happen.

I would have been amazed if he got bail.

Danthus · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:07

Sky News have just reported that in court it was mentioned that there was no record of his entry into the UK.

Von Smallhausen · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:09

That would give a decent argument that he is a flight risk.

Danthus · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:11

How is there no record of him entering the country though?

meghatronic · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:18

OldCoals said:
How is there no record of him entering the country though?

Are you surprised?

iviv · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:20

Obviously MI6 found and deleted the records, wouldn't want him getting an easy ride through the courts!

meghatronic · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:24

I now await Britain getting DDOS'd for illegally detaining Jesus 3.0.

Brian8bit · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:35

I hope they kill him just so the keys for the insurance file become available.

Cosimo · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:43

OldCoals said:
Refused bail.

No surprise there.

leaskovski · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:44

steve-h said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...nge--women-involved-tell-different-story.html

Wow, whatever you do chaps! Make sure you tell the girl that you got laid 4 nights before, otherwise they will be after you!

After reading that, I am utterly confussed over the whole rape thing!?

Danthus · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:51

meghatronic said:
Are you surprised?

No hence why I keep asking who is Julian Assange.

Is disgraceful the way the media are reporting the rape allegations, "Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks," his relation to Wikileaks has absolutely no bearing on the allegation.

Sky and BBC both commented that in court, his association with Wikileaks had no bearing on the rape allegation, yet it was one of the reasons bail was refused as he maybe in danger because of the leaks.

iviv · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:53

Taken from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-us-embassy-cables-live-updates

11.40am: Internet guru Clay Shirky has an interesting post on WikiLeaks and how America's pursuit of the site opens it up to the charge of hypocrisy:

The leaders of Myanmar and Belarus, or Thailand and Russia, can now rightly say to us: "You went after WikiLeaks' domain name, their hosting provider, and even denied your citizens the ability to register protest through donations, all without a warrant and all targeting overseas entities, simply because you decided you don't like the site. If that's the way governments get to behave, we can live with that."

In this context comments by Hillary Clinton (below) in a Foreign Policy article earlier this year are coming back to haunt her:

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress. But the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas. And we recognise that the world's information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

This challenge may be new, but our responsibility to help ensure the free exchange of ideas goes back to the birth of our republic. The words of the first amendment to the constitution [guaranteeing freedom of speech] are carved in 50 tons of Tennessee marble on the front of this building. And every generation of Americans has worked to protect the values etched in that stone.

AGD · 7 Dec 2010 at 15:53

The rape accusations seem pretty flimsy but the justification of the judge not to give bail was sound nevertheless. This will be rather protracted but I don't expect him to be found guilty. The real danger is that once in sweden, they extradite him to the US.

OldCoals said:
yet it was one of the reasons bail was refused as he maybe in danger because of the leaks.

No it wasn't. The judge rejected that reason as valid when deciding not to grant bail. It was a weak excuse used by the prosecution.

Vonhelmet · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:06

leaskovski said:
Wow, whatever you do chaps! Make sure you tell the girl that you got laid 4 nights before, otherwise they will be after you!

After reading that, I am utterly confussed over the whole rape thing!?

Here's how it works - you pay someone to sleep with him, then you get them to cry rape, then you extradite them, then you disappear them.

Surfer · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:07

Entire FARCE. serious lolworthy story about Woman A + B

If he gets jailed because of this then something is fubared somewhere... i guess it opens some people's eyes on the way "justice" and the law (regardless of what country) is manipulated (and made a mockery tbh) to promote certain powerful parties agendas.

We all knew this though.... but its nice seeing this happening right in front of our faces.

Danthus · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:07

bibalasvegas said:
No it wasn't. The judge rejected that reason as valid when deciding not to grant bail. It was a weak excuse used by the prosecution.

That was not the way it was reported on Sky News, although you are correct.

PiKe · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:09

I don't know much about this so apologies if it's already done but why not just seed the docs on torrent?

Brian8bit · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:11

PiKe said:
I don't know much about this so apologies if it's already done but why not just seed the docs on torrent?

Being done.

Danthus · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:13

PiKe said:
I don't know much about this so apologies if it's already done but why not just seed the docs on torrent?

Insurance.

AGD · 7 Dec 2010 at 16:31

PiKe said:
I don't know much about this so apologies if it's already done but why not just seed the docs on torrent?

I think the idea is to give each leak the time it deserves. If you release 250,000 pages at once, people don't have time to go through them an appreciate the implications of each. By gradually releasing them to the media (guardian, new york times etc), they get informed analysis of each leak and people get time to appreciate the significance of each one.

The raw data can be found on torrents but it is encrypted so if anything happens to wikileaks we can then unencrypt it and get all the leaks.