Scott Adams on Wikileaks and Julian Assange

[rcole_sooner]

I think he may have an opinion on the subject.

Scott Adams, the writer of the Dilbert cartoons, has a hilarious article about Sweden, Julian Assange and wikileaks

Here's a list of three things that you are unlikely to do, at least in this order:

1. Watch a Swedish movie called The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
2. Read about the Swedish sex charges against Julian Assange
3. Book a vacation to Sweden

I am always amused by the strange impact of unintended consequences. Julian Assange simply wanted to release some embarrassing information, have hot sex with a Swedish babe then have hot sex with an acquaintance of that same babe one day later. That's just one example of why the Swedish language has 400 words that all mean "and your cute friend is next."

But things didn't turn out as Assange hoped. The unintended consequence of his actions is that he managed to make Sweden look like a country that's governed by congenital idiots and populated with nothing but crazy sluts and lawyers. And don't get me started about the quality of their condoms.

To be fair, I don't know if Assange's alleged broken condom is because the product was defective. We have good evidence that Assange has the world's biggest set of nuts, so assuming some degree of proportionality, he'd put a strain on any brand of condom that didn't have rebar ribs.

Assange had a lot of help making Sweden look like the last place on Earth that you would want to take your penis. The aforementioned megahit movie, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, makes the place look like a snow-filled ass cave that Jeffrey Dahmer lived in before he got a raise. (It's a good movie otherwise.)

If you haven't read any background about the so-called rape charges against Assange, you really should. Apparently Swedish laws are unique. If you have a penis, you're half a rapist before you even get through customs. And if your condom breaks, that's jail time. What I'm saying is that the Club Med in Sweden is a nervous place.

I was having a hard time making up my mind about Assange. On one hand, he might be hurting the interests of my country and putting people in danger. Death to him! On the other hand, a little extra government transparency might prevent more problems than it causes. Hero! It was a toss-up. Then Sweden turned Assange from a man-whore publicity hound into Gandhi. Advantage: Assange.

The one thing I know for sure is that I'm a fan of the hackers who are dispensing vigilante justice. Here's another unintended consequence: The hackers could end up organizing over this issue and ultimately forming a shadow government of their own, if they haven't already. I welcome my hacker overlords.

Prediction: The governments of the world can't let Assange become a martyr. He would be too powerful. They'll pressure Sweden to release him on some sort of technicality.

 

[coldsteal2]

Then Sweden turned Assange from a man-whore publicity hound into Gandhi.

haha

 

[OldGuy]

So far, Assange has risked stern admonishments and finger-wagging from civilized Western democracies for his attention-seeking transgressions. Now, where are the Wikileaks dumps of Kremlin documents, Beijing documents, Iranian government documents, al Qaeda documents, and Mexican drug cartel documents?

But, of course, Assange values his family jewels in their present location (rather than, say, stuffed down his throat), so it's pretty certain that he won't be doing any dumps that would require him to show real courage.

 

[ext1jdh]

So far, Assange has risked stern admonishments and finger-wagging from civilized Western democracies for his attention-seeking transgressions. Now, where are the Wikileaks dumps of Kremlin documents, Beijing documents, Iranian government documents, al Qaeda documents, and Mexican drug cartel documents?

Perhaps they follow the most basic security requirements and don't let sensitive documents enter the hands of idiots.

I worked with a guy at MEPCOM who, while he was in the army, received a top secret clearance. He received the clearance because he was once stationed in a location where he had to walk through a room that handled TS information in order to get from his bunk to his duty post.

How stupid is that?

 

[KP]

Perhaps they follow the most basic security requirements and don't let sensitive documents enter the hands of idiots.

I worked with a guy at MEPCOM who, while he was in the army, received a top secret clearance. He received the clearance because he was once stationed in a location where he had to walk through a room that handled TS information in order to get from his bunk to his duty post.

How stupid is that?

Not as stupid as you may think. The Army Security Agency requires a TS/C clearance for every person assigned to it. That includes cooks and mechanics.

 

[Scooter2112]

Now, where are the Wikileaks dumps of Kremlin documents, Beijing documents, Iranian government documents, al Qaeda documents, and Mexican drug cartel documents?

That stuff is secure. It's in hiding with all of Obammy's important papers (BC, school records, etc..)

 

[ext1jdh]

Not as stupid as you may think. The Army Security Agency requires a TS/C clearance for every person assigned to it. That includes cooks and mechanics.

Exactly my point. This guy was not handling the sensitive information and didnt need to have access. Because of some poor planning, this guy was granted access that should have been handled better.

If the information is sensitive, then it should be treated as important. The wikileaks data was not handled appropriately at some point and that is how it got out.

 

[itchybro]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNOnvp5t7Do&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks[/ame]

 

[KP]

Exactly my point. This guy was not handling the sensitive information and didnt need to have access. Because of some poor planning, this guy was granted access that should have been handled better.

If the information is sensitive, then it should be treated as important. The wikileaks data was not handled appropriately at some point and that is how it got out.

Under normal circumstances, access to classified information is only on a need to know basis. So, he/they would not see the information. The reasoning for the mass TS/C clearance is if you might inadvertently hear something you are duty bound not to tell anyone. Apparently, the person who stole the information was allowed to handle and read it as a part of his job. Part of the clearance is that you will not divulge anything you hear, see or read. When I was released from the Army, I had to sign a document swearing that I would not say anything about classified information for 12 years.

 

[KP]

YouTube - Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

What a crock. Whistleblowers indeed. Most of what he releases is stolen. The legitimate media normally does not release pilfered information as they may find themselves liable of a crime.

 

[Scooter2112]

The wikileaks data was not handled appropriately at some point and that is how it got out.

The main reason it got out, is because there was a buyer who was looking for it.

 

[ext1jdh]

KP, dude, I'm on your side with this. All I'm saying is that the information should be handled more carefully. The people with access to it should not be talking about it in areas where individuals with lower clearance could hear it. Just a bit of self control is all that's needed to keep our sensitive data secure.

For one thing, the MEPCOM IAO chief couldn't keep his mouth shut. Of all people, he should have been the number one guy to keep quiet.

I mean, I got a PPT while I was at MEPCOM and I sure as hell shouldn't have gotten one. On top of anything, there was no sensitive information that I was exposed to. The threat of legal action isn't good enough when anonymity can be maintained.

 

[05jrock]

The legitimate media

Is there such a thing?

 

[Howard2k]

The main reason it got out, is because there was a buyer who was looking for it.

Manning was paid?

 

[KP]

Is there such a thing?

I was speaking euphemistically.

 

[rcole_sooner]

I see it just like computer hacks. Some want to cover them up, so hackers can't use them to hack with. Others want them made public so we can defend ourselves against them. To some degree both sides are right. I probably side more towards make them public, because I do not want to be an ostrich with my head in the sand. But I also know that some things are more complicated than that.

 

[0x00]

The American Conservative » The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

Edit: Full text in case linked site goes dark.

Lovers necessarily keep or share secrets. Being in a healthy relationship means achieving a certain level of intimacy, where shared knowledge of each others’ weaknesses and insecurities is protected by a bond of mutual trust. Sometimes lovers might do devilish things that outsiders wouldn’t understand, or shouldn’t be privy to, and this is fine. But by and large, what they do is simply no one else’s business.

But imagine that the man in the relationship kept it a secret that he had other women on the side, kids, a criminal record, venereal disease, and basically betrayed his lover in every way imaginable, unbeknownst to her?

Now imagine a third party felt it was their moral duty to reveal it?

No one questions that governments must maintain a certain level of secrecy, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who told Time that “Secrecy is important for many things … [but it] shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.” The entire premise of Assange’s whistleblower organization is this: To what degree is government secrecy justified? And when particular secrets could be damaging to the other partner in the United States government’s relationship — the American people — should these secrets be revealed in the name of protecting the public?

How often does our government use “national security” simply as an excuse to cover up questionable dealings? Reports Time: “in the past few years, governments have designated so much information secret that you wonder whether they intend the time of day to be classified. The number of new secrets designated as such by the U.S. government has risen 75% … . At the same time, the number of documents and other communications created using those secrets has skyrocketed nearly 10 times…”

To say that government must keep secrets is not to say that all government secrets must be kept.

As admitted even by Pentagon officials and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, none of WikiLeaks’ revelations do anything to compromise national security or endanger American lives — but they have wreaked havoc on political life in Washington, D.C. Americans are not supposed to know, for example, that their government bullied and threatened individuals and other governments that might have undermined the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009. The federal government attempting to squelch anyone who might undermine global-warming dogma? Do WikiLeaks’ conservative critics believe revealing this is a “national security” risk?

Americans are not supposed to know, apparently, that behind the scenes Saudi Arabia has been encouraging the U.S. to take military action against Iran. But if we end up going to war with Iran shouldn’t it be in America’s national interest, and not simply as a subcontractor for another country? Asks Fox News’ Judith Miller: “Why should Americans not know that Arab states, often at the top level, have been urging Washington to take military or other drastic action against Iran, while they publicly oppose such action?”

And when did conservatives become so protective of Hillary Clinton? What happened to the days of the “Stop Hillary Express,” when right-wing talk radio portrayed the former first lady as Satan and theorized about all the devious ways in which, if in power, she might conspire to bring down the country? When WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Clinton tried to obtain DNA, fingerprints, credit-card numbers, and other private information belonging to United Nations officials, we learned that Clinton’s style was every bit as mafia-esque as her conservative critics once warned. Yet conservatives now attack WikiLeaks for revealing what they once feared. It should also be remembered that the same conservatives now calling for Assange’s head either ignored or were sympathetic to Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame allegedly at the Bush administration’s behest — a revelation arguably far riskier to our national security than anything ever released by WikiLeaks.

But the worst hypocrisy throughout this controversy has been in conservatives reflexively defending the government and attacking WikiLeaks. Since when have conservatives believed that Washington should be able to shroud any action it likes in secrecy and that revealing government’s nefarious deeds is tantamount to treason? Isn’t it government officials who might secretly work for corporate, ideological or transnational interests — and against the national interest — who are betraying their country?

Interestingly, Wikileaks’ founder espouses the traditionally conservative, Jeffersonian view that America’s constitutional structure limits and lessens government corruption. Reported Time: “Assange appears to believe that the U.S. has not become ‘a much-worse-behaved superpower’ because its federalism, ‘this strength of the states,’ has been a drag on the combination of the burgeoning power of the central government and a presidency that can expand its influence only by way of foreign affairs.”

Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders’ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikLleaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations.

 

[itchybro]

What a crock. Whistleblowers indeed. Most of what he releases is stolen. The legitimate media normally does not release pilfered information as they may find themselves liable of a crime.

My post: 9:45
Your post: 9:50

Video: almost 20 minutes.

Just sayin.

 

[itchybro]

The American Conservative » The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks

Strange bedfellows indeed. (Great post. Thanks.)

 

[NoStatic]

My post: 9:45
Your post: 9:50

Video: almost 20 minutes.

Just sayin.

Chuckle. Dont need Utoob round here pilgrim.