Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

[Dagless]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute on the internet. Not even close.

I am not aware of anything which cannot be found on the internet. Wouldn't that indicate freedom? Countries may filter what their citizens are allowed to see but that's not the same thing.

Considering that he is not an American citizen, nor living in the US it is more difficult than normal. The US is talking to Australia about what he can or cannot be possibly charged with. Even if the US did charge him under its own laws all he would have to pretty much do is stay out of the US to avoid prosecution.

He doesn't leak the information (which is the main crime) and it would be difficult to prove he himself shared it. As you say; he's not even a US citizen.

Capturing information isn't rocket science, especially for those who are familiar with the way "the internet works". With the case of websites; they can use cookies to allow users to "login". This can be a "perfectly safe" way to use a facility. It can and is however, being used by facebook; to capture details of those nodes, including their websearches, private documents, etc, without the "consent" (full knowledge) of its users.

You'll have to back this up since I think it's just scaremongering. Facebook somehow having access to a users private documents without consent would be front page news.

 

[aamirsaab]

Freedom of Speech is not an absolute on the internet. Not even close.

I can find you plenty of sites that explicitly say and show otherwise. Without risking an arrest warrent on my being (and potentially others), I am hopeful you will appreciate me not linking such sites.

Considering that he is not an American citizen, nor living in the US it is more difficult than normal. The US is talking to Australia about what he can or cannot be possibly charged with. Even if the US did charge him under its own laws all he would have to pretty much do is stay out of the US to avoid prosecution.

I will conceed on that point. But, that doesn't excuse the dubious allegations (and the rest) being made against him for leaking documents....by America.

I appreciate the need for secrecy (say credit card details or personal numbers for instance) but I will call poetic justice (or bull**** if you prefer) when I see it, especially as far as the government is concerned.

Lastly, if you would consider the following statement: Governments should be afraid of it's people and not the other way round. I believe this particular case is a prime example of that, especially in today's "democractic" world.

 

[titus]

I am not aware of anything which cannot be found on the internet. Wouldn't that indicate freedom?

No. You can be arrested for posting the wrong things on the internet or conducting business improperly. The internet is not a complete free for all. In many ways it is even less so since what you write is recorded electronically and can be used in court.

I can find you plenty of sites that explicitly say and show otherwise. Without risking an arrest warrent on my being (and potentially others), I am hopeful you will appreciate me not linking such sites.

If you threatened to kill me on the internet that would be illegal and not protected under freedom of speech. If you created a site that showed something illegal, such as child pornography, that would illegal and not protected by freedom of speech. So no, freedom of speech is not an absolute on the internet.

I appreciate the need for secrecy but I will call poetic justice (or bull**** if you prefere) when I see it.

I understand how those that hate the US government would be getting a kick out of this.

What would really be a kick would be to see him do the same thing to other governments like China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. I would bet that the American cables would appear even more benign compared to some of those.

 

[أحمد]

You'll have to back this up since I think it's just scaremongering. Facebook somehow having access to a users private documents without consent would be front page news.

You mean "scaremongering" like this?

And of course, there's more. It just requires some effort to search for "acceptable media references".

:wa:

 

[Dagless]

No. You can be arrested for posting the wrong things on the internet or conducting business improperly. The internet is not a complete free for all. In many ways it is even less so since what you write is recorded electronically and can be used in court.

If you threatened to kill me on the internet that would be illegal and not protected under freedom of speech. If you created a site that showed something illegal, such as child pornography, that would illegal and not protected by freedom of speech. So no, freedom of speech is not an absolute on the internet.

That's under your local legal system, what makes you think it applies elsewhere? There have been many such sites (and sadly there continue to be).

 

[Dagless]

You mean "scaremongering" like this?

And of course, there's more. It just requires some effort to search for "acceptable media references".

:wa:

That's not for users private documents.

 

[أحمد]

That's not for users private documents.

One of the two "scaremongering" features, has already been referenced. The other one can be sorted out soon :inshallah

Capturing information isn't rocket science, especially for those who are familiar with the way "the internet works". With the case of websites; they can use cookies to allow users to "login". This can be a "perfectly safe" way to use a facility. It can and is however, being used by facebook; to capture details of those nodes, including their websearches, private documents, etc, without the "consent" (full knowledge) of its users.

You'll have to back this up since I think it's just scaremongering. Facebook somehow having access to a users private documents without consent would be front page news.

:wa:

 

[titus]

That's under your local legal system, what makes you think it applies elsewhere? There have been many such sites (and there continue to be).

I am not aware of any legal system that claims they have no jurisdiction over the internet. Are you?

As I said, freedom of speech on the internet is not an absolute. For that to be true then not one single country would have any control whatsoever over content. We both know that is not even close to reality. Every country has some kind of limit on content.

 

[Abdul-Raouf]

The Fox is leaking secrets.......as part of its wicked plan...

Beware!!! ...the Jungle is in trouble.

 

[Dagless]

I am not aware of any legal system that claims they have no jurisdiction over the internet. Are you?

As I said, freedom of speech on the internet is not an absolute. For that to be true then not one single country would have any control whatsoever over content. We both know that is not even close to reality. Every country has some kind of limit on content.

Isn't that what I said earlier? That they can only control what their citizens view (and even then not 100%) but have no control on what's out there. This is before you take into account the peer to peer stuff which goes on within borders. An example of this is freenet - ok it's not as amazing as some avenues but it's something the average user has access to.

edit: Oops off-topic again. Maybe we should open a new thread if this is to continue.

 

[أحمد]

Since facebook has joined this discussion; we have a second external link. More about what facebook "knows", about its users. That calls for a third link.

:wa:

 

[جوري]

Isn't facebook owned by Zionists anyway? .. I really don't trust it as a portal of disseminating information or exchanging it.. probably they have taps on all its muslim users...
there is no need to be hyper vigilant just because the truth is on your side..

 

[أحمد]

Isn't facebook owned by Zionists anyway? .. I really don't trust it as a portal of disseminating information or exchanging it.. probably they have taps on all its muslim users...
there is no need to be hyper vigilant just because the truth is on your side..

All the founders and owners are Jewish, but I don't know much about them. I don't like their website; mainly due to the reason I wrote previously, so I don't use it. The matter of involvement of Zionism, only makes things worse for Muslim users.

:wa:

 

[Beardo]

WikiLeaks is a security threat. Govt do things in secrecy with good reason. This'll be bad for US.

 

[CosmicPathos]

^^ ya right.

 

[GuestFellow]

WikiLeaks is a security threat. Govt do things in secrecy with good reason. This'll be bad for US.

Are you serious? O_O

 

[Beardo]

Are you serious? O_O

Of course I'm serious. But there's more to it. Anyhow, Clinton herself is in trouble too... Gotta think twice before sayign things.

 

[Tilmeez]

Clinton herself is in trouble too

Really? :-o :ermm:

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Security threat really? I doubt that, Some British diplomat said its more embarassing than anything else and much of it was known or could of been guessed. Though it is interesting to see how the Americans think, always good to have hard proof.

This whole business of 'secrecy' Ive always been iffy about, to me its little to do with security and more to do with stopping populations understanding what their governments are up to.

Of interest to me was how Obama called Cameron a 'lightweight' and that he has little interest in European affairs. Also interesting is how the Arab dictatorships have been urging the US to attack Iran nuclear facilities, shows whos' 'side' they are on.

Really good service wikileaks are providing, if there was any justice in the world they would be winning peace prizes.

 

[Trumble]

Also interesting is how the Arab dictatorships have been urging the US to attack Iran nuclear facilities, shows whos' 'side' they are on.

A simple look at the map will explain why. Being on Iran's 'side' wouldn't move them to somewhere other than smack in the middle between Iran and it's most likely nuclear target (which has nukes already, of course). What is also interesting is that, despite such urgings, the US chose not to do so. What is outright hilarious is that the Iranians are pretending this never happened, and that the whole thing is just US propaganda! ;D