Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wonderpup

What Happens If You Cut The Head Off A Snake?

Recommended Posts

It's pretty clear that the US authorities believe that if they can 'get' Julian Assenege then they will plug the leaks- but it seems to me that at present Asseange and Wikileaks is exercising some degree of moderation over what they release- and at least trying to engage with the authorities to avoid gratuitous harm being caused by their actions.

So let's say they succeed in shutting Wikileaks down- is this a good outcome for them? I would argue not- the problem being that Wikilieaks is an an idea, and ideas are very hard to kill, especially in a world with near instant communications.

So the likely outcome of a disrupted Wikileaks - and the lesson to be drawn by would be information warriors from it's demise is simple-

Take everything you've got and dump it online as fast as you can, make no attempt to engage with authority for purposes of redaction, have zero profile and talk to no one. This would be an extremely bad outcome for everyone- on both sides.

So it seems to me that while cutting off the wikilealks head might seem an attractive and effective strategy- the end result could be even worse than what they have now- no control, no redaction, no dialogue of any kind, just an open spigot.

Maybe a better idea would be to accept that the idea of online leaking has been born and to engage with Wikileaks as adults, on the basis that having a single more or less responsible locus is far better than spawning an underground of vengeful copycats who may share Assanges ideology, but not his scruples.

So maybe the PTB in reality need someone like Assange- a figurehead of sorts- to negotiate with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I smell a rat.

King also said, according to the cable on the Guardian's website, it was imperative to find a way for banks to sell off unwanted illiquid securities, including mortgage backed securities, without resorting to sales at distressed valuations.

Bank recapitalisation, or did they already all know about securitisation fraud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that the US authorities believe that if they can 'get' Julian Assenege then they will plug the leaks- but it seems to me that at present Asseange and Wikileaks is exercising some degree of moderation over what they release- and at least trying to engage with the authorities to avoid gratuitous harm being caused by their actions.

So let's say they succeed in shutting Wikileaks down- is this a good outcome for them? I would argue not- the problem being that Wikilieaks is an an idea, and ideas are very hard to kill, especially in a world with near instant communications.

So the likely outcome of a disrupted Wikileaks - and the lesson to be drawn by would be information warriors from it's demise is simple-

Take everything you've got and dump it online as fast as you can, make no attempt to engage with authority for purposes of redaction, have zero profile and talk to no one. This would be an extremely bad outcome for everyone- on both sides.

So it seems to me that while cutting off the wikilealks head might seem an attractive and effective strategy- the end result could be even worse than what they have now- no control, no redaction, no dialogue of any kind, just an open spigot.

Maybe a better idea would be to accept that the idea of online leaking has been born and to engage with Wikileaks as adults, on the basis that having a single more or less responsible locus is far better than spawning an underground of vengeful copycats who may share Assanges ideology, but not his scruples.

So maybe the PTB in reality need someone like Assange- a figurehead of sorts- to negotiate with?

Assange discussed this on a panel at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and their initial approach was to put the stuff online without comment and expected interested journalists etc. to dig through it.

They didn't.

Wikileaks found that they had to write articles on the leaks and point people at the interesting stuff if they wanted to verify Wikileaks opinion on what they had.

Therefore, what you suggest is unlikely to work, and if anything would be a win for authorities.

On a related point, I think there were a couple of reasons Assange came out of the closet wrt Wikileaks (1) To protect himself (this may seem strange given what has happened, but at the same Berkeley panel he realted stories that suggested visibility may have been a good thing), and (2) They realised they needed a face to push their site and message, because, no matter what they say, people aren't that interested in this stuff if they have to do some work...even journalists...they need a public interest "Hello" angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, we'd have had our HPC if the banks hadn't been bailed. Mind you, we'd have had an economic meltdown and everyone's savings would have been toast too.

Personally I think the authorities did the right thing. Without propping up the banks they wouldn't have compounded the bank crisis in to the mother of all global sovereign debt crisis's and I wouldn't have been able to get my money out of the insolvent banks and put it in gold/silver in preparation for the debt crisis to go off with a bang. Full marks to Brown, Merv, Obama, Greenspan, Bernanke etc. Top blokes, one and all. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assange was interviewed at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and their initial approach was to put the stuff online without comment and expected interested journalists etc. to dig through it.

They didn't.

Wikileaks found that had to do articles on the leaks and point people at the interesting stuff if they wanted to verify Wikileaks opinion on what they had.

Therefore, what you suggest is unlikely to work, and if anything would be a win for authorities. On a related point, I think there were a couple of reasons Assange came out of the closet wrt Wikileaks (1) To protect himself, and (2) They realised they needed a face to push their site and message, because, no matter what they say, people aren't that interested in this stuff if they have to do some work...even journalists...they need a public interest "Hello" angle.

Indeed. It's going to look mighty suspicious if he suddenly gets a bullet in the back of the head. Making himself a global public figurehead was a very shrewd move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that the US authorities believe that if they can 'get' Julian Assenege then they will plug the leaks- but it seems to me that at present Asseange and Wikileaks is exercising some degree of moderation over what they release- and at least trying to engage with the authorities to avoid gratuitous harm being caused by their actions.

Wikileaks has already fragmented into open leaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assange discussed this on a panel at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and their initial approach was to put the stuff online without comment and expected interested journalists etc. to dig through it.

They didn't.

Wikileaks found that they had to write articles on the leaks and point people at the interesting stuff if they wanted to verify Wikileaks opinion on what they had.

Therefore, what you suggest is unlikely to work, and if anything would be a win for authorities.

On a related point, I think there were a couple of reasons Assange came out of the closet wrt Wikileaks (1) To protect himself (this may seem strange given what has happened, but at the same Berkeley panel he realted stories that suggested visibility may have been a good thing), and (2) They realised they needed a face to push their site and message, because, no matter what they say, people aren't that interested in this stuff if they have to do some work...even journalists...they need a public interest "Hello" angle.

My point was a different one- in my scenario the articles are posted in the manner of the new 'openleaks' model , as anonymously as possible- and with no attempt made to connect with the authorities regarding content- which Wikilieaks did do in the recent case- only to be rebuffed.

My understanding is that wikileaks do take the time to redact parts of the information they publish, rather than just putting everything out there. A less benign version of the wikileaks model might take a different view.

So I would argue that the profile of Wikileaks and Assange are to some degree in a perverse way helpful to the Authorities, in that they channel the flow of leaked information through a filter that at least exercises some degree of moderation- rather than a true 'wild west' situation in which the stuff gets put out there in a completely irresponsible way.

I suppose all this is a long winded way of saying that if they drive the online leaks model 'underground' it might prove far more dangerous and disruptive than dealing with what has now become a reasonably respectable source that has itself a public reputation to defend and is unlikely to wish to appear totally irresponsible.

In a sense Wikileaks has become part of the establishment, albeit a very unwelcome part to some people. So the question the PTB need to ask themselves is this- what will replace wikilieaks if they take it down? I would suggest it would be something worse, from their point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wikileaks has already fragmented into open leaks

Yes it has- and Open leaks are rejecting the idea of high profile engagement and opting for a more diffuse and anonymous model- more down the 'wild west' end of the spectrum.

A wise establishment would choose to reinforce Wikileaks position in this 'market' rather than seek to undermine it. I have no doubt whatsoever that they will fail to grasp this reality and end up with a multiplicity of 'me too' sites that are likely to be less concerned with their emerging public image and more concerned with making a big splash to impress their mates.

The US establishment are, as usual, thinking with their dicks instead of their brains. Ego's have been bruised, so retribution must be sought. Morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikileaks = Napster

Like someone said earlier in the discussion, it is the idea not the organisation that will continue.

Not hard to disseminate digital information these days.

Exactly, the idea will just morph into a decentralised form which exists only in 'the cloud'

Similar to the way bit torrent took off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. It's going to look mighty suspicious if he suddenly gets a bullet in the back of the head. Making himself a global public figurehead was a very shrewd move.

They only kill overtly when they want to send a message.

Don't be surprised if he dies young of cancer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 311 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.