Joe Bidet
Random Joe, or should I say… GNU/Joe
- 3 Posts
- 55 Comments
speaking of the Atlantic, read this article:
you’ve been mislead in thinking WikiLeaks releases harmed anyone. the US army harmed the people of Afghanistan, and that’s what this story is about.
1/ journalists do that ALL THE TIME. you protect your source but you are not prevented from asking for more documents
2/ he didnt help escalate anythig. She gave him a hash and he never replied about whether or not it got cracked to anything
3/ it wasn’t even privilege escalation, but allegedly to mask traces, to login from another user. so it would have amounted to helping a source protect herself, if it had been done.
“no qualms” for a journalist facing extradition in a country he is not even a citizen of, for “espionnage”, for revealing war crimes… i wonder what you then have “qualms” about…
You may have got a couple of facts wrong:
https://www.laprogressive.com/the-media-in-the-united-states/wrong-about-assange
"Wikileaks had hundreds of thousands of documents it had gotten from Manning – the war logs and State Department cables — for a considerable period in 2010 and went to “extraordinary lengths to publish them in a responsible and redacted manner,” the submissions to a lower U.K. court said. WikiLeaks held back information while it formed media partnerships with news organizations such as The Guardian, The New York Times and DER SPIEGEL to manage the release of the material. Assange’s legal team cited named witnesses, various journalists who worked with Assange on the process. Those witnesses testified to the rigor of the redaction effort.
The media partners’ work on the Afghan war logs included approaching the White House before releasing them. In July 2010, Wikileaks also entered dialogue with the White House about redacting names. On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks held back publication of 15,000 documents on Afghanistan to safeguard its “harm minimization process” even after its media partners published stories.
Redaction of the Iraq War diaries was likewise “painstakingly approached” and involved the development of special redaction software. Publication was delayed in August 2010 despite this annoying some media partners because Assange didn’t want to rush.
Un-redacted publication of the State Department cables in September 2011 was undertaken by parties unconnected to WikiLeaks, and despite WikiLeaks’ efforts to prevent it, the legal submissions state. Those who revealed un-redacted cables have never been prosecuted nor requested to remove them from the internet.
[Ed.: John Young, founder of Cryptome, testified at Assange’s hearing that he published the unredacted cables before WikiLeaks but was never questioned by police. The password to the unredacted cables was published by Guardian journalists Luke Harding and David Leigh before Cryptome did.]"
The names that were in the warlogs were classified as “confidential” not “secret” or “top secret”. they were in SIPRnet where millions of ppl had access to it. If anyone endangered their sources, translators etc. it’s the US army itself.
- during Manning’s court martial, US officials (a general if i recall) testified under oath that they couldnt’ link one death to the publication.
It’s pure propaganda to say that Assange “endangered people” when he helped reveal the most important trove of documents that actually helped shift public opinion (and therefore slowing down) this war; while at the same time the US was killing and displacing 100.000s.
(+ it’s true that by helping the US army, those informants, sources, translators etc… were already taking a risk in a coutry at war…)
https://video.emergeheart.info/ is focused on the defense of Assange and WikiLeaks
because this furiously sounds like some transhumanist bullshit.
transhumanism as a prolongation of the rich elite’s desire to last forever, and their will to invest their appropriated resources into themselves, erecting fear of death as a valid investment target, making it a priority over all the problems the Earth and most people on it are facing because of them and their greed…
transhumanism should be opposed, at least for as long as we haven’t solved climate emergency…
yes, and for the same reason, when someone says “America” i always ask them: “do you mean South America, Central or North-America?” and they usually go “oh sorry yeah i meant the United States”.
Because langage matters and also brings about colonial notions…
“linux” like “open source” is our freedoms being colonized by the business/“pragmatic” crowd…
I think calling it “linux” instead of “GNU/linux” amounts to saying “we have a problem with emissions of CO2” instead of saying “we have a problem with upcoming environmental collapse”… it’s completely missing the point of something wider, more complex, etc.
By calling it “GNU/linux” you refer to an OS that is based on the principles, the ethics, the philosophy, the politics of Free/libre software. you mention software that exists to share nowledge and empower people.
By calling it “linux”, you refer to an obscure object, the kernel, that was mostly developped “because its fun”, in which companies like IBM etc… contribute. a cool toy for tech nerds. nothing really important, revolutionary or subversive…
Well the thing is in this case there was clealry a point of law that is of general interest, and that concerns other people as well:
Can a state (the US) give “diplomatic assurances” (that they will not torture Assange, unless… ) after a decision of justice was taken, in order to invalidate it? In a context where the defendant couldn’t have access to these insurances to be able to properly invalidate them with the use of expert witnesses in first instance?
By claiming that this was NOT a point of law justifying a supreme court appeal, the court implicitly allows the US (and other countries) to “keep their cards to their chest” and not disclose their arguments in first instance extradition procedures to bypass the contradictory procedure, waiting to eventually lose the case to disclose diplomatic assurances…
This is a major blow for whoever still believed in the UK court system, and maybe in “justice” at large in the UK. As they say there: “disgraceful!”… :(
UK: RSF calls on Home Office to block Assange extradition following Supreme Court refusal to consider appeal
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is deeply disappointed by the refusal of the UK Supreme Court to consider the appeal in the extradition case against Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. More than two years after extradition proceedings began, the case will now be sent back to the Home Office to take a political decision. RSF urges the Home Office to act in the interest of journalism and press freedom by refusing extradition and immediately releasing Assange from prison.
UK: Refusal by Supreme Court to grant Assange right to appeal is “a blow for justice”
Responding to a UK Supreme Court decision refusing to grant Julian Assange permission to appeal against the previous High Court ruling permitting his extradition, Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe Julia Hall, said:
“Today’s decision is a blow to Julian Assange and to justice. The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.
Using a chat service without disclosing a “strong selector” such as phone number (remember: “We kill people based on metadata”) should be considered freedom0.
Moxie promised (was it in 2016?) that it would be feasible with Signal… since then Signal users got: cool new stickers (!) and a crypto-ponzi scheme. Inexcusable.
I cannot find that page again as it as obviously been fixed since, but i remember looking at Tox a long while ago and running away scared and laughing at the same time.
On some installation page (on a wiki!!) it used to recommend (from memory) something like “wget --ignore-certificate https://blah.blah/blah.sh | sudo sh”
My immediate reaction was that i wouldn’t take seriously anything related to security from ppl recommending such insanely sloppy and insecure methods…
this website seems very biased to me as it is written by a Microsoft company.
- it uses overly complex legal mumbo jumbo to describe the copyleft licenses, while describing the non-copyleft ones in friendly terms “A short and simple permissive license with conditions only requiring…” making them more appealing somehow.
- it mentions a permission to PATENT things, with all licenses. when software patents must be banned, and in practices only exist in some weird loophole in the EU. While FSF site reads as "GPLv3 also provides users with explicit patent protection from the program’s contributors and redistributors. " (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html )
- it propagates the meme that allowing ppl to make proprietary crap out of your software is “permissive”. like if having the right to own slaves would give you… more freedom…?
I didnt write that “BSD/MIT is not political” as i agree with your statement. I said “if you think that code is not political”, as it is a statement you often hear from ppl who don’t want to think too much about license (or about anything else but code). I was describing a symptom, a state of mind (that make ppl opt for BSD and other “exploitative-free” licenses).
It’s not only about credit. All should do this. It’s a very very basic requirement.
Just imagine:
- Windows 23 is released and contains some of your code. made proprietary, as part of this immense piece of garbageware. your name is in a list somewhere, after a third click in a long boring screen of legal documents that nobody reads.
are you OK with that? (that’s BSD/MIT)
- Windows 23 developpers are thinking of using your code. their lawyers make them check the license, and think “damn! our evil plan is foiled! he’s using the GPL! we cannot re-use his software until our own software is released under the GPL and obviously we plan on selling proprietary crap to ppl who would run away scared if they can actually look at the code of what they bought. we’ll have to plagiarize this guy by rebuilding his software, nobody will know.”
do you want that? (that’s *GPL)
A political answer here:
- if you want your code to be part of a movement for freedom, to be part of creating a “bubble of freedom” that will serve the world while protecting itself and its users, but fully serve only those whose interests are aligned with the objectives of freedom: go *GPL.
- if you don’t give a f%ck, that you think code is not political and do it just for fun, go to a “business-friendly” (some call them “permissive” but i tend to see freedom to do business at somebody else’s exprense rather “exploitative” than anything myself…), *BSD*MIT*etc.
- •
- lemmy.ml
- •
- 3Y
- •
So the casino of deregulated finance, bringing Earth to its doom while increasing inequalities… was actually started by mafia hand in hand with CIA, and institutionalized by the politicians who enabled them, uh?
fascinating…