Not if its in the interest of public in cases where it is revealing misconducts or information that has been distorted by a governing bodies and in such form previously distributed to the public. Free press, public watch dog... Ring any bells? No? Is California part of China now?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not if its in the interest of public in cases where it is revealing misconducts or information that has been distorted by a governing bodies and in such form previously distributed to the public. Free press, public watch dog... Ring any bells? No? Is California part of China now?
is Wikileaks based in the US ? no ? well then why the big uproar ... it's clearly not within US jurisdiction then
i second that
denunciation is the lowest of the low
I am not against WikiLeaks, nor do I support it. I just don't think WikiLeaks really has anything of value. Go ahead and release it all. It will do nothing and will be forgotten. Just my opinion. They should be careful about obtaining potentially stolen material though. That will get them shut down.
I do not like to see Apple removing this App from the App Store although I do not like some "leaked" Information of ongoing and future military operations either because it WILL cost a lot of lives on both sides.
HEY!! One of those Governments you are referring to is the Canadian Government.... and we are not corrupt, eh!!!
A justification defense like "I'm a watch dog" doesn't work, better argument is simply that the US law is somewhat unclear on the re-distribution of classified materials by a journalist = illegal. Interestingly enough, it seems AFTER this brew haha, wikileaks changed it's website (and disclosures) to lean heavy on the "we're journalists" angle.
I didnt know how facist the USA was until wikileaks opened my eyes!
God Bless Assange
Did you see something in the WikiLeaks that made you think that the US is facist?
The documents stolen from the State Department really doesn't make the US look bad. However, many other people look really bad. If the US wanted to make these other governments looks bad, we could have released this information ourselves.
I find it really funny that people are saying bad things about the US. The reason the US Government is upset is because this information was not for public consumption. Not because there were secrets, but because we respect people's privacy.
How would you feel if WikiLeaks published all emails that have gone through gmail? It's the same thing! Privacy is privacy. Off the record conversations are off the record. There is a huge double standard here.
"Here's to the Crazy Ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. About the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world - are the ones who do.
...those where the good days...
...those where the good days...
Sorry, also meant to add, base of operations is not the determinative factor on jurisdiction - see the guys grabbed off the battlefield in Afghanistan sent to US federal criminal court in NY. Lot's of ways to suck them into US courts.
The intelligence for WMD did not come from covert operations ... they came from information gathered from 10,000 Iraqi/Americans that had escaped Saddam's Murderous Regime.
When you give a guy like Saddam 2 years notice that you are coming to forcefully search for his Mustard Gas and like. It amazes me the amount of people that are convinced he never had them. (He destroyed it all)
Speak to any Iraqi/American of how life was like living under Saddam's Power and maybe you will come to the same conclusion the US Military did when they first went there in regards to WMD.
Saddam also had every chance to surrender ... but he thought that he would win the war.
If more people actually knew what life was like in Iraq under Saddam ... The whole freakin country lived in fear for their lives.
Get your facts straight. The free press is based on the fact that they should act as public watch dogs as I previously stated.
As the guy who stole the pentagon papers didn't serve a day in prison, I'm not sure what the legal precedent is, you'll have to wait for the trial (and inevitable appeals) of Manning to know whether he committed a crime - US law is based on common law, and precedent is key.
You don't, its just that a lot of governments with lots of terrorists are corruptible.
IF everyone who posts anything they get from wherever counts as a journalist. Not necessarily the case. Get your Constitutional law straight.
It seems no one read my post a few pages back, and instead embarked upon a flame deluged conquest
Again, cut it any way you want, but Wikileaks is currently within the parameters of legal given previous supreme court rulings. The person who originally leaked the information from Spirnet however is not, and again in my opinion should be tried with treason. Classified is a classified for a reason, and under no circumstances should complete transparency exist-- that's just being naive.
Apple is also within their legal parameters; they define what "endangers" another group, so regardless of the governments involvement or lack thereof they are still within their rights. Since apple may potentially become a contractor for the government, however, they too will be subject to certain restrictions and terms of their contract, which will undoubtedly include NDAs or related information dissemination clauses.
I think the biggest problem with this whole debacle is many of those who ardently support Wikileaks aren't mature; it seems much of the demographic involved knows little about anything except what someone on a soapbox tells them (not necessarily applied to anyone here). I mean look at the LOIC script kiddies who willingly join a botnet... it's actually quite sad. No one gives any thoughts to the repercussions of complete transparency and openness, and many of these children seem to think social or internet related attacks somehow makes a difference in problem solving, when in fact open debate and dialogue should be the go to tools for any life situation like this. It speaks a lot of our society.
Again, cut it any way you want, but Wikileaks is currently within the parameters of legal given previous supreme court rulings. The person who originally leaked the information from Spirnet however is not, and again in my opinion should be tried with treason. Classified is a classified for a reason, and under no circumstances should complete transparency exist-- that's just being naive.
Apple is also within their legal parameters; they define what "endangers" another group, so regardless of the governments involvement or lack thereof they are still within their rights. Since apple may potentially become a contractor for the government, however, they too will be subject to certain restrictions and terms of their contract, which will undoubtedly include NDAs or related information dissemination clauses.
I think the biggest problem with this whole debacle is many of those who ardently support Wikileaks aren't mature; it seems much of the demographic involved knows little about anything except what someone on a soapbox tells them (not necessarily applied to anyone here). I mean look at the LOIC script kiddies who willingly join a botnet... it's actually quite sad. No one gives any thoughts to the repercussions of complete transparency and openness, and many of these children seem to think social or internet related attacks somehow makes a difference in problem solving, when in fact open debate and dialogue should be the go to tools for any life situation like this. It speaks a lot of our society.
If Manning used his position as a DoD Analyst WHILE AN ACTIVE SERVICE MEMBER to steal classified documents from the US DoD, he's in a hell of a lot of trouble. Plenty of criminal legal reasons, but that could arguably take him as far as treason. Even your happy go lucky European/UK utopias don't look kindly on that crap.
The fact that the documents were delivered to Wikileaks by third party which has breached a contract or a law when doing so doesn't change a fact that journalists have every right to publish that information. Still in China?
Treason is hard to prove. Maybe he will be tried for something else. As he's innocent until proven guilty we need to wait until the court case.
In the UK Manning would have signed the official secrets act, and then he would be guilty of breaking that.
You're strawman China arguments show that you are immature and not capable of having an adult conversation.
Still in Kindergarten?
Quick questions for you:
1. Does every single page released by wikileaks contain proof of corrupting, or anything that "Watch dogs" can use to go after government?
If no...
2. Of the pages that do not incriminate the US GOvernmetn, how many can you garantee will not bring about some form of harm?
If you can't garantee them all, then...
3. Why the frack was wikileaks to lazy as to release everything, and not the important criminal activity stuff?
4. Why the frack are you people sticking up for wikileaks for releasing every fracking page?
I have no problem with wikileaks finding and revealing documents that prove illegal action by the US Government, like a proper journalist with a sense of ethics and integrity. I have a huge problem with egomaniacs that don't care about people, or the results of their actions, and publish hundreds of thousands of harmful never meant to be public documents.
And that's the crazy thing. If the Documents released had been paired down to JUST the illegal activities, then top secret or not, no one could go after wikileaks for being anything but a hero. Companies might even start to back him up. But Wikileaks doesn't give a frack about helping the US people, or helping us fix our government. He carelessly broad casted every last page. THAT is what I take issue with. Does anyone honestly disagree with that? Doesn't anyone here honestly think that wikileaks used the proper quantity of discretion? That this Australian in Sweden gives a frack about the US public? Honestly people?
The funny and terribly sad thing about this entire discussion, is that I believe we all agree.
1. Documents that prove illegal activity by the US government, regardless of its secrecy level, should be brought to public attention.
2. Documents that are asinine and serve nothing but to embarrass/insult/undermine individuals, and/or causes an increased risk to an individuals safety, should not be brought to public attention.
Some of us believe more strongly in one than the other, but the fatal flaw most of you are demonstrating is the assumption that there was no way to separate the two. And quite frankly there is, given time. Wikileaks failed to separate the two, or even TRY to separate the two. For that, many of us dislike wikileaks, and for that many companies will not back them.
If Wikileaks really cared, really wanted to benefit society, and took the time to do so, I think the entire nation would be on their side. Instead, they not only split the nation on an ethical dilemma (does the good outweigh the bad?), but they created a bad name for themselves while ALSO giving anyone that wants to rid the world of wikileaks an actual leg to stand on.
Last edited:
Treason is hard to prove. Maybe he will be convicted for something else. As he's innocent until proven guilty we need to wait until the court case.
In the UK Manning would have signed the official secrets act, and then he would be guilty of breaking that.
Well, arguably treason - the point being that there is almost anything under the sun below that.
Other point being, he's a private in the military as I recall. I don't know the exact military policies, but delivering classified information to third parties (who intend to publish it globally to boot) is a much bigger problem for a soldier than for a civilian. He will not have a "court case" but will be court martialed. This COULD be viewed as an offense similar to turning your weapon on your own troops during battle - and that can get you a firing squad.
Quesiton: Does having the legal right to do something imply the ethical right to do so?