63 replies to this topic

[differently biotic]

hack the planet

just read an article that hackers are targeting certain companies and group in effort to support wikileaks ...

[guitarduane]

i used to have the opinion that wikileaks would lead to soldiers and operative's lives being in danger. i felt we the people didn't need to be in the governments business, since it's something we don't fully understand.

but i've changed my mind. if we can't keep soldiers safe without lying to the people, maybe we shouldn't be involved. that's my new opinion. how can voter's hold politicians accountable for their actions if we don't find out what their actions are until years after they have committed them?

[jeremx]

hack the planet

just read an article that hackers are targeting certain companies and group in effort to support wikileaks ...

read the same thing. it's just starting to get good. pick a side, ya'll. was visiting my grandmother monday afternoon and they had a piece on the news about wikileaks and she said, "that's a bad thing right there." and i said, "well, actually.. i think it's pretty necessary right now. and here's why.." and we talked about it for awhile. i'm sure i didn't change her stand on it but at least she listened. which is pretty good for an air force wife who is staunchly conservative.

[mancopter]

US takes break from attacking wikileaks to announce world press freedom day.

[MrAwesome]

i used to have the opinion that wikileaks would lead to soldiers and operative's lives being in danger. i felt we the people didn't need to be in the governments business, since it's something we don't fully understand.

but i've changed my mind. if we can't keep soldiers safe without lying to the people, maybe we shouldn't be involved. that's my new opinion. how can voter's hold politicians accountable for their actions if we don't find out what their actions are until years after they have committed them?

Which politicians have you decided should be held accountable for their actions since wikileaks released everything?? I haven't read anything about the government lying to the American people about foreign policy (but then again I might be wrong, I haven't read it all) just things they didn't talk about publicly. All wikileaks has done is created a huge diplomatic headache for the department of state.

As for the companies being targeted by 4chan hackers, how is what they are doing a good thing?? Targeting companies that can be loosely connected and using these attacks to publicly threaten others from doing is pretty fucked up. They shut down the web site for a bank who froze the guys accounts when a warrant went out for his arrest, just like they would have for anyone else. And do you think these hackers really care about him or his cause? No, they just want to make a big public deal about 4chan and since Tom Green doesn't take calls on his show anymore and no one really gives a shit about Scientology these days they picked this issue.

[thebiggameover]

Operation Payback


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpEz848KyJM

[thebiggameover]

and no, it wasnt cause of a warrant. it was cause of wikileaks. his bank said it was cuase he didnt live at the address he gave them. paypal and amazon both did it cause the gov asked them to. and then theres this...


go to wikileaks, go to jail

[BornInCrimson]

I am all for Wikileaks, I know I will get shit for it, but I am with Jacki.

I think I saw Mr. Awesome mention how Iran is a true threat. There is information (outside of the U.S.) that explains a study was taken in the Arab countries and that the majority (over 70% I don't remember the exact numbers) Consider the greatest threat to the Middle East is the United States and Israel. Less than 10% consider Iran a threat. This is not the information we get here in the U.S. where Iran is truly going to bring on the next apocalypse. I am exaggerating of course but I don't think Iran is much more of a threat than Iraq was when we thought they had WMD's.


There is so much propaganda that is going on that would slow down somewhat or maybe be just a little less prevalent if we had more transparency. Thank you Wikileaks for doing what nobody has the fucking balls to do.

If you cite the actual survey, I'd be happy. I don't think Iraq was really a big deal and it'd be nice if we could let these problems collapse like we're trying to do with North Korea or be taken down from the inside as will hopefully happen in Iran. I remember Sherv talking when he came back from Iran about how so many people showed displeasure with the government but no one wanted the US to come in and occupy it to change the government by force (and I don't blame them). Iraq's nuclear facilities were taken out by an Israeli strike long ago, and that may well happen to Iran before too long. I'd have to do some research on these cables and other things, but it's my understanding that a number of heads of state around the Middle East really believe a nuclear capable Iran is a serious threat to the stability of the region.

I think you do have some good points about propaganda and transparency, I just don't think the human race is there yet. I might address stuff more later when I can sit down and concentrate on it.

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2...dex.html?hpt=C1

Assange threatening to unleash a very large and secret insurance file upon the world if anything happens to him.

Honestly while I disagree with how Wikileaks is handling stuff, this whole concept is still very exciting to the teenage within me. Wild hackers holding governments hostage with information, people across the world attacking corporate systems to promote freedom of information? It's like everything in the 1980s - 90s cyberpunk culture is coming true!

[donald]

The information comes from the brookings institute.
What is referenced is the opinion of the Arab general population, as opposed to the opinion of the Arab Elite/Government, which is quite different.


from http://www.brookings...bs_telhami.aspx

My own analysis of the results suggested that Iran is benefiting from the sentiment that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This was particularly visible when those polled were asked to identify the two states that posed the biggest threat to them: 88 percent identified Israel, 77 percent identified the United States and 10 percent identified Iran. While the results on this latter issue varied somewhat from country to country, the trend held across countries polled.

[Jacki O.]

What We Talk About When We Talk About Rape

interesting op-ed piece in American Prospect by Jaclyn Friedman:

This week, as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was taken into custody by Interpol on charges of sexual assault, and pundits right, left, and center got busy painting the accusations as frivolous and the accusers as lying, scheming sluts, I joined a small but dedicated chorus of feminist voices calling for a serious inquiry into the charges. We didn't do it because we support government secrecy or because we agree with the vicious international campaign to silence Assange. We didn't do it because we're masochists who like to get into fights on the Internet. We did it because once rape charges break into the news cycle, lives depend on what gets said about them.

I have no way of knowing whether Assange is guilty as charged. It's also obvious that the timing and ferocity of Interpol's prosecution of Assange is politically motivated. That Interpol should randomly build up such a head of steam about the violation of two women in Sweden, (which has the highest rape rates in Europe and a decreasing rate of convictions) strains credulity.

Had the backlash against Assange's arrest focused on Interpol's hypocrisy, my colleagues and I would have been free to join and strengthen that critique. But it didn't. Instead, Keith Olbermann used scare quotes around the word rape as though the charges themselves (which are that Assange held one woman down against her will, and in a separate incident raped another while she was sleeping) were silly, and everyone from Glen Beck to Naomi Wolf rushed to belittle the accusers, along the way employing every victim-blaming, rape-denying, slut-shaming trope ever invented, from "they're just lashing out because they got their feelings hurt" (that's both Beck and purported feminist Wolf, paraphrased) to my personal non-favorite, popular blogger Robert Stacy McCain's suggestion that women who consent to any kind of sex are sluts who deserve whatever happens: "You buy the ticket, you take the ride."

Once those floodgates opened, in rushed the chatteratti by the thousands, dancing with glee at the announcement of their favorite spontaneous holiday: Rape Apology Day, on which every way you can imagine to blame or discredit a woman's allegations of sexual violence is not only fair game but celebrated.

Rape Apology Day happens whenever rape breaks through into the news cycle. The charges earlier this year against Al Gore launched a number of Rape Apology Days, as do each set of new charges against football player Ben Roethlisberger. Compared to the frequency with which sexual assault is committed (the U.S. Department of Justice puts that number around 250,000 each year in the U.S.), it's not that often. But given the role that Rape Apology Days play in keeping that number as high as it is, even one is too many.

Here's how it works: As soon as a rape accusation makes it into the news cycle (most often because the accused is famous), it's instantly held up against our collective subconscious idea about what Real Rape (or, as Whoopi Goldberg odiously called it, "rape-rape") looks like. Here's a quick primer on that ideal: The rapist is a scary stranger, with a weapon, even better if he's a poor man of color. The victim is a young, white, conventionally pretty, sober, innocent virgin. Also, there are witnesses and/or incontrovertible physical evidence, and the victim goes running to the authorities as soon as the assault is over.

But let's face it, actual rapes almost never match up to this ideal. Most rape victims know their attacker (estimates range from 75 percent to 89 percent), most rapists use alcohol or drugs to facilitate the assault (More than 80 percent, according to researcher David Lisak), not weapons, and most of the famous men whose accusers receive media attention aren't poor men of color. But once the accusation hits the news cycle, whatever pundit gets there first uses the non-ideal details of the alleged assault to argue that surely, we shouldn't take this seriously, and other pundits nod their head in agreement.

Piling on the accuser with victim-blaming language, or questioning why this account doesn't match what we think sexual assault should look like, doesn't happen in a vacuum. Millions of people are watching and listening as these rape myths are repeated ad nauseam. A 2008 study by Renee Franiuk, published in the journal Violence Against Women, revealed that these narratives make victims less likely to take their own experiences seriously and more afraid of reporting what's been done to them. Advocates echo these findings: "Media attention around cases such as Kobe [Bryant] and Duke [University], where victim blaming is intense and daily, makes our work even more challenging," says Stacy Malone, executive director of the Victim Rights Law Center. "It can cause victims to question themselves and silence them into not telling their experiences and not seeking services."

Anne Munch, an attorney who provided assistance to the team that prosecuted Bryant, reports that, due to the rape myths perpetuated in the media coverage of that case and two other high-profile rape cases that hit the news in 2003, reports of rape received by the campus police at one Colorado university dropped from 47 in 2002 to six in 2003, and calls to a Colorado rape crisis center fell off by a third, with callers expressing "a specific hesitancy to report to the police or to victims' assistance due to the fear of their case being made public."

It gets worse. Devaluing victims' accounts makes it easier for men to excuse or dismiss their own sexually assaulting behavior. It also makes it easier for cops, judges, prosecutors, and jurors to not take rape claims seriously if and when those victims decide to ask for help (a dynamic well illustrated by the story Amanda Hess broke in the Washington City Paper earlier this year of a young woman at Howard University who was denied both a rape kit and a prosecution all because she had been drunk at the time of the attack). Worst of all: Unreported and unpunished rapists are free to rape again. And the groundbreaking findings of researchers David Lisak and Paul Miller suggest they're likely to do just that, an average of five more times each. That's five new lives destroyed each time a rapist escapes justice because someone -- a victim, a judge, a cop -- was influenced by a rape myth, as millions of people are, every single time we declare a Rape Apology Day.

So the next time you hear me or one of my colleagues patiently (or impatiently) explaining the realities of consent, or why rape allegations aren't the same thing as a sex scandal, or whatever incredibly basic thing needs saying over and over again that day, you'll know why. Perhaps you'll even join in.

[skeksis]

Not sure exactly how this fits in, in the context of the op ed that Jacki posted...

But per the news roundup on Diane Rheim this morning, the Assange rape charges sounded bizarre for someone unfamiliar with the specific laws in that country.

Basically, the way it was talked about on NPR was that in both cases, the sex was consensual, no argument - but the 'rape' angle has to do with a condom breaking in one case, and not using a condom in the other. From what it sounds like both women were admirers of Assange, he was hiding out at their homes, and one thing led to another. Sometime after the fact, they met and eventually decided to pursue charges - again mainly having to do with the failure/lack of condom.

Granted, I know very little about this other than what was reported on the radio this morning. Heck, I haven't even really bothered to read this thread. BUT that's a departure from what would typically constitute rape in most countries and by most definitions.

That there's any question about this, the weirdness of it, is part of what makes people believe this is mostly about stopping the guy's operation, discrediting him. If I'm missing something here, let me know.

There's probably real sources of news about this if anyone cares to look... me on the other hand, I have to get back to work.

[jeremx]

Basically, the way it was talked about on NPR was that in both cases, the sex was consensual, no argument - but the 'rape' angle has to do with a condom breaking in one case, and not using a condom in the other.

if this was cause to be charged for rape in the states, i'd be in big trouble.

[Jacki O.]

interesting skesis, i dont see how those instances constitute rape at all. i'll have to check out that program.

on another note:
6 companies not afraid to work with Wikileaks

[Jacki O.]

found this article from the Atlantic Wire

excerpt on the rape charges:
It's More Complicated--And Could Be Rape Feministe's Jill Filipovic, a lawyer, says it could be considered "withdrawal of consent," which is a form of sexual assault, if the sex became non-consensual during the act. In the first case, when his condom broke, Assange refused his partner's request to stop, which made his act assault. In the second case, "condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn’t, and the woman didn’t realize it until after they had sex." Filipovic says "withdrawal of consent" is often considered rape in Sweden, but is often not in the U.S., which may be why U.S. observers seem not to believe the charges.

interesting....

[jeremx]

"condom use was negotiated for and Assange agreed to wear a condom but didn’t, and the woman didn’t realize it until after they had sex."