Long Run wrote:If the classified information had been given directly to the New York Times and it then published the information, the Times would be in the same situation as Assange.
Sure they would.
I'm still taking bids on the Brooklyn Bridge, btw.
Once the info was released, any news organization could report on the information as it was already in the public domain.
Mmmmm. And I'm sure you can cite the applicable law for making such a specious distinction.
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose
"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater
Long Run wrote:If the classified information had been given directly to the New York Times and it then published the information, the Times would be in the same situation as Assange*. But here, Assange is the only one who was given the stolen information. He could have notified the authorities and destroyed it. Instead he made money from it by disseminating it. Once the info was released, any news organization could report on the information as it was already in the public domain. At least that is how I understand this story to this point.
*I guess the Times would have a better defense as a legitimate news organization with 1st amendment types at their ready. My guess is that the Times probably would have done redaction from the very beginning, or work out some sort of deal with the U.S. government on the reporting of the information.
Or the government would have sought injunctive relief, preventing the information from being published, a la the Pentagon Papers.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
Gob wrote:But it's my money, and they are using their virtual monopoly powers in a political manner.
The card you possess, the network to transmit the funds, and everything else associated with the credit card companies are their own property - they can take that card back any time they want to, and they control the networks. I agree it is their right to refuse certain transactions, although I'm not thrilled about doing it based on political and not business reasons. Regardless, if you want to send Wikileaks money, send them a check or a money order. If you want to stick it to the credit card copmpanies, stop using them too and switch to cash.
“I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” ~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, paraphrasing Sarah Moore Grimké
And perhaps rather revealing "political ... reasons" at that. After all, you can't use MasterCard or Visa to donate to WikiLeaks, but you can still use them to donate to the KKK:
Charles Arthur, the Guardian's technology editor, points out that while MasterCard and Visa have cut WikiLeaks off you can still use those cards to donate to overtly racist organisations such as the Knights Party, which is supported by the Ku Klux Klan.
The Ku Klux Klan website directs users to a site called Christian Concepts. It takes Visa and MasterCard donations for users willing to state that they are "white and not of racially mixed descent. I am not married to a non-white. I do not date non-whites nor do I have non-white dependents. I believe in the ideals of western Christian civilisation and profess my belief in Jesus Christ as the son of God."
Good to see that MasterCard and Visa have their priorities in order ....
(PayPal has also stopped putting through donations to Wikileaks. But to its credit, it has likewise stopped putting through donations to the KKK.)
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Guinevere wrote:The card you possess, the network to transmit the funds, and everything else associated with the credit card companies are their own property - they can take that card back any time they want to, and they control the networks.
Meanwhile it has also emerged that Visa has today ordered DataCell, an IT firm that helps WikiLeaks collect payments, to suspend all of its transactions – even those involving other payees – a day after it cut off all the firm's donations being made to WikiLeaks.
DataCell, a small Icelandic company that facilitates transfers made by credit cards including Visa and MasterCard, says it will take up "immediate legal actions" and warned that the powerful "duopoly" of Visa and MasterCard could spell "the end of the credit card business worldwide".
And it appears that DataCell does not plan to take this lying down:
DataCell has since decided to start legal proceedings against the credit card companies for having broken their payment processing contracts, RUV reported Wednesday.
* * *
Sigurvinsson [Datacell's founder] said that he has not been following the Wikileaks story closely, because the site is just one of Datacell’s 3,000 customers. But, he added, his lawyers have not recommended Datacell stop serving the site and so he will do all he can to keep it running smoothly – just as he would for any customer.
* * *
Sigurvinsson told RUV he finds Visa and Mastercard’s request that Datacell stop serving Wikileaks highly distasteful, asking what business two private companies have dictating terms to another private company. If the company were to comply with the credit card giants’ demands, it could set a dangerous precedent.
I hope that Datacell kicks their asses.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Or the government would have sought injunctive relief, preventing the information from being published, a la the Pentagon Papers.
and then break into his psychiatrist's office to steal information to damage his reputation, a break in which would have to be kept secret as well due to the damage to the US (read, the president) that would come from publication of it.
DataCell has since decided to start legal proceedings against the credit card companies for having broken their payment processing contracts,
It's a shame there's no way for me to boycott this irresponsible, insignificant little nothing company that's attempting to aid the furtherance of a criminal enterprise.
They should check their contracts carefully. They'll probably discover they are the ones in violation.
Master Card and Visa should respond by canceling their relationship entirely and refusing to allow these would be crime enablers access to their services for any of their clients.
Long Run wrote:If the classified information had been given directly to the New York Times and it then published the information, the Times would be in the same situation as Assange.
Sure they would.
I'm still taking bids on the Brooklyn Bridge, btw.
Once the info was released, any news organization could report on the information as it was already in the public domain.
Mmmmm. And I'm sure you can cite the applicable law for making such a specious distinction.
Legilation, no, though Andrew might be able to. Case law and precedent, certainly: The Pentagon Papers.
