MemeStreams | MemeStreams Discussion

Create an Account

This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Congress Hears WikiLeaks is ‘Fundamentally Different’ From Media | Threat Level | Wired.com. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Congress Hears WikiLeaks is ‘Fundamentally Different’ From Media | Threat Level | Wired.com
by Decius at 6:23 pm EST, Dec 16, 2010

I wish I was responding to a transcript not a paraphrase but this will have to do for now:

Wainstein said that WikiLeaks had shown itself to be fundamentally different [from the press] in three ways.
[1.] While traditional media outlets focus on publishing newsworthy information to educate the public, WikiLeaks focuses on obtaining and disclosing any official secrets.

I don't see how the other things that you do are legally relevant to the question of whether or not its legal for you to do THIS thing. That is sort of like saying "its OK for person A to commit this crime because he is wealthy and is otherwise an upstanding member of the community but person B is a "criminal" and only exists to commit this crime and therefore he is culpable for his actions." Frankly, thats fucking bullshit.

[2.] The media also gathers news about sensitive areas of government operations through investigative reporting, he said, while WikiLeaks uses encrypted digital drop boxes to encourage disclosures of sensitive government information and circumvent laws prohibiting such disclosures.

You can write "Steal This Book," wherein you explain how to commit crimes and advocate that people commit them. You cannot, however, provide a specific person with specific advice knowing or intending that the person commit a specific crime. The former is freedom of speech. The later is conspiracy. As far as I know Wikileaks is an example of the former not the later. If they did the later, they have committed a crime.

[3.] The media also typically limits disclosures only to sensitive information that specifically relates to a particular story deemed to be of public importance. WikiLeaks, however, releases troves of documents with little or no regard for their relevance.

Wikileaks thinks they are all relevant. I don't think this gets you very far. Its ok to publish leaks as long as you can establish that they are relevant?

In his written statement to the committee (.pdf), Wainstein also cited Assange’s oft-quoted remark that he “enjoy[s] crushing bastards” as evidence that his release of sensitive information is “more personal rather than simply a public-minded agenda.”

I don't know the context for this remark but find me a police officer who hasn't muttered something similar.

Furthermore, WikiLeaks’ distribution of an encrypted “insurance” file, containing secrets that would be revealed if anything happened to Assange, “reflects a willingness to use his leaked documents for extortion and personal protection rather than simply to advance the values of transparency and public awareness,” Wainstein argued.

This one really bugs me. You have senior politicians publicly calling for this guy to be killed and then you accuse him of "blackmail" for having an insurance file. Its like a school yard bully who complains to the teacher when his victim fights back. The fact that they would make this argument is just disgusting.

RE: Congress Hears WikiLeaks is ‘Fundamentally Different’ From Media | Threat Level | Wired.com
by noteworthy at 7:29 pm EST, Dec 16, 2010

Decius:

I wish I was responding to a transcript not a paraphrase but this will have to do for now

Thus far Lexis-Nexis only has the prepared testimony, not the transcript of the hearing. And interestingly LN doesn't have the testimony for Wainstein, although it does have the testimony of four others.

C-SPAN has an unofficial transcript based on uncorrected closed captioning.

Here is an unofficial transcription of the start of his testimony, which begins at approximately 41:30 into the hearing:

I want to thank you again, Judge Goemer, and members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you today along with this panel of distinguished experts and to testify about the recent Wikileaks releases. This situation reflects a fundamental tension in our democracy: on one hand, there's the importance of the free press, and the need to think very long and very hard before taking any steps that may chill the media's reporting on the workings of government. On the other hand, there's the need to keep our national security operations confidential, so that we can effectively defend our nation against the threats it faces. Stephen Vladeck and I testified about this very issue before the Senate Judiciary Committee just this May, and at that time our concern revolved primarily around the possibility of a leak to a traditional news organization. Since May, however, we've all learned that there is a much more serious threat -- the threat posed by an organization that's committed not to the traditional media function of reporting newsworthy information, but to the mass and indiscriminate disclosure of sensitive information. Thanks to Wikileaks, the government now has two very important decisions to make: the first is whether to prosecute Assange and Wikileaks. The second is whether to revise the laws -- the Espionage Act -- to strike a better and clearer balance between security and freedom of the press.