Financial woes may close WikiLeaks

[Razgovory]

I agree fully that that is likely the real reason, but why not go about saying so?

It still stands that they are using double standards. If DEA went to the same companies wihtout a court order and said "This and that mexican is likely a criminal, or a front for a criminal organsation, do not transfer money to that IBAN number" would they then do it?

V

They did it with Gaddafi and he didn't violate any law where his money was.

[Valmy]

Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.

Really?  I thought they were just publishing stuff they got from leakers.  Which is not illegal.  I was not aware they were actually engaging in espionage.  That sounds expensive no wonder they are going broke.

Anyway hopefully another wikileaks-esque group will come out of this that is less about the ego of its founder and any particular grudge against a specific country.  Besides attracting attention to yourself, like Assange, seems like a bad idea in this line of work.

[Berkut]

Uhhh, no. They've come right out and admitted that they were engaged in illegal activity. As I stated, the fact that someone has not been convicted of a crime does not absolve an accomplice of their liability in abetting that crime.

Really?  I thought they were just publishing stuff they got from leakers.  Which is not illegal.  I was not aware they were actually engaging in espionage.  That sounds expensive no wonder they are going broke.

Well, that is the million dollar question, isn't it?

There is no doubt that stealing classified material is illegal, but what about publishing it? In theory it can be illegal (in the US under the Espionage Act), if the state can prove that publishing that material does something like "irreperable and immediate harm" or something like that. Probably a very difficult bar to cross though, when placed up against the Freedom of the Press.

That is a bit harder, but realize that the government does not need to (in this case) actually convict Visa of abetting a crime (which would in all likelihood be almost impossible) they just have to make it clear to Visa that they are better off just not taking on that fight.

I actually doubt that the US could get a conviction of Assange even if they had him. But they don't need to actually convict him to convince Visa that they are better off exercising their own right not to do business with Wikileaks.

Anyway hopefully another wikileaks-esque group will come out of this that is less about the ego of its founder and any particular grudge against a specific country.  Besides attracting attention to yourself, like Assange, seems like a bad idea in this line of work.

I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.

[Valmy]

I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.

The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages.   Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be.  Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out than if you are a huge media corporation with interests around the world to worry about.

[Berkut]

I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.

The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages.   Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be.  Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out.

Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.

Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.

[The Brain]

If the US hadn't put Alfred E. Neuman in uniform this whole thing would have been avoided.

[Valmy]

Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.

I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is.  So I guess I will just have to concede your point.  But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.

Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.

Well yes that was my point.  I like the idea of wikileaks but focussing on one country, the one most likely to allow the guy running the thing to attention whore, was ridiculous.

[Razgovory]

I don't know - I actually think the traditional press does a perfectly fine job publishing state secrets when there is a story worthy of publishing. I don't really know what Wikileaks added to the mix beyond a lack of accountability or responsibility.

The traditional press can be bullied for access and other advantages.   Small outfits like wikileaks doesn't have to worry about its relations with the powers that be.  Plus if you are publishing material from China or whatever it makes it harder for them to lash out.

Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.

Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.

Sure.  Happened all the time in the Cold War.  Example: the Coup in Guatemala.  Truth be told, publication of classified material happens on a daily basis in the US.

[Berkut]

Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.

I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is.  So I guess I will just have to concede your point.  But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.

You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?

Or more importantly, do you think the New York Times would not publish it? That seems like an odd position, since the New York Times DID in fact publish some of it.

Fundamentally though, I don't agree with the basic idea that this stuff NEEDED to be published, and it NOT being published would be some kind of travesty. Traditional news organizations, while I might disagree with them, at least understand the concept of discretion. Not based on a threat from the State, but simply based on

A) If they publish stuff that the public ends up thinking was not worth of publishing given its negative impact, they may harm themselves financially, and
B) There is the concept of prefessional journalistic integrity where there is an expectation that publishing something as sensitive as state secrets should have some kind of actual benefit that outweighs the damage done.

Wikileaks fails on both counts. They aren't in the business of journalism really, they are in the business of being tabloid hacks, where their entire schtick is simply to publish stuff because they can, not because they actually give a shit about informing the public of things it needs to know its government is doing.

The traditional media is a grossly imperfect system of course, but at least there is *some* kind of restraint, someone asking "Hey, I know we CAN publish this, but SHOULD we???"

[Razgovory]

Can you cite some examples where the traditional press had credible information in need of publishing and were bullied so that it would not be published? I can cite many, many examples where the US press has published material over the strenuous objections of the State, all without the help of Wikileaks.

I have no doubt could but I do not have anywhere near the time to research this, I waste far too much time here as it is.  So I guess I will just have to concede your point.  But I find it hard to believe if the leakers had leaked this stuff to Fox News instead of Wikileaks it would have been published.

Meaning in the US of course, since the only thing Wikileaks has managed to do of note is publish a bunch of US confidential documents.

Well yes that was my point.  I like the idea of wikileaks but focussing on one country, the one most likely to allow the guy running the thing to attention whore, was ridiculous.

Technically Fox News did publish it.  After Wikilinks did.  They did reports on it, and showed that video of the chopper pilots which was classified.

[Valmy]

You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?

I think they would publish based on what their interests are and to protect their brand name and relationships with their sources.  A smaller outfit would not have those considerations.

[Berkut]

You think Fox News would not publish it because of pressure from the government?

I think they would publish based on what their interests are and to protect their brand name and relationships with their sources.  A smaller outfit would not have those considerations.

And you think that is a good thing?

Here is a better question:

Do you think that overall it was a positive thing that Wikileaks published all those documents they got?

I think there is a basic disconnect here - I think that Wikileaks did great harm to many people, and very little actual benefit for anyone by publishing what they did in regards to the US documents. So I don't think that the existence of a group with that kind of access but no restraint is a net positive.

Restraint is not a bad thing.

[crazy canuck]

I agree they are only excersising their rights not to deal with a customer. I just find it a tad discriminating that they do so with out any, even slim, justification or reasoning. If they decide to censor payments, then other payments should be censored as well, or the guideline for this censoring should be announced.

Besides, they would make money on these transactions as well, why the difference?

V

Just because you dont agree with or understand the reason they might not want to deal with WikiLeaks does not mean they made their decision without any justification.  I think Berkut's answer as to why they did it is a likely factor.

But putting that very good reason aside, a private business has their own reputational risk to think of.  I doubt very much Visa or Paypal would want to take the reputational hit of being the conduit through which wikileaks was able to fund its continuing disclosure of State secrets.  For everyone one of you who might applaud such a move there would be a lot of others that might think twice about continuing to deal with them - now that is a grassroots movement that deserves some notice.

[Admiral Yi]

I can sort of see Valdemar's point.  If the publishing entity were the New York Times and the government had pressured payment companies (which I assume was the prinicple motivation) to not process payments to the NYT, we would all be screaming about freedom of the press.

[crazy canuck]

I can sort of see Valdemar's point.  If the publishing entity were the New York Times and the government had pressured payment companies (which I assume was the prinicple motivation) to not process payments to the NYT, we would all be screaming about freedom of the press.

If it was the NYT then one assumes in that hypothetical that the NYT would be following recognized established journalistic ethics and thus the reputational and legal risks of helping to fund it would be significantly different.