Poll

Has this site gone too far?

Yes. Stop the leaks now!
7 (31.8%)
No. Let the site continue what it's doing.
12 (54.5%)
Undecided.
3 (13.6%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Author Topic: Wikileaks  (Read 9748 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2010, 09:42:24 am »
Yeah, the insurance file hasn't been mentioned at all in any of the media reports on the arrest, however it has been conspiratorially theorised that if anything happens to Julian Assange, the decryption keys will be released on the internet, and then the whole world will see its juicy secrets, whatever those are. Stay tuned.

Offline Arbutus

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Rabbit
  • Also known as Sir Bunny-Face
  • *****
  • Posts: 8322
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2010, 09:43:49 am »
What insurance file?

Offline Weisseman

  • Professor of Cunning
  • Species: Red Fox ^^
  • Weisse fox and Syi citra. Staffing Duo =3
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 4748
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2010, 10:01:44 am »
The very fact that these documents were leaked at all is much more worrisome than the content of the documents.
I agree with this. If security is done properly, Wikileaks and things like it are really a non-issue.

"Don't shoot the messenger"

You wanna know something funny? ^^ I don't even frequent Wikileaks... The stuff about China and North Korea - other simular leaks... I knew about it because the news kept blabbing about it...

"Loose lips sink ships"

I'm the same. I don't go in Wikileaks but here about it from the media.



The insurance file is 1.3Gb with an "unbreakable" encryption. If something happens to Wikileaks they'll release the key and all the information in the file will be available unedited.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2010, 12:39:07 pm by Weisseman »
Fur code: FCF3a A- C-- D- H+++ P++ R+ T+++ Sm# RLCT a cnl++ d++ e++ f h-- i+++ j p+ sm#
ಠ_ಠ
Avatar by Nimrais

Any Problems here? Come on the IRC and talk to my friend Syi. He loves meeting new people too =3
http://irc.furtopia.org/

*Acquired: 2 Chicken's of Success!*

Offline Drake Blackpaw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 3109
    • http://www.drakebp.furtopia.org/
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2010, 12:37:32 pm »
Yeah, the insurance file hasn't been mentioned at all in any of the media reports on the arrest, however it has been conspiratorially theorised that if anything happens to Julian Assange, the decryption keys will be released on the internet, and then the whole world will see its juicy secrets, whatever those are. Stay tuned.

Actually, the code to release the insurance file was mentioned on NPR news this morning when talking about the founder of Wikileaks arrest in London.

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2010, 05:05:26 pm »
What insurance file?
The insurance file is 1.3Gb with an "unbreakable" encryption. If something happens to Wikileaks they'll release the key and all the information in the file will be available unedited.
Well, that's the theory, anyway. It could well be Julian Assange's secret recipe for Anzac biscuits. But that seems unlikely. :D

Yeah, the insurance file hasn't been mentioned at all in any of the media reports on the arrest, however it has been conspiratorially theorised that if anything happens to Julian Assange, the decryption keys will be released on the internet, and then the whole world will see its juicy secrets, whatever those are. Stay tuned.

Actually, the code to release the insurance file was mentioned on NPR news this morning when talking about the founder of Wikileaks arrest in London.
What did they say about it? Are just repeating the same old conspiracy theories or are is there actually new information about it?

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 28545
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2010, 09:09:30 pm »
Quote
The insurance file is 1.3Gb with an "unbreakable" encryption.

The National Security Agency (NSA) can probably break anything. ;)

Offline Weisseman

  • Professor of Cunning
  • Species: Red Fox ^^
  • Weisse fox and Syi citra. Staffing Duo =3
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 4748
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2010, 09:30:30 pm »
Quote
The insurance file is 1.3Gb with an "unbreakable" encryption.

The National Security Agency (NSA) can probably break anything. ;)

If they could they probably would have already. Of course there's nothing to say they haven't x3
Fur code: FCF3a A- C-- D- H+++ P++ R+ T+++ Sm# RLCT a cnl++ d++ e++ f h-- i+++ j p+ sm#
ಠ_ಠ
Avatar by Nimrais

Any Problems here? Come on the IRC and talk to my friend Syi. He loves meeting new people too =3
http://irc.furtopia.org/

*Acquired: 2 Chicken's of Success!*

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2010, 10:15:50 pm »
Quote
The insurance file is 1.3Gb with an "unbreakable" encryption.

The National Security Agency (NSA) can probably break anything. ;)

I think you'll find a hundred quattuorvigintillion possible keys is a bit much even for the NSA. :D (yes, that's a real number; I could just say 10^77, but that wouldn't do justice to the shear absurdity of it)

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 28545
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2010, 10:17:23 pm »
What bothers me the most about Wikileaks is how it gets it's info., From where, and by whom.  :o Frankly, it could be anything. From hackers to disgruntled employees to spies. I can only hope our companies, military branches, etc. are executing more security measures right now to ensure all their info. is better protected.

And I also still don't understand the mindset of Julian Assange. He says he's doing all this so that information and the Internet can be more open and that people have a right to know what's going on about their governments. But is there more to it than that? Is it political blackmail? Extortion? Ransom? What else is this guy seeking?

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2010, 10:45:10 pm »
What bothers me the most about Wikileaks is how it gets it's info., From where, and by whom.  :o Frankly, it could be anything. From hackers to disgruntled employees to spies. I can only hope our companies, military branches, etc. are executing more security measures right now to ensure all their info. is better protected.
It's mostly disgruntled employees. Or employees with a conscience, which in a lot of companies amounts to the same thing.

And I also still don't understand the mindset of Julian Assange. He says he's doing all this so that information and the Internet can be more open and that people have a right to know what's going on about their governments. But is there more to it than that? Is it political blackmail? Extortion? Ransom? What else is this guy seeking?
Not really. Publishing sensitive information while claiming with a straight face that the public has a right to know is what all journalists do. Or at least, they used to do. Regardless, there's no ulterior motive other than freedom and democracy and all that other stuff nobody cares about anyway.

Offline Mooshi

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2010, 10:51:15 pm »
Ask yourself this: "If I had the power to expose a corrupt organization, wouldn't I?" It's that simple, nothing complicated about it really.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2010, 11:09:58 pm »
Ask yourself this: "If I had the power to expose a corrupt organization, wouldn't I?" It's that simple, nothing complicated about it really.
Unless its your own organization, or you are benefitting it from it directly or somehow reaping very expediant rewards.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2010, 11:12:55 pm »
Ask yourself this: "If I had the power to expose a corrupt organization, wouldn't I?" It's that simple, nothing complicated about it really.
Unless its your own organization, or you are benefitting it from it directly or somehow reaping very expediant rewards.

Or if it risked innocent lives, could potentially cause more problems and/or a chaotic environment.


Last time I checked blackmail, extortion, etc was illegal too. This guy is no hero. Just another criminal, and power hungry individual, imo.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2010, 11:15:41 pm »
But then you get into the field of which is the lesser of the two problems...
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 28545
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2010, 11:19:11 pm »
I am still going to repeat what Brent said earlier: "The public does NOT have a need to know everything that goes on."

If by chance any info. that Wikileaks leaked were to somehow endanger, harm, or kill military personnel and/or civilians in the next several days, weeks, or months, Then how would that make you feel, Foxpup? Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that leaked info. of a sensitive nature harmed or killed innocent people: Men, Women, or even Children? What if something happened in your own country of Australia? How would you feel then?

The same goes for everybody else. Can you live with a guilty conscience? The people who are gathering, spreading, and leaking all this information obviously have no idea what they're doing. They claim and disguise what they are doing as "freedom of information" or some other such phrase or quote, etc. But all they really are doing is putting people all over the world in danger in whatever country they live in, and also ruining foreign relations. Is that something to be proud of? I think not! The people who are leaking info. have no morals, values, or ethics that I can see. IMO, they disgust me, and so do the people who support Wikileaks.  :P

This country wouldn't be where it is today if not for the efforts of the military, various civillian agencies, etc. to keep information safe and the public protected. I like openess just as much as the next person. But what Wikileaks is doing goes too far. It needs to be shut down...........permanently.


*walks away from this thread*  >:(

Offline Yip

  • Species: vulpes vulpes
  • *
  • Female
  • Posts: 4007
    • Furaffinity
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2010, 11:24:20 pm »
From what I've heard about wikileaks, it sounds like a lot of petty gossip to me. "Did you hear what Jim said about Sally the other day?"  Only replace it with high up government officials.

Seriously, if there is a security problem here, it should be addressed at the source of the problem. And this guy isn't it.

Offline Kobuk

  • The "Malamute Dewd"
  • Hero Member
  • Species: Anthro Alaskan Malamute (Husky)
  • #1 Dew drinker.
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 28545
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2010, 11:30:44 pm »
Quote
Seriously, if there is a security problem here, it should be addressed at the source of the problem. And this guy isn't it.

It's possible there could be spies or traitors, etc. inside various agencies. If that's the case, then the US and/or other countries need to find out who they are and fast.

Offline Avan

  • Species: Azemdyn Sabertooth Hyena
  • Gender: Non-Binary, YEEN.
  • *
  • Posts: 5010
    • Our FA
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2010, 11:31:50 pm »
But how further could we be? (Or how further behind would we be?)
Problem is that we don't have the ability to simulate everything in a laboratory setting to figure out what exactly is the right course of action.

This goes for both sides of the argument. How do you know when you are in the right or not?
Problem is in a government that runs based on those who can most effectively coerce the populace are the ones in charge. The only sort of government that can get away with effectively implementing real transparency is an authoritarian one, or one that isn't succeptable to the pitfalls of human nature. Neither of which are going to realistically happen in the next few years. (But, I wouldn't be one to say never. I mean, especially considering that this is me talking)

There are simply Too Many Secrets. And they will keep building up and up and up, nobody knowing who to trust, with hoarding them simply exacerbating the problem, and revealing potentially having great deals of fallout.



HOWEVER. I will say this:

They PWNED HUBARD - IN HIS FACE! It may not even have been important info, but they hit him where it hurts the most. IN THE EGO!

I can't speak for their other actions, but that, without a doubt, demonstrated that they at least have some merit in their existence.


@ Vararam; yes - it's also a good point to bring up that it is far more important to stop the actual leaks. They'll just go to the press or somewhere else if wikileaks wasn't around. Stopping wikileaks is unlikely to do much.
We are Dissociated Identities.

Avatar is of Avan-Syr (Saberyeen)
Old links to art sites we need to update:
Weasyl Page: https://www.weasyl.com/~avankaira
My FA page: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/avanwolf/

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/avan_wolf/

Offline Mooshi

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2010, 11:54:55 pm »
I have a better idea. Instead of pointing fingers at Wikileaks, we should be looking at whose info is being leaked instead. How can organizations that we're supposed to trust be trusted if they have dirty secrets in the first place?

Offline Arbutus

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Rabbit
  • Also known as Sir Bunny-Face
  • *****
  • Posts: 8322
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #44 on: December 08, 2010, 01:05:40 am »
From a New York Times article two months ago:

Quote
But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said.

In case anyone was skeptical of the argument that Wikileaks' utter irresponsibility can, has, and will get people killed.

Offline Mooshi

  • *****
  • Posts: 1686
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #45 on: December 08, 2010, 10:41:57 am »
Again, point fingers at the source, not the leak. Wikileaks isn't the only leak source out there...even 4chan posts something notable once in a blue moon. I remember a story from a different leaked source about the US soldier commiting animal abuse on an innocent puppy. If I remember correctly, this pitiful excuse for a human slung it off in order for it to die..and then laughed about it! Just because you're dressed as the good guys, it doesn't make you one. With all this talk of war and the dangerous of certain names leaked out because it would "endanger their lives"?..well..why the hell are we still at war? Egotistical morons only caring for themselves and not giving a damn about the low ranked everyday soldier that is fighting along side them - only the "important" people.

There is no justification for this idiotic war to still be going on. September 11th happened a long time ago, get over it already. By now, the US has killed way more on their soil than they did ours. The so called "war on terror" is utter BS and they know it. The act of terrorism has been going on way before the attack on the twin towers - I wish people would stop running around like a chicken with their heads cut off and realize it didn't just magically happen because of that one attack. You can not "win" if you're fighting beliefs...no idea why governments are too stupid to figure that one out. Smack a bees nest with a stick and prepare to be stung, best to have left them alone. Look at the religious thread here. That got derailed into an atheist/theist debate. And this was just a thread on a furry forum..magnify that and this is the Afghan/Iraq war. Proof of how childish the whole thing is. I know better not to buy the media's brainwashed nonsense about how this is a war on terrorism. It's US vs extreme Islam at the core. These PC pansies should call it for what it really is. Don't like sensative info about your precious war leaking out? Then stop your war!

Offline Foxpup

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Cyborg Fox
  • *****
  • Male
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #46 on: December 08, 2010, 07:02:14 pm »
I am still going to repeat what Brent said earlier: "The public does NOT have a need to know everything that goes on."

If by chance any info. that Wikileaks leaked were to somehow endanger, harm, or kill military personnel and/or civilians in the next several days, weeks, or months, Then how would that make you feel, Foxpup? Could you sleep soundly at night knowing that leaked info. of a sensitive nature harmed or killed innocent people: Men, Women, or even Children? What if something happened in your own country of Australia? How would you feel then?
*facepaw* I'm only going to say this one more time, so pay attention: Wikileaks does not actually leak anything, they only publish information that was already leaked, and which would have been made public anyway. I also firmly stand by what I said earlier: the public does have a right to know when they're paying with their tax dollars and their blood. Now, if people die as a result (which nobody has yet, by the way), then that's tragic, but ultimately, trusting people's lives to secrecy of information is always a bad plan, because you never know when an enemy might be spying on you. Here, we're lucky Wikileaks is a neutral party, not an enemy.

The same goes for everybody else. Can you live with a guilty conscience? The people who are gathering, spreading, and leaking all this information obviously have no idea what they're doing. They claim and disguise what they are doing as "freedom of information" or some other such phrase or quote, etc. But all they really are doing is putting people all over the world in danger in whatever country they live in, and also ruining foreign relations. Is that something to be proud of? I think not! The people who are leaking info. have no morals, values, or ethics that I can see. IMO, they disgust me, and so do the people who support Wikileaks.  :P
Really? The people who are leaking this information are risking their careers and in some cases their lives to do so, so maybe, just maybe, they actually have put some thought into it and do know what they're doing. Most of these people can't live with a guilty conscience, which is why they're leaking this information in the first place. Would we still be in Afghanistan if we really knew what was going on? How many lives could be saved by exposing this information? Maybe my sense of ethics is screwed up, but I don't see how "because the government said so, and they're always right, even though they're not telling us the whole story" constitutes a good reason for killing thousands of people. I need more than that.

This country wouldn't be where it is today if not for the efforts of the military, various civillian agencies, etc. to keep information safe and the public protected. I like openess just as much as the next person. But what Wikileaks is doing goes too far. It needs to be shut down...........permanently.

*walks away from this thread*  >:(
Um, right... moving on.

Quote
Seriously, if there is a security problem here, it should be addressed at the source of the problem. And this guy isn't it.

It's possible there could be spies or traitors, etc. inside various agencies. If that's the case, then the US and/or other countries need to find out who they are and fast.
Yes, but spies and traitors don't tell you they've spied on you then show you exactly what information they've collected.

From a New York Times article two months ago:

Quote
But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said.

In case anyone was skeptical of the argument that Wikileaks' utter irresponsibility can, has, and will get people killed.
Not really, the Taliban already had this list of people. Not to mention they've got their own spies who can gather information far more effectively than Wikileaks.

stuff
Amen!

Offline redyoshi49q

  • Species: (*please see above*)
  • Avatar from Dexcat's MFF 2013 Photoshoot
  • *
  • Male
  • Posts: 2071
    • Enigma Cipher (software project)
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2010, 07:19:56 pm »
I can't deny that Wikileaks's actions have the potential to result in disastrous consequences, but it nevertheless seems like there should be an explicit and sufficient justification (such as the safety of somebody's life) for governmental information to be classified.

Maybe Wikileaks is right in their philosophy of free information, but overzealous and overreaching in their execution as noted by their critics.  If that's the case, then how can governments and individuals involved in government be held accountable for their actions (whether good or bad) without sacrificing the anonymity of those whose lives would be endangered without it?  Is there any way to have it both ways?

Maybe requiring the US government to be approved by a jury-style panel of civilians sworn to non-disclosure before classifying something would be a starting place for this?  If the panel, upon being told the circumstances and need behind a request for classification, does not agree that information should be classified, it must be revealed.  In theory, "slip ups" would not end up classified, as no panel would permit it, but classified material would still be able to protect the lives of covert agents.  I myself can see immediately that this would be impractical to implement due to scale (not to mention that it's another potential source of leakage), but it explores a different possible way to allow for accountability.
"Perfect normality is impossible.  Be unique!"
-- redyoshi49q




^ (click) Puzzle game!

Offline furtopia02

  • *****
  • Posts: 1801
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #48 on: December 08, 2010, 09:01:21 pm »
"Now, if people die as a result (which nobody has yet, by the way), then that's tragic, but ultimately, trusting people's lives to secrecy of information is always a bad plan, because you never know when an enemy might be spying on you."

This has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in the furry debate forum.


I had a long replied typed but its best I don't even say it.


EDIT TO ADD: seriously though, I'm not feeling very comfortable on this site right now.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2010, 09:10:33 pm by Brent »

Offline Arbutus

  • Hero Member
  • Species: Rabbit
  • Also known as Sir Bunny-Face
  • *****
  • Posts: 8322
Re: Wikileaks
« Reply #49 on: December 08, 2010, 09:40:15 pm »
From a New York Times article two months ago:

Quote
But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member “commission” after the Afghan documents were posted “to find about people who are spying.” He said the Taliban had a “wanted” list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

“After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people,” he said.

In case anyone was skeptical of the argument that Wikileaks' utter irresponsibility can, has, and will get people killed.
Not really, the Taliban already had this list of people. Not to mention they've got their own spies who can gather information far more effectively than Wikileaks.

Or in other words, "It doesn't matter that Wikileaks provided the Taliban with the evidence they needed to prosecute or execute 1,800 people as quickly as possible! They'd probably get executed eventually anyway!" Sorry, I don't buy that sort of responsibility-dodging.


*facepaw* I'm only going to say this one more time, so pay attention: Wikileaks does not actually leak anything, they only publish information that was already leaked, and which would have been made public anyway.

Convenient loophole, isn't it? Wikileaks pretends to take no responsibility for its choice to publish certain material without redaction, hiding behind its sources to create a weak pretense that it's neutral in the matter. Merely a vessel. Just channeling the word of God, if you will. So if Julian Assange directly makes the decision to click "Publish" and send unredacted material into the world that exposes many U.S. informants to professional, political, and sometimes mortal danger, none of the consequences are his fault at all! It wasn't really his decision, remember. He was just channeling his sources. Blame the sources!!

Makes some sort of twisted, amoral sense, right? And yet, their own hypocrisy undermines them. They're thrilled to take the credit for any consequences that play into their own messianic conception of themselves. Undermining the U.S. war effort! Embarrassing world leaders! Creating a scandal in every diplomatic post! Yet when faced with other consequences (for instance, the execution of American informants in Afghanistan, which can be confirmed via other records), they absolve themselves of responsibility and chalk it up to "collateral damage." Oops!

(See above for why I won't buy your impending followup of "Well, they would have been leaked somewhere anyway!")


Now, if people die as a result (which nobody has yet, by the way)

Again, I do not accept the blatant dodge of responsibility in this statement. You're correct, Wikileaks itself has killed nobody; we have no evidence that Julian Assange has choked an Afghan informant to death with his bare hands. Yet to discount the huge collateral damage that Wikileaks' actions have caused, are causing, and will cause is to do little more than play with semantics.