EAKS are often just material which was supposed to be in the public domain all along. Copyright is not the issue. Since it was kept secret (often for no truly justifiable reason), input which was contained in it assumed no moderation would be needed. As such, secrecy resulted in mischief, rudeness, and often the perpetuation of misconduct, which relied on lack of wider awareness.

As I explained repeatedly over the years, I too was bullied for leaking documents which ought to have been out there all along. This is the main reason I am willing to dedicate so much time to defence of Wikileaks. I too may soon leak some more documents and I don’t want to get the “Assange treatment”. Nobody does. “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me,” writes Daniel Ellsberg this week. For those who do not know, Ellsberg was partly responsible for ending the bloody Vietnam war.

Leaks hurt. Truth hurts, too. But always bother to check who it hurts the most. Therein lies the answer regarding the ethics of a leak.

The word “leak” — like “whistle-blower” — has a negative connotation. Let’s call leaks “enlightenment” and whistle-blowers “truth revealers”.

ODAY I decided to step up with my support of Wikileaks, which I perceive as a test case for free speech and Internet freedom regardless or irrespective of the impact of what they are doing. Therefore I changed my usual avatar in Twitter and Identi.ca to a modified version of a banner calling for the release of Manning, the leaker who is the real hero in this case (Assange is the messenger/publisher).

I found this talk particularly informative (if not enlightening) and I can recommend it for all to watch.

Direct link

This is part of a multi-part series (follow the link above).

Y intent is never to promote anything. I just try to find facts that are usually separate from consensus, which is very typically distorted, e.g. in politics (“war on terror”).

Some people are concerned about facts because we are all very skilled at beautifying our own integrity. The reporter who is selected to cover for a publication based on inclinations, convictions or obedience, for example, is often sufficiently indoctrinated so as to actually believe his/her writings, say X, about Y (well, “everyone else is writing X about Y too”). It’s a cyclic trap, it’s sheep/cattle effect. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy in a sense. We see it in Comes exhibits (e.g. “The NC is dead” roadshow) and the Gartner Group was openly accused of doing the same thing to set standards.

Only by challenging conventions with facts can we find truth, then present it and preach to defend it (money always fights against truth).

This is part 9 of a 10-part mashup which is worth watching because it’s mind stimulating.

Direct link

Direct link

Some countries’ policies, despite the will of the people, are shameful, much like the government. But people are too brainwashed by their elected ones too see it. Here is a new article on propaganda.