Apple Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]

[Apple OC]

Do you have anything to back up your claim that the WMD information in Iraq came only from these thens of thousands of informants?

By the way, Mustard gas and weapons like them are not WMD's and would not produce the mushroom cloud smoking gun BS Bush was talking about. Don't try to shift goalposts here, especially when you weren't even the one who put them there in the first place.

alright you win ... just to agree with you, Saddam was good guy, Bush is bad.

Now answer this ... if you gave every scum criminal in the world 2 years notice that you were coming through the front door with a warrant. How much contraband would you expect to find?

My answer is Zero ...

Also, if you know any iraqis that formerly lived under Saddam's Regime ... find just one that says life was not complete Terror, when your neighbour could turn you in and lie saying you said something bad about Saddam and you could be faced with death.

Bush doesn't care what you think of him, and certainly wouldn't kill you for throwing a shoe at him.

To be honest ... I am tired of debating with any Anti-Americanism period.

 

[hackum]

What a shame.

 

[hackum]

So they will also need to remove the NYTimes app for the same reasons.

 

[Earendil]

So they will also need to remove the NYTimes app for the same reasons.

Having not read any part of the NYTimes reports on it, I would guess no. I believe they hold some form of ethical discretion, and will pore over each line of text before they make it public. Of course, it's hard to have LESS discretion than what wikileaks...

 

[Nuvi]

Obama won a Nobel for doing nothing whats your point.

Talk to the Nobel Committee (Oslo, Norway). What does that have to do with United Nations?

 

[OutThere]

alright you win ... just to agree with you, Saddam was good guy, Bush is bad.

Now answer this ... if you gave every scum criminal in the world 2 years notice that you were coming through the front door with a warrant. How much contraband would you expect to find?

My answer is Zero ...

Also, if you know any iraqis that formerly lived under Saddam's Regime ... find just one that says life was not complete Terror, when your neighbour could turn you in and lie saying you said something bad about Saddam and you could be faced with death.

Bush doesn't care what you think of him, and certainly wouldn't kill you for throwing a shoe at him.

If our true purpose for going to Iraq was because saddam was a bad guy who persecuted people who spoke out against the government, then we had better get busy on all of the other countries in the world with oppressive regimes. Perhaps we could start with china?

Truth is, making life better in the country is not a reason to topple the government except in extreme cases, nevermind the great instability and enormous loss of life we've caused in trying to make life better. The US record on nation building is abysmal, and it's extremely unlikely that we'll leave Iraq with a long lasting democracy.

 

[hackum]

Having not read any part of the NYTimes reports on it, I would guess no. I believe they hold some form of ethical discretion, and will pore over each line of text before they make it public. Of course, it's hard to have LESS discretion than what wikileaks...

Is this just a guess or you can prove it?

 

[NT1440]

Is this just a guess or you can prove it?

Its the ranting of someone who is willfully ignorant of the topic they are ranting about. That particular poster needs to look into how Wikileaks is actually releasing this particular leak before he has even more egg on his face, right now he's making quite the omelette.

 

[Earendil]

Is this just a guess or you can prove it?

Prove that the NYTimes has more editorial discretion than wikileaks? Since wikileaks appears to have the moto that all information be free, content be damned, and the NYTimes actually pays editors to edit content, I don't see how the NYTimes could possible have less editorial discretion... And since the NYTimes doesn't publish every document they receive, than yes, they have more editorial discretion than wikileaks.

Now the NYTimes COULD still publish everything in their papers, so it's possible they could at least tie wikileaks for unethical journalistic discretion. However based on past work, I'm going to make a highly educated guess.

 

[snberk103]

He may have thought the US would lose the peace, but I highly doubt he seriously believed he'd win a war against the most powerful army on earth.

You mean how the North Vietnamese didn't win the war with the most powerful army?

I don't think Saddam thought he could "win"... he just thought the US would lose interest once a few dozen US soldiers were killed. He was wrong, as it turned out, but not suicidal.

 

[takao]

alright you win ... just to agree with you, Saddam was good guy, Bush is bad.
[snip]

To be honest ... I am tired of debating with any Anti-Americanism period.

and when genocide happened in Darfur (or during the 90ties in Rwanda) what did the US do if they are all about preventing such things ? oh yeah ... nothing

from an outside non-american view it's absolutly unlogical to go to a war to topple a 'bad' government' when somewhere else much worse things happen and nobody seems to care

IMHO the modern variant of "they attacked us and since 5:45 we are shooting back" and phrases like "police action" should have no place i nthe 21st century

and when the US is so noble about it's wars then why no official declaration of war ?

 

[hackum]

Prove that the NYTimes has more editorial discretion than wikileaks? Since wikileaks appears to have the moto that all information be free, content be damned, and the NYTimes actually pays editors to edit content, I don't see how the NYTimes could possible have less editorial discretion... And since the NYTimes doesn't publish every document they receive, than yes, they have more editorial discretion than wikileaks.

Now the NYTimes COULD still publish everything in their papers, so it's possible they could at least tie wikileaks for unethical journalistic discretion. However based on past work, I'm going to make a highly educated guess.

This should answer your questions about the way the documents are redacted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...GDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456

 

[hackum]

And besides, the burden of proof stands on the person who is making the accusations. I don't really need to prove anything.

Innocent until proven guilty, right? I hope Apple didn't jump the gun with this one.

 

[snberk103]

This should answer your questions about the way the documents are redacted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...GDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456

Thank you for the link. I hope it will be read by everybody on this thread before posting. I don't think it will happen, but I can hope.

My observation so far is that the "string 'em up by the thumbs" crowd have no grasp of the facts, and that they wouldn't care what the facts were in any case.

Nor have I yet found, though I only scanned some posts, any acknowledgement the Private Manning is only suspected by the media as being the source of the leaks. There have been no official conclusions where wikileaks got their information from.

And - in my humble observation - the "string 'em crowd" is entirely missing the bit that these are Diplomatic Cables. These are the observations, opinions, conclusions of Diplomatic Staff. And that nearly 2.5 million people have access to this level of "classified". When 2.5 million are in on a "secret", it's not really a secret anymore.

The biggest impact is that this is embarrassing for the US government. But be sure that any foreign government with a mature intelligence service has already seen any cables concerning it's own government.

 

[X38]

Wikileaks is a website. Why does there need to be an app?
The app store is getting too cluttered with things that are just repackaged web sites anyway. Take 'em all out.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Talk to the Nobel Committee (Oslo, Norway). What does that have to do with United Nations?

My point is any organization will give away whatever award it feels like to whoever. IE wikileaks getting awards.

 

[Earendil]

This should answer your questions about the way the documents are redacted:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...GDKMDA?docId=120c7bf5d3a34dbaadf1280dace2e456

Well, this certainly proves my point

"Although WikiLeaks has said it will ultimately post its trove online, The Times said it intends to publish only about 100 or so of the records. And the other news organizations that have the material said they likely will release only a fraction."


My favorite line of the article is from New York Times Executive Editor Bill Kelle:
"We agree wholeheartedly that transparency is not an absolute good," Keller wrote. "Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity."

and he goes on to say:

"We have no way of knowing what WikiLeaks will do, no clear idea what they make of our redactions, but if this to any degree prevents WikiLeaks from carelessly getting someone killed, I'm happy to do it," he said. "I'd be interested to hear the arguments in favor of having WikiLeaks post its material unredacted."

I'm still going to stand by my point that it is highly unlikely that wikileaks will choose to be more reserved with sharing information with the general public than the NYT.

 

[Earendil]

Thank you for the link. I hope it will be read by everybody on this thread before posting. I don't think it will happen, but I can hope.

My observation so far is that the "string 'em up by the thumbs" crowd have no grasp of the facts, and that they wouldn't care what the facts were in any case.

Interestingly, I don't think there are any "string 'em up" people here, at least if you are talking about stringing wikileaks up.

And - in my humble observation - the "string 'em crowd" is entirely missing the bit that these are Diplomatic Cables. These are the observations, opinions, conclusions of Diplomatic Staff. And that nearly 2.5 million people have access to this level of "classified". When 2.5 million are in on a "secret", it's not really a secret anymore.

Than why release it? Where is the justification for such an act, if it doesn't promote policy change? Either the information has value, or it doesn't. If it has value, who considers it valuable? And is wikileaks taking into account who is benefiting the most from it? Somehow I doubt it's the American people, and somehow I doubt that is the intent. I don't think he's against the American people either, I just think he's a guy that wants his name out there, doesn't really give a *****, and is holding a potential information nuke. I don't like to see people with that kind of weaponry not care who they hurt. Hopefully they are getting smarter, and have some ethical agenda. Better still, an ethical agenda I agree with

The biggest impact is that this is embarrassing for the US government. But be sure that any foreign government with a mature intelligence service has already seen any cables concerning it's own government.

Let's hope so.

 

[Scarpad]

wikileaks is only doing what are american Press and News organizations used to do..well that was before they became corporate puppets.

 

[Earendil]

wikileaks is only doing what are american Press and News organizations used to do..well that was before they became corporate puppets.

The american press never had the power to distribute 250,000 top secret files to billions of people across the world. Nor would they print a document without reading it first. In other words, you're wrong

 

[Glideslope]

I'm still going to stand by my point that it is highly unlikely that wikileaks will choose to be more reserved with sharing information with the general public than the NYT.

Correct, and this will be their undoing. JA has turned this into a personal fight. It is no longer a "Public Service". He will eventually be extradited to the US on Espionage Charges for conspiring with the Pentagon employee to receive the documents.

Lousy US security or not he is going away for a long time (if he make makes it back to the US alive).

When you have several of the largest governments in the world wanting you're a** on a platter, it really does not matter how your service is perceived. There are many documents he should not have released that backfired on him. The last two governments I'd want pissed off at me are China and especially Russia.

What started out with good intentions is rapidly imploding due to the inability of JA to use restraint.

6m from now this will be over. JA had better hope he is in a US Federal Prison by then. There are a few out there eager to bypass a legal process.

 

[hackum]

None of those quotes suggest that Wikileaks has published or plan to publish any of these documents in their raw form. Another debate is whether doing that would be detrimental to the national security.

I'm still going to stand by my point that it is highly unlikely that wikileaks will choose to be more reserved with sharing information with the general public than the NYT.

Even if I give you that, how is this a breach of the App Store rules or any other laws whatsoever?

 

[hackum]

The american press never had the power to distribute 250,000 top secret files to billions of people across the world. Nor would they print a document without reading it first. In other words, you're wrong

Who printed/posted a document without reading it? Where are you getting all these assumptions from?

One of the reasons that all the media are releasing a few cables a day is that they are reading and redacting them.

 

[NT1440]

The american press never had the power to distribute 250,000 top secret files to billions of people across the world. Nor would they print a document without reading it first. In other words, you're wrong

Could you at LEAST have a clue about what you're ranting against before you do it?

"Wikileaks will publish 251,287 cables, originating from 274 embassies and dating from 28th December 1966 to 28th February 2010. Of this total, 15, 652 of the cables are marked Secret, 101,748 Confidential and 133,887 Unclassified, although even the 'unclassified' documents contain sensitive information."

Jeez.

 

[Earendil]

Originally Posted by Earendil
The american press never had the power to distribute 250,000 top secret files to billions of people across the world. Nor would they print a document without reading it first.

Who printed/posted a document without reading it? Where are you getting all these assumptions from?

One of the reasons that all the media are releasing a few cables a day is that they are reading and redacting them.

Reading comprehension fail