Apple Removes Unofficial WikiLeaks Application From App Store [Updated]

[firestarter]

If only we had had wikileaks during the Bush regime. Perhaps 5000 soldiers wouldn't have had to die for no good reason.

Don't forget the 100000+ civilians!

 

[SactoGuy18]

By that logic they're going to charge all the newspapers and their directors with committing a felony too. How much likelihood of that do you think their is? Until all citizens blog, the press is (still) the last station of keeping some kind of honesty on government. If a day ever came that they made a case against the NYT, Apple and others for publishing cables is the day that democracy officially died.

However, newspapers are protected by First Amendment rights. A private company like Apple, not so much.

Besides, given Apple's obsession with its public image, they want to avoid getting involved in the whole WikiLeaks controversy for lots of good reasons.

 

[tatonka]

Besides, given Apple's obsession with its public image, they want to avoid getting involved in the whole WikiLeaks controversy for lots of good reasons.

at least for me personally .. the companies that decided to take actions against Wikileaks took more damage than the ones that just kept their trap shut and did nothing. Maybe that is different in the US itself, but I for example didn't know amazon hosted the site until they decide to not host them anymore.

T.

 

[takao]

Besides, given Apple's obsession with its public image, they want to avoid getting involved in the whole WikiLeaks controversy for lots of good reasons.

the thing is: by dropping the app they stirred up a much bigger controversy (especially abroad)

just look at this thread on an mostly US/UK focused apple specific forum 300 responses mostly mixed reactions
on the austrian only derstandard.at newspaper site: 780 comments mostly negative about apple

you should talk to paypal germany if you want to know if it was worth it: they have according to estimates lost thousands of customers

edit:in german there is a word for such bahaviour: "vorauseilender Gehorsam"

 

[Dmac77]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

I guess you better report me to the FBI, as I'm running a US based mirror site that is redistributing that classified material. FYI, murder is also a crime, but I don't see your kind (the anti wikileaks crowd) calling for the heads of the war criminal soldiers seen in the Collateral Murder/Collateral Damage video that was leaked earlier this year. You people only call for the heads of those who let the world know what some of our soldiers do, and that the US government lets those soldiers get away with their war crimes.

-Don

You are not seeing us call for those soliders' heads as that video isn't the topic of this thread.

Wikileaks leaking that? That was right, morally. But doing the right thing once doesn't excusing doing the wrong thing.

Unless you are telling me that somewhere in those papers released, which are saying who helped us when over there, redacted or not (who knows what bits might give the terrorists over there enough info to ID someone, or worse, merely some place?), who helped locate the people doing bombings and shootings?

If you agree that the people that we are fighting are terrorists, the ones that flew planes into the Towers or support those who do, then you agree that they are not above killing random people in a town as a "lesson" to "collaborators" - after all they are killing random people in markets, etc.

I've seen no one here say they have a problem with WikiLeaks releasing proof of corruption/wrongdoing by one or more governments.

But people here are having an issue with WikiLeaks exposing government papers/secrets just because they can.

And what is so wrong with leaking papers just because you can? I think that leaking the documents just for the heck of it is ok, because who is to decide if a document is worthy of being leaked. If we are going to start to say that only documents that prove immorality or wrongdoing should be leaked, that means we need someone to decide what is immoral or wrong, and their opinion of what is immoral or wrong may be very different than my opinion of what is immoral or wrong.

-Don

 

[Nuvi]

The issue is them publishing information that could possibly put innocent (or even helpful) people at risk, and seem to be published just for the sake of publishing government documents.

The documents are redacted in order to avoid putting anyone at risk. If you have problem with Wikileaks then you have problem with the following and on top of that with AP and Washington Post.

WikiLeaks turned over all of the classified U.S. State Department cables it obtained to Le Monde, El Pais in Spain, The Guardian in Britain and Der Spiegel in Germany. The Guardian shared the material with The New York Times, and the five news organizations have been working together to plan the timing of their reports.

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

 

[Ubuntu]

How odd. I read about this on the BBC news site and they stated it was pulled after about 4,000 downloads. How come Apple's apparently-strict app policy didn't catch this one out? The reasons given could have been spotted before it was even released. I guess they made a bit of money this way but its pocket change to them so I'm not sure.

 

[harveypooka]

+1 Most people don't understands the repercussions this kind of thing can really have. the PFC who originally stole the file was an incredible stupid individual and the military is stupid for allowing use of any external media on siprnet.

Read before you write:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Maybe it's just me, but to me it seems like the US government does really well into making WikiLeaks seem bad. In most countries in Europe, if they're talking about WikiLeaks and (American) company X decided to stop their services to WikiLeaks, than almost all media channels say that "it's highly likely that company X has stopped their services under pressure of the US government."

Don't get me wrong at what I'm about to say, but if I were an American than I'd be ashamed of myself that I (or 'we') would allow the American government to, for example, start illigal wars or to retreive DNA, password etc. from UN diplomats. I actually am ashamed about the fact that the most Americans were Europeans a few hundred years ago.

But if the last part is true (with retreiving DNA, passwords, etc. from UN diplomats) and president Obama knew about this (or even worse: ordered this), than I believe Obama should resign.

I understand some things must stay a secret, but the governments only exist FOR it's people, not against its people.

 

[spiritlevel]

These people are committing treason. I hope they do get shut down. There is a reason for EVERY government to keep secrets. I wont feel safe until they're gone.

Please can you explain how an Australian operating out of Iceland can be committing treason in the US???

 

[notabadname]

People don't always seem to understand "Free Speech". The secrets that people think they are entitled to hear are secrets that easily put our armed forces into harms way as well as the public and national security. It is like saying it is alright, if I can steal your social security number and bank account information, for me to publish for all the world to see. There is an enormous difference in "whistle blowing" to stop wrong conduct by our government or an organization, and simply releasing classified data that does not uncover wrong doing, but instead exposes people and systems to attack or compromise. There is not a single one of us without "secrets" that we would vigorously defend as important to remain "secret". I am sure our personal list is long, for the things that would be devastating and life altering if released to the world, our friends and our enemies.

 

[spiritlevel]

Well, that sucks, then. Apple is just plain wrong. WikiLeaks hasn't been proven to have broken any laws. There's been no legal case brought, let alone a conviction.

And, IMO, there will be no case brought, because of the horrendous twisting of the U.S. constitution that would be needed. While the public is split, I doubt as a whole that we are prepared to give up our freedom of speech or to trash guilty-till-proven-innocent.

Apple isn't - or in any case, shouldn't be - prosecutor, judge, and jury.

As a reminder to international readers, one of the fundamental differences between U.S. law and English law (observed by much of the rest of the world) is that in the U.S. the accused is innocent until proven guilty. (In the English system, one is guilty until proven innocent.)

It seems that the press and private enterprise is being forced through coercion into following the English law, which doesn't apply here. The government doesn't have the ability to convict Asange or even charge him, so, IMO, they are manipulating behind the scenes to bring about the same effect through the actions of the press, the banking industry, and now through telecommunications and technology companies.

I totally agree with you apart from the bit about English law where you are mistaken - in English law you are also innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

a couple of sections from that page follow -

"Presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (or some other level of proof depending on the criminal justice system) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[14] This is often expressed in the phrase innocent until proven guilty coined by the English lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760–1840)."

“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen - that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt"


Actually, I also think a case will be brought and the horrendous twisting of the US constitution to which you refer will happen. In order to avoid awkward questions about why the New York times is not also being prosecuted, the US gov will say the difference is that Assange conspired with Manning in the release of these documents and is not merely publishing them. This is of course an invented distinction. In the real world, investigative journalists rarely have classified documents just land on their desks and almost always play some role in getting the leaker to leak - so if/when Assange is found guilty of conspiracy, it will be the end of investigative journalism in the US as you know it.

Will all work out nicely for the US gov in the end...investigating them/revealing what they do will become de facto illegal.

 

[Apple OC]

Read before you write:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

Interesting insight as to the grand scope of the leaks ... everything from mostly Anti-Americanism to Anna Nicole Smith.

Confirms to me that the sole purpose of Wikileaks is to create complete animosity between nations.

Tells me Wikileaks has achieved not the result of more Transparency but rather the exact opposite.

Every single Government in the World will now protect private information much better to protect themselves from future Wikileak Rats from trying to create tension between countries by invading their privacy.

Also confirms for me ... this will not end well for Assange and Wikileaks ... his 15 minutes are almost up.

 

[hackum]

Interesting insight as to the grand scope of the leaks ... everything from mostly Anti-Americanism to Anna Nicole Smith.

Confirms to me that the sole purpose of Wikileaks is to create complete animosity between nations.

Tells me Wikileaks has achieved not the result of more Transparency but rather the exact opposite.

Every single Government in the World will now protect private information much better to protect themselves from future Wikileak Rats from trying to create tension between countries by invading their privacy.

Also confirms for me ... this will not end well for Assange and Wikileaks ... his 15 minutes are almost up.

So WikiLeaks revealing documents about war crimes, backstabbing, foul play on governmental level, spying, corruption, is creating animosity between nations? Not the people who actually committed those acts?

 

[Apple OC]

So WikiLeaks revealing documents about war crimes, backstabbing, foul play on governmental level, spying, corruption, is creating animosity between nations? Not the people who actually committed those acts?

If you read the link harveypooka posted ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points

it shows exactly what I have said ... stirring things up for no real purpose other than to create animosity between nations.

I think Assange's future would be brighter ... if he was drifting off to sea on a wooden raft.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Interesting insight as to the grand scope of the leaks ... everything from mostly Anti-Americanism to Anna Nicole Smith.

Confirms to me that the sole purpose of Wikileaks is to create complete animosity between nations.

Tells me Wikileaks has achieved not the result of more Transparency but rather the exact opposite.

Every single Government in the World will now protect private information much better to protect themselves from future Wikileak Rats from trying to create tension between countries by invading their privacy.

Also confirms for me ... this will not end well for Assange and Wikileaks ... his 15 minutes are almost up.

Thats the thing all these Wikileak followers don't understand that if you want to show corruption and war crimes you take all the leaks, put them together, form a developed and cohesive argument against the actions in the leak, provide additional evidence, organize, and release. Wikileaks is just releasing everything to anyone and letting god sort them out so to speak. It goes to show that what you are saying is true. Assange is just releasing to release, piss people off, and create chaos.

 

[ThatsMeRight]

Interesting insight as to the grand scope of the leaks ... everything from mostly Anti-Americanism to Anna Nicole Smith.

Confirms to me that the sole purpose of Wikileaks is to create complete animosity between nations.

Tells me Wikileaks has achieved not the result of more Transparency but rather the exact opposite.

Every single Government in the World will now protect private information much better to protect themselves from future Wikileak Rats from trying to create tension between countries by invading their privacy.

Also confirms for me ... this will not end well for Assange and Wikileaks ... his 15 minutes are almost up.

One question: have you ever seen an international search warrant for someone who is only a SUSPECT and who has not been charged? Even more curious is that this suspect, that has not been charged (yet), is (was) locked up in England (but now has to carry such a ankle-band (don't know the English word) but is searched for in Sweden and might be transported to the US? That tells us all a lot. Names of people who can get in danger are crossed out.

And only partly releasing these files? No, because than you get to the question: "What is correct to release? And what isn't?"

No offence, but to me as an 'outsider' I think it's great that WikiLeaks, well, leaks all this. Giving a government power is a good thing, giving them too much power isn't good and WikiLeaks is now showing us what governments do with too much power.

 

[hackum]

Thats the thing all these Wikileak followers don't understand that if you want to show corruption and war crimes you take all the leaks, put them together, form a developed and cohesive argument against the actions in the leak, provide additional evidence, organize, and release. Wikileaks is just releasing everything to anyone and letting god sort them out so to speak. It goes to show that what you are saying is true. Assange is just releasing to release, piss people off, and create chaos.

That's what newspapers do. There are prosecutors for the rest.

WikiLeaks and the newspapers are just reporters. They report whatever they think might be in the interest of the public.

Cables you find irrelevant, might be very relevant for the countries involved. For instance, If I were Bahamian, I would be very much interested in the cable about Anna Nicole Smith and how it affected my government.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Thats the thing all these Wikileak followers don't understand that if you want to show corruption and war crimes you take all the leaks, put them together, form a developed and cohesive argument against the actions in the leak, provide additional evidence, organize, and release. Wikileaks is just releasing everything to anyone and letting god sort them out so to speak. It goes to show that what you are saying is true. Assange is just releasing to release, piss people off, and create chaos.

Sometimes, Wikileaks does a data dump with minimal/no redaction. Sometimes they delegate the redaction to 3rd parties (US government, Amnesty International) because they feel it's not their responsibility. Othertimes they put their fingerprints all over what they're publishing in order to sway public opinion - like they did with "Collateral Murder"

And what is so wrong with leaking papers just because you can? I think that leaking the documents just for the heck of it is ok, because who is to decide if a document is worthy of being leaked. If we are going to start to say that only documents that prove immorality or wrongdoing should be leaked, that means we need someone to decide what is immoral or wrong, and their opinion of what is immoral or wrong may be very different than my opinion of what is immoral or wrong.

-Don

So no information is sacred huh. I love the implications of this. In the name of absolute transparency, I think you should post your name, home address, social security and bank account #'s right now

 

[Apple OC]

One question: have you ever seen an international search warrant for someone who is only a SUSPECT and who has not been charged? Even more curious is that this suspect, that has not been charged (yet), is (was) locked up in England (but now has to carry such a ankle-band (don't know the English word) but is searched for in Sweden and might be transported to the US? That tells us all a lot. Names of people who can get in danger are crossed out.

And only partly releasing these files? No, because than you get to the question: "What is correct to release? And what isn't?"

No offence, but to me as an 'outsider' I think it's great that WikiLeaks, well, leaks all this. Giving a government power is a good thing, giving them too much power isn't good and WikiLeaks is now showing us what governments do with too much power.

My answer for this is ... Assange, whether he gets convicted of sex crimes or not in Sweden ... he will be spending a very long time incarcerated in an American Prison. ... so long that the next generation of kids, will not even of heard his name ... if he ever gets out.

 

[Earendil]

I see words joined together to make sentences, but it's not making sense to me.

I'm sorry. Perhaps reading things a second time, or reading things at all, would help with your problem. Since I have a few minutes left to kill on this topic, I'll try and spell it out for you. But there really is only so much I can help you with via the internet and my expertise in education.

The context for MY post, which I think you missed, is this:

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

I went ahead and highlighted the important bit there. The claim, is that wiki leaks isn't doing anything that news organizations of years past weren't doing. I took a slight leap and assumed he was talking about news organizations pre-internet, since all the giant News Corp style corporations that are around now, were around in 1990 in a similar capacity.

My response to this claim that wikileaks isn't doing anything new, is this:

"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."

Again I highlight the important bits. I'm not saying they "Do not have", I'm saying that "They never had[past tense]" and since I was directly quoting someone, the context should have been obvious, i.e. the past. Even if we assume that the "Press of old" printed every document without review or concern for negative impact(and I don't believe they did), they never held this kind of destructive power. You can't hand two crazy maniacal masterminds two different tools, one a gun and the other a country bent on world domination and think that their actions will produce similar results.
With great power comes great responsibility.

I did not take the time to research exactly how many documents were top secret and how many were not. So I referenced the entire bunch of leaked documents in a way that everyone would know which documents I was talking about without overusing the word documents. Since the exact percentage of top secret material was irrelevant to my point, I didn't think it would matter. I forgot how easily people latch on to the smallest little irrelevant detail and attempt to bring down a persons entire point with it

Let's back up a bit...

"The american press never had the power to distribute 250,000 top secret files to billions of people across the world"

Well, yes they do! Haven't you heard? The American press has the Internet too!

Oh, and noone has distributed 250000 top secret files, so I guess you're wrong there.

Round Two.

This is my mistake as well. I assumed that you had read the entire thread, or at least my posts, so that you were filled in on my position and what was going on around here. In the future I will try and assume no one is reading at all, and restate my position in every single post. Instead of assuming that you'll go back and read the whole thing at this point, I have taken the time to select a few tidbits for you consumption, context, and enlightenment as to my position.

"Nor would they print a document without reading it first."

Nope... don't understand this. Wikileaks has only distributed a few hundred of the cables, and they've all been read and redacted - so I guess you're probably wrong on this too.

According to one of my previous post, you are wrong. Wikileaks has distributed the ENTIRE thing to select news organizations, who only intend to release a few hundred after analyzing (i.e. ethical journalism, hopefully). Wikileaks themselves have stated that they will release the entire thing. This is all fact.

What is not fact and is just my understanding, is that wikileaks already "leaked" the entire thing onto the internet such that if one wanted to find the documents, they could. This is second hand knowledge and I'm not in a position right now to go searching and prove this. So we'll rely on the words of wikileaks themselves that they will release the entire thing.

"In other words, you're wrong "

Such certainty, in one so unaware of the facts!

Ditto

My thoughts on the matter can be summed up here and here.


Good day!

 

[Earendil]

MY point was that you have no actual clue what you're talking about. You're just ranting and throwing out rhetoric that doesn't match the reality of what Wikileaks is doing. It's embarrassing to watch.

Having read the entire thing thread, I'm one of the few people that others are pointing out as hitting the nail on the head. Since you probably haven't read the entire thread, let me highlight a few posts that display my position, thoughts, and what I know.

Information regarding What news organizations will do with the info, and what wikileaks will do with it can be found here.

What I think of the "content", and what it means.


My position is here, opinion on wikileaks, along with the idea that actually, we all agree.

I do not just "throw out rhetoric". You may not agree with it, and that's cool. But it is not entirely misinformed, and it is thought out.

 

[Earendil]

You post was implying that WikiLeaks would publish the documents without even reading them.

Also, 'fail' is a verb.

Do you have reason to believe he will read them all, and edit them?
If he reads 300 pages a day, he'll be done reading in approximatively 830 days. That's over two years...without taking a day off. And now he's supposed to edit them too?

He has given the entire content to news organizations to filter for their own uses, and they have the manpower and expertise to perhaps pull it off. But they can also do it in bite sized chunks and stop whenever.

If Wikileaks hopes to release everything, as they are quoted as saying they will, they are either going to have to wait 5 years, or release it without applying ethical journalistic editing... or he'll have to hire a trained staff...

But nothing from wikileaks has been edited for content before, and the general mantra is that all information be free without regard for content. So, what makes you think he will read and edit it?

 

[Earendil]

And now with all that said, I believe I'm done. Most of the people that understood this as an ethical topic have moved along, and what remains appears to mostly be people that want to nitpick over tiny irrelevant details. I shared my opinion and I'm content with that

Peace out.

 

[hackum]

Who is HE?
Around 800 people work for WikiLeaks.