back to article WikiLeaks on verge of financial collapse, founder says

WikiLeaks will temporarily stop publishing so members can address a cash shortage that could cause the whistleblower site to financially collapse by the end of the year, founder Julian Assange said on Monday. The dire financial picture comes 10 months after PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, and other payment services significantly …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. JimC

    20 Employees?

    grief, what a little baby empire. I wonder WTF they do...

  2. Kevin Bailey

    You can donate by...

    ... getting stuff from http://wikileaks.spreadshirt.com/

    I've already bought the staff Christmas pressies from there. The US government is getting more totalitarian by the day. Such a pity that they managed to see off the soviet monster but are now turning into something just as bad.

    1. Shakje
      Stop

      It annoys me no end (actually I'd say makes me angry)

      when people compare their country (UK, US, etc.) to the USSR or the DDR. If you think that things are anywhere near as bad then you're insulting the people who gave up their lives in those states because they believed in an ideal, or because they had misgivings, or because they were the wrong type of person, or just because their neighbours didn't like them. The actions of our governments are indeed worrying, but there's really no comparison to Soviet states, and if you don't believe me, go talk to people who lived through those times and were affected by them, or go to the Stasi museum in Berlin, or just read a bloody book.

  3. mhenriday
    Paris Hilton

    Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton

    is always going on about defending freedom of speech and combatting censorship : perhaps she can be counted upon to make a substantial donation to Wikileaks to help the site in its vital work ?...

    Paris, because credibility-wise, she and Ms Clinton constitute a pair....

    Henri

  4. Chad H.

    What do they expect?

    Their donate button results in a 404 - of course they're short on cash.

  5. Gordon 10

    Not a great fan of Julian Assclown but surely the credit card cos should be done for abuse of a monopoly. They are effectively acting as an illegal cartel at the behest of the the us government with absolutely no proven wrong doing by Wikimedia.

    1. Gordon 10

      A down vote for saying Julian Assclown? I should have gone with my first choice of Asshat.

      Alternatively there's a tea partier who thinks that the US Govt leaning on the credit card co's rather than using due process and the law is acceptable. Given that I hope no one is that stupid I hoping it's for the Asshat.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Mushroom

        Yo!~ Gordon Geko

        "Alternatively there's a tea partier who thinks that the US Govt leaning on the credit card co's rather than using due process and the law is acceptable. Given that I hope no one is that stupid I hoping it's for the Asshat."

        Actually Gordon, the US government has a legal obligation to inform the Financial Institutions that there could be criminal charges brought against them under the existing laws...The fact that Ass-n-age didn't endear himself to the banks clearly made their decision easier.

        Ass-n-age is currently trying to sue them. However... that case aint going to survive since the US corporations have to assess their risks under US law and protect themselves.

        This has nothing to do with the due process of law. That's still working its way through their investigation. There's a lot of unknowns and now that Assange had further alienated himself from the press... not a smart move.

        Sorry. But I'll take a look and see what OpenLeaks produces. Wikileaks aint no whistle blowers unless its Assange looking for some tail.

  6. ByeLaw101
    Unhappy

    Even if you agree/disagree ... Isn't there some freedoms being curtailed here?

    1. Nigel 11
      Thumb Up

      Curtailed freedoms

      Yes, this is definitely the point which matters. These (unelected, unaccountable) banks and credit companies are demonstrating that they can shut down any e-organisation that needs paying customers or supporters any time they choose. Soon, as physical cash fades into history, that'll be any organisation, e- or otherwise.,Today, wikileaks. Tomorrow ... who knows? They already have enough power to take out a small country.

      A reminder from the past

      First they came for the Communists / And I did not speak out /Because I was not a Communist

      Then they came for the Socialists/ And I did not speak out /Because I was not a Socialist

      Then they came for the trade unionists/ And I did not speak out /Because I was not a trade unionist

      Then they came for the Jews/ And I did not speak out/ Because I was not a Jew

      Then they came for me/ And there was no one left/ To speak out for me

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        you mean

        and they came for the crack dealers, the spies, the murderers...somehow these are not the same, but not surprisingly, they all wrap themselves in that same flag and use the same quote to try to get some leniency for their destructive ways.

        Sorry, there is a HUGE difference between erasing a threat, and refusing to subsidize it.

        People attacking the System but then rely on that System to enable them to continue the attack? Hipster level of hypocritical irony.

        If lack of CC support from Big Money crashes your "Revolution", then you DO NOT have a "revolution". Trying to cash in from being the patsy for someone else's agenda, makes one a quisling.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @AC 19:08

          "People attacking the System but then rely on that System to enable them to continue the attack? Hipster level of hypocritical irony."

          The best way to smash a system is to use the system against itself - Most certainly not hypocritical at all.

          INSERT FAIL ICON for you.

  7. Jeff 11
    Pirate

    $3.5m for 20 employees, a rack in a brave DC and an office? Oh wait, that'll be about $3m for Julian's lawyers.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Give OpenLeaks a chance!

    Since WikiLeaks have proven themselves to be lacking moral principles by repeatedly exposing innocent people and threatening their lives and/or livelihood, good riddance to them.

    Anyone thinking of making a donation should consider supporting OpenLeaks instead.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Which innocent people were exposed?

      This is the interwebs.

      Links or it didn't happen

  9. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Happy

    How much?

    So, how does 20 employees equate to $3.5m? Assuming a million for the costs of running their website would still be generous, leaving an average wage of $125k. Oh, I suppose I should take into account A$$nut's salary plus his travel costs, legal costs, hair-dresser costs.... At least donators can rest assured none of their money gets wasted on condoms!

    1. Allison Park
      FAIL

      he is scum

      He should be in jail for his hurtful actions

  10. Jay Croghan
    Thumb Down

    ¿WTF?

    $3.5 million to run a website for a year? It costs me $179.88 per year, exactly. I know I may run many domains none of which could compete with Wikileaks for traffic, the traffic it does get can in no way or how amount to a cost of $3.5m. The only thing that money could be required for is that idiots lawyers for the fondlegate incident.

    1. Mark 65

      Are your sites resilient to attacks and take-downs though?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sympathy - I've heard of it.

    Not a fan of the whole thing - sure governments should be more open but this information appears to have been obtained illegally and they are seem to be turning it into a commercial enterprise.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Absolutely right

      Originally I could understand where they were coming from as decent journalism was turned into cheerleading since the axis of evil Bush/Blair. But three things turned me off:

      - they WERE handling illegal data. You can get a sentence commuted in court for whistle blowing (good of the society etc), but it does not mitigate the fact that leaking data is in most cases a crime or even treason. But OK, sometimes there is no other way to expose wrongs/dictatorships etc.

      - Assange. If you are going to lead something that is on the edge of legality you need a frontman who is of impenetrable integrity. Which is clearly something you cannot accuse Assange of. For him, WL was nothing but a leg up onto the big stage. The Swedish events are 100% his own fault, and personally I hope they ship him over soon, happy to help nail the crate shut.

      - threatening to "release all" if something happens to members. Well, if I was anyone whose data they had I'd make sure they got arrested. The only way to deal with threats like that is to draw them - gets the worst case scenario straight out of the way.

      I have time for idealism, even deluded. I have no time for camouflaged opportunism, and that's what especially Assange turned WL into. I'm very glad his book sales (or rather, lack thereof) seem to agree with that..

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Taken from CNN:

    "Our scarce resources now must focus entirely on fighting this unlawful banking blockade," Assange told reporters. "If this financial attack stands unchallenged, a dangerous, oppressive and undemocratic precedent will have been set, the implications of which go far beyond WikiLeaks and its work."

    -=-

    What do you think happens when you bite the hand that feeds you?

    Wikileaks thumbed their nose at the US. Assange has his own personal vendetta against the US going back to his days as a convicted felon in Australia.... (He's still a convict BTW...)

    The point is that when Assange goes against the US, and also against the banks by outing one whistle blower's stuff where the whistle blower is facing court time, and by threatening to out another very large bank in the US... What do you think will happen when the US informed the banks that they could be on the hook for letting Assange use them to solicit funds?

    HINT: They're going to look at any excuse to shut them down. You can't fault the US companies, they have an out. You can't fault the US Govt. because they want Assange.

    The only one you can blame... Assange himself.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What?!

      "HINT: They're going to look at any excuse to shut them down. You can't fault the US companies, they have an out. You can't fault the US Govt. because they want Assange."

      Of course you can fault the US government for breaking the fucking laws you muppet. Or are you saying the US government can ignore laws if they weally weally want to and we shouldn't fault them that?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I fault no one but ass-n-age

        1. Tom 38

          When you say 'ass-n-age', we know it is you, Ian Michael Gumby. No-one else says that on here. You may as well have signed it "AC - Ian Michael Gumby".

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If self interested banks can't be blamed for being self interested banks,

      and self-interested countries can't be blamed for being self interested countries...

      why can self-interested whistle blowers be blamed on the same basis?

      I can fault all three of them. I can fault the US government's cover up some of the disgraces which have taken place in recent conflicts.

      I can fault their reaction to it's exposure; rather than admit "We must do better" then attempt to call Bradley Manning a traitor for holding his country accountable to higher standards.

      I can fault the American who put lives at risk; people like Lindy England, or the chopper pilots who shoot up an ambulance, or the Blackwater guys who can do whatever they like abroad and not face prosecution! Or the agents who do deals to kidnap and torture suspects abroad, handing them over to such friendly parties as, say, Gaddaffi. But in this upside-down world, nobody gets the jail for, say, beating to death a hotel receptionist, but dare to report it (or release some cables that a Army general said were "trivial, of no importance") and this warrants indefinite solitary confinement and the possibility of a double life sentence?

      Petty vengeance and taking no effort to uphold founding principals; that's what I can blame the US for.

      I can't blame the bankers? I'm quite sure I can. if it's not already apparent from the growing lobbying scandal, and current financial crisis, there's quite a bit I can blame them for. Not least bypassing democracy by pressing for lax government regulation, tax structures and so forth.

      Wikileaks may have some kind of smoking gun demonstrating business practices which show how crashes are engineered to create profit (and that the risks were known prior), but that's really immaterial given the corpse in the room - and that's how stock markets work.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        FAIL

        @ AC re: Self interest

        I think that was the point of the initial post.

        Assange bit the hand that fed him. So using the excuse of a threat of legal action, they shut him down. You attack the banks, blackmail them... They are going to shut him down using a legal excuse where Assange has no legal recourse.

        Reading the other articles also sheds some light on the situation. Assange has self-destructed by believing in his own hype.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing to see here

    please move along.

  14. Ian Michael Gumby
    Mushroom

    Here's why Wikileaks is in trouble...

    "Many financial institutions stopped doing business with the site after it published a trove of confidential U.S. diplomatic cables late last year, and donations have been stymied.

    U.S. authorities have said disclosing the classified information was illegal and caused risks to individuals and national security.

    "WikiLeaks has, however, ignored our requests not to release or disseminate any U.S. documents it may possess and has continued its well-established pattern of irresponsible, reckless, and frankly dangerous actions," U.S. State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland said last month.

    Assange said Monday that WikiLeaks' publications are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and said there were no judgments or charges against his organization."

    -=-

    Also from the Guardian:

    WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention, harm or putting their lives in danger.

    The move has been strongly condemned by the five previous media partners – the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde – who have worked with WikiLeaks publishing carefully selected and redacted documents.

    "We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk," the organisations said in a joint statement.

    "Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint editing and clearance process. We will continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data – indeed, we are united in condemning it.

    "The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone."

    -=-

    And there you have it.

    Let the commentards flame me. I don't care.

    The truth is that when you bite the hand that feeds you, don't expect any handouts.

    Sort of like certain computer/IT firms not extending any press courtesies to El Reg. ;-)

    1. James O'Brien
      Paris Hilton

      You point out a good point here:

      "Assange said Monday that WikiLeaks' publications are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and said there were no judgments or charges against his organization.""

      Seeing as its the U.S. Constitution and applies to U.S. citizens how does he believe it applies to him? I'm a bit confused on that one as I don't recall any other gvmt adopting our laws.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby
        Boffin

        @James O'Brien

        Assange is under threat of US prosecution for his alleged involvement in the theft and publication of a lot of classified data.

        So when the US Government has enough information against Assange and some of his Wikileaks associates, they will officially charge him (them).

        The reason the US hadn't moved quicker is that there is some case law which shields the Press from such 'whistle blowing' efforts in the past. The issue in that case was that the courts ruled that the probative value of alerting the public outweighed the charges... Meaning that while the person broke the law, he was doing it for the greater good.

        This however may not apply to Assange. First, there is this issue of Manning. Did Assange act merely as an agent and received the stolen electronic documents, or did he help facilitate the theft? (We don't know yet and those that do haven't been talking to the press.)

        Assange claims he merely received the documents and that he is a member of the press and distributed those documents and is protected by the first amendment. Even though Assange isn't a US citizen, the charges he faces are in the US and he is still protected by the US Constitution. Unfortunately for Assange is that he doesn't really understand the laws governing the US. They are not absolute and there is some 'free speech' which isn't protected.

        Regardless of the Free Speech argument, Assange is also on thin ice because of the other potential charges. This is where the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the press back in the '70s. But Assange isn't a member of the press. And when he decided to publish unredacted information of questionable probative value... Again... he's on thin ice.

        So the bottom line, even though Assange isn't a US Citizen, he could face charges in the US for breaking US laws.

    2. Turtle

      Good post.

      Good post.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You can close the website

    You can jail the whistle blowers

    But you can't change what happened

    you can't change what the whistle blowers know

    you can't eliminate the principal of holding one's country accountable its professed values.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      .. and you cannot eliminate the principle of holding *people* accountable for their actions either.

      The whole Swedish affair is 100% Assange's own making:

      1 - be creative with condoms when having sex with some Swedish Wikileaks groupies

      2 - do not respond to the not unreasonable request of said groupies to have yourself tested so they have at least some assurance

      3 - have thus the problem migrate into a rape investigation as per Swedish laws, and realize you're not above the law after all

      4 - start hollering loudly that it's all a US plot as if the US has any interest in making someone a martyr and so create a Streisand effect

      5 - complain loudly as details of the investigation leak instead of appreciating the irony

      6 - hole up in some country house instead of being at least a man.

      AFAIK he still hasn't had himself tested. Afraid it will leak? :)

    2. Tom 13

      Neither can you eliminate the principal of the country

      protecting its citizens and agents, which is the essential claim being lodged against Assange.

      Courts are established so that citizens can hear cases when these principles come into conflict and arrive at decisions the citizens believe best protect their liberty.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boo Hoo

    Life in prison should change a few attitudes.

  17. Turtle

    An obvious question, so far unasked.

    An obvious question, so far unasked in this thread: "Is Assange telling the truth?"

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      Boffin

      @Turtle...

      What is the truth?

      So far what Assange claims to be the truth doesn't mesh with reports from others who were also involved.

      And what one perceives to be the truth is irrelevant at this time.

      Manning knows some things. He's not talking.

      The reporters involved in working w Assange know some things... and what they've so far said, doesn't jibe w Assange's recollection of 'the truth'.

      Other members of the Press condemn Assange's release of unredacted information on the public, which also can call to question Assange's version of 'the truth'.

      The bottom line... it will be many years before 'the truth' is known and even then... its debatable as to its accuracy of what really happened.

      1. Turtle

        @Ian Michael Gumby: All good points.

        All good points, although it was quite a while ago that I reached the conclusion that, as a heuristic device, when faced with competing stories claiming to be true, the story whose veracity is to be immediately dismissed - and with profound contumely - is Assange's.

  18. Bernard M. Orwell
    Facepalm

    Every Citizen is a US Citizen?

    "Seeing as its the U.S. Constitution and applies to U.S. citizens how does he believe it applies to him? I'm a bit confused on that one as I don't recall any other gvmt adopting our laws."

    Why not? The US thinks their laws apply to him, so surely should their rights should also?

    Ah, America, p&** them off and they cripple you. Official.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby
      WTF?

      Yo! Orwell

      So you set up an online pharmacy that then ships illegal drugs to the US.

      You're not a US citizen and the drugs you are shipping are not illegal in your country, but they are illegal in the US.

      Did you break the US laws?

      Now replace the US with any other country in the EU.

      The simple truth is that you broke the laws of that country even though A) You're not a citizen of that country and B) you never set foot in that country.

      So while you're on an anti-American rant, it seems you don't know jack about what you're talking about.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        @Gummy

        Yo yourself too, old chap.

        So, thats the American idea of Liberty is it? You can be charged with offenses, but not accorded the right to defend yourself using the same legal standards of the same nation? Not sure I'm suprised by the hypocritical double standard you illustrate.

        Note well, I do not say that the EU is any better. They're just as bad, its just that this case happens to be US-centric ('cos they made it so). I am not anti-american, per se, I am anti-oppresive government of all kinds. Before you say it, I am aware that makes me anti-government on the whole, but I don't want government gone, I want BETTER government, honest, open government that abides by the standards to which it pays lip service.

        And yes, those same online pharmacies operate all over the world, and I don't see them getting prosecuted either. (More's the pity). US doesn't own/regulate the internet, despite their best efforts to date.

  19. John Angelico
    Coat

    So could one say...

    ...this whistle-blower sucks!?

    OK, OK, don't push!

  20. Tom 38

    Julian, my heart bleeds for you

    Poor guy, stuck away in his mate's country house. All he wants is to tell the world the truth (and get paid), stick it to the man (and get paid), be worshipped as a demi-god* (and get paid) and philander his way through Europe (and get paid).

    The Anonymous fellas seem pretty adept at releasing information without requiring £1.75m a year to do so.

    * You should have seen him at St Pauls the other week, to certain portions of the population it seems he already is a demi-god.

    1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

      "to certain portions of the population it seems he already is a demigod"

      Well, as the repeated voting of New Labour has shown, some people you can sell anything. If anything he's a demi-t*sser - can't even do it with some Swedish girls without screwing up..

      However, I suspect there are quite a few hypocrites amongst those followers as well or his *cough* book *cough* would have sold better.

  21. Nick Galloway

    Kicking in the door

    When you have the habit of blowing the doors open, you should not be surprised when others put bomb proof doors up and keep you locked out of their systems. Assange is very handy with a whip but complains when someone turns up with a gun (I am thinking Indiana Jones here).

    If he is so dedicated to the cause perhaps he might go out and get a real job to fund his personal crusade. Otherwise he needs to find a new hobby like carving his initials on a Swedish prison wall...!

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If they don't get you one way...

    ... they'll get you another. Whistle blowing on huge ruthless violent governments is probably even more dangerous than it looks at first sight. They have immense power, no conscience at all, and very little accountability.

    One of those days, I wouldn't be surprised if Assange suffered a nasty unforeseeable accident, died of a nasty disease, or unaccountably decided to take his own life. It's hard to tell where governmental thoroughness stops and institutional vindictiveness sets in.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I don't think any government would bother. As you can see, Assange is another problem that has gone away (seen any releases lately?), and Swedish courts await.

      Assange is his own worst enemy. If he'd dealt with that Swedish problem the moment it had appeared it would have never gone legal. But hey, there's that integrity thing he hasn't quite got a handle on - he screwed that up when he started using WL for his own means.

      It all went pear shaped when the docs of the Swedish investigation were leaked - it showed that Assange knew full well that there wasn't any US involvement but that the problem was of his own making. Didn't anyone notice he was kinda quiet after that?

    2. Ian Michael Gumby
      FAIL

      @Tom Welsh...

      First, I suppose that if Assange died from some untreated STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease), that you would blame it on a US conspiracy, even though he's facing rape charges for attempting to have unprotected sex... (Showing that he had a proclivity for having unsafe sex.)

      But that's all a US/UN plot. Right?

      So what exactly did Assange show in all of his 'whistle blowing' activities?

      And that's the point. Nothing of Probative value. Note: This isn't to say that members of the US armed services and the US government didn't do things that could be questionable...

      But who broke the story about Abu Graib ?sp? prison? (Hint: It wasn't wikileaks.)

      Who broke the story on Water Boarding? (Hint: Again, it wasn't wikileaks.)

      Clearly son, you need to go back to school and get an education.

      I mean, heck... what's the probative value in knowing some snot nosed young diplomat thinks Germany's Merkel is BORING!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @ Ian Michael Gumby

        "But who broke the story about Abu Graib ?sp? prison? (Hint: It wasn't wikileaks.)

        Who broke the story on Water Boarding? (Hint: Again, it wasn't wikileaks.)"

        Not quite sure what your point is there.

        Some of the participants in the Abu Graib scandal went to prison but why not the innocent person who broke the story? This should have caused far more embarrassment to the USA than most of the cables and was probably a far more effective recruitment campaign for militants than any crazy Imam could dream of. Every front-line soldier's life expectancy decreased when that story broke.

        Waterboarding - again I don't remember anyone being jailed for whistle blowing this one. Ok Bush and Rumsfeld can't visit some European countries now, but they both seem rather proud of their decisions. I'm curious why the recent test for the symmetry of extradition treaties didn't include an attempt to extradite those two for war crimes.

        And in response to someone else's point further up - torture is nominally illegal in the USA but it's alright to send your suspects to Libya for processing and return any evidence gained under torture for use in the USA. Why, then, is it a crime for someone who is not an American national and who isn't in the USA to post information that may be embarrassing to the US Government on a server that isn't in the USA?

        Spies frequently steal secret documents from other countries whether friend or foe. It should be easy to launch extradition proceedings against a friendly head of state for conspiring to steal your secrets . After all they're hardly likely to skip the country. So why doesn't it happen? The only reason other countries normally choose not to publish other countries' secrets is not because they are more honourable than Wikileaks but because the secret is worth much more to them if no-one knows they have it. Publish and you lose your blackmail / bargaining capability.

        And trying to stop the transfer of funds to this embarrassing but legal organization? There has not yet been any process at which Wikileaks has been proven guilty of any crime. Just members of the Establishment screaming that it must be illegal (and in some cases - embarrassingly - treasonous).

        I don't remember any American giving a damn about Americans sending money to terrorist organizations such as the provisional IRA. Well, not until September 10th 2001.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby
          WTF?

          @AC

          The point I was making was that there was in fact real whistle blowing being done by others. Wikileaks hasn' t blown an whistle on anything.

          Somehow I'm not amazed that the thought of real whistle blowing rather than airing dirty laundry went right over your head.

          Also along the point of Wikileaks... two of their more prominent sources are facing jail time. One in Europe and one in the US. I guess that's another point of separation. Whistle blowers who went to the real journalists and press aren't sitting in jail for their actions.

    3. Tom 13

      Not likely. Assange only blows the whistle

      on countries that don't actually engage in such tactics. If he pulled this crap on one that did, he'd already be dead.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    espionage doesn't pay as well in the internet age

    rumors and scuttlebutt used to command big dollars to those who could get it out. But like pr0n, there's a lot of amateurs out there and the internet lets them flood the world with their observations. A sneaky pic of a sub base back in the 80s would make intel wonks salivate. Now, the bar of difficulty in the West is so low any moron with a digicam can get good imagery and even claim "freedom of speech!!11!!" when nailed for doing so. Why pay for a spy when you have thousands of entitlement minded selfish tw@ts who are absolutely dying to put every little "secret" they know up on Facebook?

    When wikileaks turned from a "expose corporate secrets and wrongdoings" to a central laundering point for espionage on Western military and political goings on, it expected to cash in on all of that. But like the dot com bomb or RIAA, it was based on a failing business model-that being, people will not pay premium prices for what they can get cheaper or for free. Being stupidly loud, biased and visible didn't help-no one is going to want to be a customer when they know the customer lists are being monitored.

    Now if wikileaks wanted to actually expose real secrets, it would get and distribute stuff from closed societies- ones without media outlets, publically supported communities, and "screw over anyone to get a point in the polls" politicians don't enable their citizens to expose real and made up flaws. Perhaps ones actually wicked enough to quickly snuff out offending voices so they don't get hours of worldwide exposure. Where reporters get killed for telling a damaging truth, much less getting protected for "spinning" hurtful lies.

    (people seem to think the West is so bad because all we hear about are all the corruption, crime, perversion and evil that goes on. They need to realize, that the silence and propaganda from the rest of the world does NOT mean things are "better." It just means the opppression is real, and strong.)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like