There seem to be signs that the pressure of his house arrest in an English mansion are playing on the mind of Julian Assange.
Not only did he claim that he was being targeted by a Jewish conspiracy of journalists, he is now saying that the internet is spying on everyone.
The man who is famous for using the internet to expose the doings of the American government, told Cambridge University that the world wide wibble was the "greatest spying machine the world has ever seen" and an obstacle to free speech.
Assange was particularly scathing about social networking sites such as Facebook, which he claimed gave governments greater scope for snooping.
An example of this was the Facebook revolt in Cairo three or four years ago. It was very small ... After it, Facebook was used to round up all the principal participants and they were then beaten, interrogated and incarcerated, he said.
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in what Julian is saying and what he has done? Not to Julian. He said that while the internet has in some ways given the ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what government is doing... it is also the greatest spying machine the world has ever seen.
So when Julian uses it, it is good, when others use it, it is bad. Yep, we can see that.
He said that the rise of technology was helping tyrannical regimes, and it was not a technology that favours freedom of speech, or favoured human rights.
"Rather it is a technology that can be used to set up a totalitarian spying regime, the likes of which we have never seen."
However Julian still thinks that Wikileaks helped trigger the ongoing Arab uprising because the release of official US diplomatic documents had "changed part of the dynamics" in Tunisia, resulting in eventual regime change.
So there you have it. It is possible to have your cake and eat it.
What did you actually in this pointless article
it seems that you're getting less and less objective...
It is entirely possible for the internet to be simultaneously used to support freedom, and restrict it, just as it's possible to use a vehicle to save lives (as an ambulance for instance) or take them. The same is true of any piece of technology, like a gun or a rocket, or even fire.
Assange isn't even saying anything new here, it's been widely observed that the application of the internet is swinging away from individuals and back to the nation state. In the 'Aurora' hacking episode the gmail accounts of Chinese dissidents were targeted, and here: http://gigalaw.com/2011/03/05/judge-allows-sony-to-subpoena-hackers-isp/
We see how the account records of google, twitter and facebook being subpoenaed to see who talks to who. I think it's only the US who can supoena twitter like this, but in China, say, they have their own alternative to twitter, and they get the details from that instead.
This creates and environment where the very tools that people use to communicate and pass information, which therefore support their freedoms, are also the very same tools that record everything they say, and to whom, and so can be used to suppress them. Every technology is a double-edged sword.
Consider roads. They increase people's freedom of movement, but they also allow the movement of large military forces, which can be used to suppress people's freedom (I don't think the romans, for instance, built their roads to give the celts and germanic tribes greater freedom).
This is what Assange is saying, I feel, and if so he's flat out right. As for the claim here that he's "Having his cake and eating it", by saying that sometimes the internet is used for ends that promote freedom, and sometimes for ends that suppress it, well in that case you must be saying that the internet is all good, or all bad, regardless of who is using it to do what. In that case the same must presumably apply to other technologies, like guns cars, and nuclear weapons. So saying that guns are a good thing when the police use them, but a bad thing when Al-Quada use them, is also having your cake and eating it.
This claim:
# So when Julian uses it, it is good,
# when others use it, it is bad. Yep,
# we can see that.
I don't think he's saying that the web is only good when he uses it, nor that it's all bad when others use it. He's saying that it can be used for both good and bad, and that current claims that the internet inherently supports freedom are false, that it can be used to either support it, or suppress it. (I can't be sure that's what he means though, because you don't
post any links to a transcript of his speech, so I have to read between the lines of what you say).
Undeniably there are worldwide efforts to suppress wikileaks and organizations like it. On the other hand the masses of information being collected about citizens is a terrible temptation to even 'good' governments like those of the developed world. The point is undecided as to whether in the end the internet will increase world freedom, or be used to suppress it. Only the history books will contain an answer, and it will probably be the same answer either way, history being written by the winners.
As to the "Jewish Conspiracy of Journalists", I do feel that if Mr Assange actually said that, then he may be cracking up, although I understand this was reported through 'Private Eye'. But yes, it's a strange thing to say and may be evidence that he's losing it.
But articles like this can't be helping his mental condition. If I read too many like this, I might start to think there was a journalistic conspiracy against him myself!
It is entirely possible for the internet to be simultaneously used to support freedom, and restrict it, just as it's possible to use a vehicle to save lives (as an ambulance for instance) or take them. The same is true of any piece of technology, like a gun or a rocket, or even fire.
Assange isn't even saying anything new here, it's been widely observed that the application of the internet is swinging away from individuals and back to the nation state. In the 'Aurora' hacking episode the gmail accounts of Chinese dissidents were targeted, and here: http://gigalaw.com/2011/03/05/judge-allows-sony-to-subpoena-hackers-isp/
We see how the account records of google, twitter and facebook being subpoenaed to see who talks to who. I think it's only the US who can supoena twitter like this, but in China, say, they have their own alternative to twitter, and they get the details from that instead.
This creates and environment where the very tools that people use to communicate and pass information, which therefore support their freedoms, are also the very same tools that record everything they say, and to whom, and so can be used to suppress them. Every technology is a double-edged sword.
Consider roads. They increase people's freedom of movement, but they also allow the movement of large military forces, which can be used to suppress people's freedom (I don't think the romans, for instance, built their roads to give the celts and germanic tribes greater freedom).
This is what Assange is saying, I feel, and if so he's flat out right. As for the claim here that he's "Having his cake and eating it", by saying that sometimes the internet is used for ends that promote freedom, and sometimes for ends that suppress it, well in that case you must be saying that the internet is all good, or all bad, regardless of who is using it to do what. In that case the same must presumably apply to other technologies, like guns cars, and nuclear weapons. So saying that guns are a good thing when the police use them, but a bad thing when Al-Quada use them, is also having your cake and eating it.
This claim:
# So when Julian uses it, it is good,
# when others use it, it is bad. Yep,
# we can see that.
I don't think he's saying that the web is only good when he uses it, nor that it's all bad when others use it. He's saying that it can be used for both good and bad, and that current claims that the internet inherently supports freedom are false, that it can be used to either support it, or suppress it. (I can't be sure that's what he means though, because you don't
post any links to a transcript of his speech, so I have to read between the lines of what you say).
Undeniably there are worldwide efforts to suppress wikileaks and organizations like it. On the other hand the masses of information being collected about citizens is a terrible temptation to even 'good' governments like those of the developed world. The point is undecided as to whether in the end the internet will increase world freedom, or be used to suppress it. Only the history books will contain an answer, and it will probably be the same answer either way, history being written by the winners.
As to the "Jewish Conspiracy of Journalists", I do feel that if Mr Assange actually said that, then he may be cracking up, although I understand this was reported through 'Private Eye'. But yes, it's a strange thing to say and may be evidence that he's losing it.
But articles like this can't be helping his mental condition. If I read too many like this, I might start to think there was a journalistic conspiracy against him myself!
Might I suggest a javascript alert box to support the bar? They're hard to miss.
Colum
Observe? Let us not forget that he thought he was the victim of a Jewish conspiracy last week.
>I am getting really bored with readers writing "the writer is >crap" but offering nothing to add. How would you like it if I >popped around to your work and said "your work is crap" >and didn't say why.
You are the one claiming to have the writing credentials, so it should be clear to you why. Your readers might actually have some idea: it is your job to work out how to do your job better, not theirs.
But to help you on your way:
>There seem to be signs that the pressure of his house >arrest in an English mansion are playing on the mind of >Julian Assange.
His house arrest has nothing to do with this. The article opens with an off hand jibe regarding a persons mental state. A yet the rest of the article does nothing to justify this as a matter of fact. Rather it takes the same dismissive tone without considering the arguments.
>Not only did he claim that he was being targeted by a >Jewish conspiracy of journalists, he is now saying that >the internet is spying on everyone.
Actually, according to all other sources he did not say the latter. He said that the internet was being used for spying on people. Any technically competent person would understand the difference between these. The agent matters.
>An example of this was the Facebook revolt in Cairo >three or four years ago. It was very small ... After it, >Facebook was used to round up all the principal >participants and they were then beaten, interrogated and >incarcerated, he said.
Did he say this or did he not? If he did, it should be in inverted commas to be clear you are attributing it to him. If he did not, there should be no claim that he did.
>Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in what Julian is saying >and what he has done? Not to Julian.
This is a suggestive appeal to the reader. There is a statement of applied contradiction, without even saying what that contradiction might be. If there had been some attempt to properly establish a contradiction it would be clear how little weight it held.
The statement is also written to imply Assange is deluded, without any substantiation. It is another way of writing "This is what Julian thinks, but we all _know_ that it is obvious that is wrong, don't we? Poor guy, he must be a bit loopy."
>He said that while the internet has in some ways given >the ability to let us know to an unprecedented level what >government is doing... it is also the greatest spying >machine the world has ever seen.
Same again regarding attribution. Inverted commas?
>So when Julian uses it, it is good, when others use it, it is >bad. Yep, we can see that.
This is a snide, and a non-sequitur. It isn't what he said, and it isn't an implication of what he said. He was making no statement regarding his own use of the internet. Furthermore he made substantiated statements regarding the reasons why there are problems with many structural systems set up on the web, but you ignore that.
>Yep, we can see that.
Once again a snide appeal to the reader on the basis of insubstantiation. Why do your readers hate your article so much? Because you try to include them in your poor reasoning and faulty conclusions. If you want to state poorly thought out opinions you might get away with it, but you try to include the reader in your gang. That is doomed to failure.
>However Julian still thinks that Wikileaks helped trigger >the ongoing Arab uprising because the release of official >US diplomatic documents had "changed part of the >dynamics" in Tunisia, resulting in eventual regime >change.
>So there you have it. It is possible to have your cake and >eat it.
The use of the word "still" here is designedly derogatory, and is attempting to make the same unsubstantiated jibe. The word was not necessary and therefore was deliberately included. The only possible reason for its inclusion is to give the implicit impression that he is deluded in his opinion. There was no argument to say why it might be inappropriate to believe this now.
So there you go. That is a few reasons why your article was poor. Your other reader's are right. And if you read their comments carefully you will find many other clear comments why. I hope that helps you in your future work. Oh, and yes, I regularly get feedback criticising my work, and I act on it. But then I also try to make sure I am accurate and honest and considerate in what I do. As a reader I would want those writing articles I read to have accuracy and honesty and consideration as their top priorities.
>I am getting really bored with readers writing "the writer is >crap" but offering nothing to add. How would you like it if I >popped around to your work and said "your work is crap" >and didn't say why.
So now you know why.
# Assange's statements been about
# Wikileaks as an organisation.
Then when you are speaking about 'what he has done' and how he uses the internet, you don't mean any of the wikileaks releases or his involvement in that organization? What are you referring to then? And why should we be interested?
# If Assange says strange things we
# report them,
You do more than report here, your comments about cake are statements of opinion, so I don't think you can claim to be supplying 'just the facts'.
# He has been saying a lot of strange
#things.
You only show one strange thing, which is the Jewish Conspiracy thing, which I grant you is strange. But this has only been reported by Private Eye, and Assange may not have been serious (or may have been drunk). It is a weird thing to say, but the rest of what he says isn't weird at all
You're writing in a tech magazine, and offering an opinion on what he is saying, making accusations about the rationality of his comments. If you get called to task for that, well, that's the territory.
As for:
> I am getting really bored with readers
> writing "the writer is crap" but
> offering nothing to add. How would you
> like it if I >popped around to your
> work and said "your work is crap"
> and didn't say why.
you've written an article that accuses Assange of needing to look behind the sofa for the plot, and possibly being mentally unstable, while offering very little in the way of supporting argument. How would you like it if I told everyone that you were mentally unstable on the basis of a few out-of-context remarks and misreadings of perfectly sensible statements?
If you can't catch, don't throw.
To be fair though, techeye does have the byline "All the tech news that's unfit for print", so perhaps I'm taking an essentially satirical article more seriously than I should. But when I bounced into it from googlenews, I assumed it was real reportage. This might be the whole problem here, people are coming in from GN expecting one thing, and getting another?
Colum