Hacker News Reader

> I think you do Snowden a disservice when you lump him in with Assange.

Correct. Snowden is a Whistle-blower. Assange is a journalist, though perhaps not the kind Snowden would have trusted his stolen data with.

Assange is an attention whore. I had such high hopes for wikileaks but it was, in the end, a vehicle for him to promote himself.

It was & is far, far more than that.

You think Assange put himself at as much risk as he did to promote himself?

He spent 7 years locked in an embassy (to great detriment to his health and was arguably worse then jail), is now in jail, and is facing at least life in prison, if not the death penalty. You really think he did all that just to promote himself and for some attention?

It's not like we think everything through when we set out on a journey. He probably went in with good intentions but was blinded by the lights of fame.

> He spent 7 years locked in an embassy ...

To avoid criminal charges for things unrelated to his political/journalistic exploits. Plenty of people run when faced with possible jail time, e.g., Roman Polanski.

This is a lie. He stated from the start he was hiding to avoid extradition to the United States for his journalism.

And it looks like now that he's been removed from the embassy, he's being extradited to the US based on his journalism, just like he feared.

> based on his journalism

He is being extradited to the US on the charge that he helped Manning break into classified computers. These alleged actions are no longer journalism.

Greenwald and Poitras never faced charges for publishing the documents Snowden leaked / provided. The NY Times did not face charges for leaking the Pentagon Papers that Ellsberg gave them. Assange would not have been charged with leaking documents that others provided—but he is alleged to have taken a step too far.

I do not understand this point:

He was in the UK, who has an extradition treaty with the US. He was facing charges in Sweden, who also have an extradition treaty with the US.

Why was he afraid of being extradited from Sweden but not the UK? If the US wanted him they could have gone after him while he was still live in the UK.

Why fear going to Sweden? I never understood this argument: am I missing some nuance in international law?

As far as I know the case was closed then reopened after some embarrassing US document leaked, and without any new relevant element. As far as I know, the Sweden authorities had the possibility to interrogate Assange without extraditing him, yet for some reason did not use that possibility.

Finding reliable sources with all relevant details is a hassle, so take it with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, I believe at this point that this unrelated affair is more an attempt at character assassination than a real thing. (I do recall that he reportedly didn't used protection, which would qualify him as a major jerk. Legislations seem to disagree on whether this was a crime or not, though.)

I think calling Assange a journalist is very debatable. He certainly doesn’t comply with the ethical norms of the profession.

People say this on this basis of hearsay, like he “selectively released documents” for which there is no evidence.

One huge ethical red flag for Assange and Wikileaks is their view on redacting documents. They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants. This almost certainly resulted in people being killed.

To my knowledge nobody has ever died as a result of what they have reported. They do careful redaction.

> They published numerous details that a traditional journalistic outlet would never make public include the names of informants.

Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you.

If we keep going down this road we'd end up with No True Scotsman. The reality is "traditional" journalists have done this - Assange is not an outlier in this regard. If we tolerate the "worst" of the traditional (which US society clearly does), then we can't use this as an argument against Assange.

>Valerie Plame would like to have a word with you.

I probably shouldn't have used the word "never", but the fact that the Valieria Plame reveal was such a big deal is basically the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a journalist to reveal this information.

Assange is certainly an outlier in the number of people who he exposed and the reason for exposing them. He reportedly said on the issue that "they're informants. So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." [1] Maybe you think that is a No True Scotsman argument, but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life. A traditional journalist would generally required some reason of tremendous value to justify putting those people's lives at risk. Assange's reasoning instead appears to be "They deserve it."

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_War_documents_leak#Info...

> but the fact that the Valieria Plame reveal was such a big deal is basically the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a journalist to reveal this information.

It was a big deal because people wanted to score political points, not because of a breach in standards. The more relevant point is the standing the journalist still had in society - he did not lose his job for it, let alone be prosecuted for it.

The quote you provide is taken out of context - at least from the Wiki page it is not clear if he is referring to the names that were leaked, as opposed to the ones that they ultimately decided to redact. I suspect the latter because it says "initially refused".

> but I really can't imagine a well respected journalist showing such a complete lack of concern for human life.

When you add the "well respected journalist", we really are in No True Scotsman territory. If all you mean to say is "He is a lousy journalist," then we have no disagreements. Without that qualifier, have you thought about extreme views held by existing, famous journalists? How much of an outlier is Assange compared to other "extreme" but established journalists?

How good a journalist he is is debatable. His ethics as a journalist may be debatable. His status as a (possibly bad, possibly unethical) journalist is much harder to debate: he set up a way to have information, which he then made public. Sounds like journalism to me.

You are right that Snowden deserves special recognition, but not at the expense of Assange.

Snowden also leaked everything he had. It certainly was not targeted.

He leaked it all to journalists he trusted to make decisions about how, when, and what to publish. It's not quite the same.

Everything was 100% vetted through two respected journalist. They decided what to leak and when and what to protect. Very well done by any standard.

And those journalists even gave a heads up to the DoD in case there was a compelling reason on that end to redact that they didn't realize.