I take the Libertarian viewpoint that only the government can truly censor information. A private company can choose to publish something or not, but they can't physically restrain you from going elsewhere to get it, which the government can.
As for Wikileaks itself, I think it's quite shameful what they're doing. It's one thing to blow the whistle on a corrupt CEO or bribe taking politician, but this is nothing to do with that. This is releasing national security information, which does not (as far as I have seen) indiciate any corruption, it just puts people at risk.
Apple screwing up. They are behaving like big brother now. Next thing you know they will cut off the NY Times app because its posting the wiki links stuff to it's app.
You guys are jumping to some terrible conclusions here.
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
I support WikiLeaks, but this incident is about someone capitalizing on the situation. If this app was from WikiLeaks themselves, that would be a different matter.
Excellent point. Many people just love to jump down Apple's throat at the slightest opportunity without even thinking first.
Can the ignoramuses crying "Censorship!" please read up on what the word means before throwing it around?
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
I'd like to see someone write an App designed to access the confidential rape charge documents around Assange. Funny how his lawyers are all crying foul over those getting out in the wild.
Surely, you must know that there are some pretty important differences between an individual and the state.
Would you support Apple in providing an iPhone app that displayed your credit card and social security information illegally obtained by a hacker?
Great post. Reminds me of the hypothetical but funny question asked of those outraged at airport searches and screening ... 'here is an alternate plane where we search and screen nothing, want to board now?'
It's really appalling that most Americans don't understand that the first amendment is in regards to government, not business. Businesses are under no obligation to publish anything. If apple or amazon block wikileaks, someone else can publish the info and the citizen still has access. If the government, otoh, silences publishers, then we have censorship. Civics classes anyone?
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
Serious question: What 'terms' of Apple would it violate?
Surely, you must know that there are some pretty important differences between an individual and the state.
Of course I do. Likewise, I'm sure that you understand that this whole WikiLeaks exercise has put many individuals at needless risk, not to mention the extra (though clearly not quantifiable) risk that the rest of us now must bear because of things that should have been left as secret no longer are.
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
You should not be so judgmental: that would be like my telling you that you are perhaps part of a has-been generation.
We all know that time and time again, what passes off for 'classified,' what constitutes justification for 'war' (I am not referring to any particular war here), what constitutes 'reality,' what constitutes 'security,' and so forth are equally screwed-up.
Fwiw, I am closer to the has-been group than the 'new internet generation.'
I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that there may be more at stake here than a company making a decision on what content they WISH to make available. It is illegal, from my understanding, for anyone in the US to read classified documents without the proper clearance. So, if Apple is providing a portal for people to do this, yet can make no claim to protections afforded the press, can they be held liable?
Before anyone flames, I'm not saying anything about whether I support wikileaks, a government's freedom to classify information, or anything else. Just asking....
Of course I do. Likewise, I'm sure that you understand that this whole WikiLeaks exercise has put many individuals at needless risk, not to mention the extra (though clearly not quantifiable) risk that the rest of us now must bear because of things that should have been left as secret no longer are.
I truly sympathize, and realize there are no easy answers here, but perhaps it's just lousy record-keeping on the part the state too that is responsible.
Stuff like this is bound to get out. If it wasn't Wikileaks, it might be someone else, somewhere else.
At the end of the day, I happen to be of the camp that what has been revealed so far makes the US look remarkably consistent, on average: its public and private positions are pretty congruent, compared to a lot of other regimes that I can think of. Pretty remarkable and honest, actually.
You guys are jumping to some terrible conclusions here.
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
I support WikiLeaks, but this incident is about someone capitalizing on the situation. If this app was from WikiLeaks themselves, that would be a different matter.
Good point. Nice to see someone taking a step back to understand the situation before jumping in.
If apple or amazon block wikileaks, someone else can publish the info and the citizen still has access. If the government, otoh, silences publishers, then we have censorship. Civics classes anyone?
The people complaining in this thread are displeased by Apple's actions. This thread is for that discussion, not arguing vocabulary. Besides, we don't know that the government isn't telling Apple and Amazon to remove specific content.
This is a bad path to be going down. People need to stop being obedient little slaves, realize that this will only get worse, and unite against it. Bickering amongst ourselves is exactly what allows these things to continue happening.
Comments
As for Wikileaks itself, I think it's quite shameful what they're doing. It's one thing to blow the whistle on a corrupt CEO or bribe taking politician, but this is nothing to do with that. This is releasing national security information, which does not (as far as I have seen) indiciate any corruption, it just puts people at risk.
Can the ignoramuses crying "Censorship!" please read up on what the word means before throwing it around?
Highly unlikely. An ignoramus is more likely to jump to a reactionary conclusion than read about anything.
Though Apple has not formally given a reason for removing the application, it joins a number of major U.S. corporations
Nice to see that Apple has finally admitted that it is part of Big Brother. Their denials were getting increasingly disingenuous.
You guys are jumping to some terrible conclusions here.
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
I support WikiLeaks, but this incident is about someone capitalizing on the situation. If this app was from WikiLeaks themselves, that would be a different matter.
Excellent point. Many people just love to jump down Apple's throat at the slightest opportunity without even thinking first.
Can the ignoramuses crying "Censorship!" please read up on what the word means before throwing it around?
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
I'd like to see someone write an App designed to access the confidential rape charge documents around Assange. Funny how his lawyers are all crying foul over those getting out in the wild.
Surely, you must know that there are some pretty important differences between an individual and the state.
Would you support Apple in providing an iPhone app that displayed your credit card and social security information illegally obtained by a hacker?
Great post. Reminds me of the hypothetical but funny question asked of those outraged at airport searches and screening ... 'here is an alternate plane where we search and screen nothing, want to board now?'
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
Serious question: What 'terms' of Apple would it violate?
Good point.
Why?
Surely, you must know that there are some pretty important differences between an individual and the state.
Of course I do. Likewise, I'm sure that you understand that this whole WikiLeaks exercise has put many individuals at needless risk, not to mention the extra (though clearly not quantifiable) risk that the rest of us now must bear because of things that should have been left as secret no longer are.
Most of the IGNORAMUS here are new Internet generation young thundercats who's never handled classified materials, never gone to war, don't know jack about reality, and think everything should be out on the open. The only way that people can go on with their happy lives is that they do not know about certain things that'll jeopardize security. We don't live in a perfect world full of perfect people.
You should not be so judgmental: that would be like my telling you that you are perhaps part of a has-been generation.
We all know that time and time again, what passes off for 'classified,' what constitutes justification for 'war' (I am not referring to any particular war here), what constitutes 'reality,' what constitutes 'security,' and so forth are equally screwed-up.
Fwiw, I am closer to the has-been group than the 'new internet generation.'
Before anyone flames, I'm not saying anything about whether I support wikileaks, a government's freedom to classify information, or anything else. Just asking....
Of course I do. Likewise, I'm sure that you understand that this whole WikiLeaks exercise has put many individuals at needless risk, not to mention the extra (though clearly not quantifiable) risk that the rest of us now must bear because of things that should have been left as secret no longer are.
I truly sympathize, and realize there are no easy answers here, but perhaps it's just lousy record-keeping on the part the state too that is responsible.
Stuff like this is bound to get out. If it wasn't Wikileaks, it might be someone else, somewhere else.
At the end of the day, I happen to be of the camp that what has been revealed so far makes the US look remarkably consistent, on average: its public and private positions are pretty congruent, compared to a lot of other regimes that I can think of. Pretty remarkable and honest, actually.
Stuff like this though? Makes me want to just move to Ubuntu. Been using it on my netbook for sometime and it's shaped up nicely . . .
Love OS X and can't think of a better operating system. No complaints in what's coming close to 9 years of use.
Stuff like this though? Makes me want to just move to Ubuntu. Been using it on my netbook for sometime and it's shaped up nicely . . .
No one is stopping you
You guys are jumping to some terrible conclusions here.
This app is not from WikiLeaks, it is an app from a guy trying to take advantage of material that is available for free on the Internet. It would be the equivalent of someone charging for an app that gives you content from the NYT and then calling it a NYT app -- that is a clear violation of Apple's terms, and it should be.
I support WikiLeaks, but this incident is about someone capitalizing on the situation. If this app was from WikiLeaks themselves, that would be a different matter.
Good point. Nice to see someone taking a step back to understand the situation before jumping in.
If apple or amazon block wikileaks, someone else can publish the info and the citizen still has access. If the government, otoh, silences publishers, then we have censorship. Civics classes anyone?
The people complaining in this thread are displeased by Apple's actions. This thread is for that discussion, not arguing vocabulary. Besides, we don't know that the government isn't telling Apple and Amazon to remove specific content.
This is a bad path to be going down. People need to stop being obedient little slaves, realize that this will only get worse, and unite against it. Bickering amongst ourselves is exactly what allows these things to continue happening.