Posts by wayneh

Writers sue Huffington Post for back pay

read the complaint

You only have to read the complaint that was filed to see that it is much more complex than the simplistic view put forward here for 2 main reasons (though there are other aspects to the complaint also). These would seem to have the most grounds for relief;

1. One claim is that the agreement contravenes Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

It does seem to on face value. There is precedent to support this claim. If this is the case then the terms of service could???? be completely null and void.

2. It's claimed that the Huff P engaged in deceptive business practices under New York law in procuring services.

I can see this one getting up. Part of the terms of service was Huff P would provide contributors with valuable exposure but;

a. As huff increased the number of contributors, the exposure (thus the value of it) diminished without huff informing the contributors.

b. Although the agreement was Huff P would provide exposure for contributors. The contributors actually drive traffic to the site because huff encouraged writers to promote their articles using their social media accounts and email lists. The contributors provided more exposure for Huff P than Huff P did for contributors, which was not the agreement. In promoting their articles in social media, contributors actually provided Huff P with SEO, increasing their traffic again. So rather than the contributors receiving exposure (promised by Huff P), Huff P was the recipient of exposure (traffic) from the contributors.

c. Huff P told contributors they did not have stats available for individual pages, although they did. This was obviously a tactic so contributors could not assess their true worth to Huff P.

hmmmmm

But there are limits to what can be enforced via T&C's regardless of what's in them. If the T&C's breach any local, state, federal laws/statutes etc, then it will not be so cut and dried. In that case it's even remotely possible the T&C's could be null and void all together.

Assange™ says Guardian claims 'completely fabricated'

@Gumby

I just noticed how loosely you use the term "best buds".

"It will shed light on your best bud Assange"

'comments made by Assange's own best buds discredit"

I'm Assange's best bud, they're Assanges best bud.......It seems anyone who disagrees with your biased opinions are Assange's best buds, as are conveniently, anyone willing to dispute he's version of events.

Wow Assange must have a hell of a lot of "best buds". He can't be all that bad to have so many friends lol

You can't have it both ways, using the tag "best buds to call into question peoples impartiality regarding their comments and then using the same tag to provide veracity to other peoples comments.......

@Gumby

"Convicted felons are used as snitches. And in prisons even other prisoners also look down on pedophiles."

What you are attempting to do is to paint those events from Assange's life in a misleading and dishonest fashion. Police use snitch's yes, and for snitching the police turn a blind eye to the snitch's crimes. This was not even remotely the situation that lead to Assange helping police to break a pedophile ring. Assange was not a "prisoner[s]" when he helped police in that matter, he was a free man. He was not given a custodial sentence. So again by the use of association, you are trying to paint the events in a misleading and dishonest way.

"comments made by Assange's own best buds discredit what Assange is claiming"

As mentioned previously, comments made by people must be weighed against many factors and can not be taken at face value. There are books to sell, competing websites to launch, commercial interests to protect. In the case of Birgitta Jonsdottir yes she was critical of Assange over one incident, but she continues to be a supporter of Assange and Wikileaks. One can be critical of a person over an event or issue, without discrediting that person. If she didn't think Assange and Wikileaks had credibility she would no longer be supporting either, she is a politician after all. As for "best buds discredit", do you or Scorchio know enough about Assange's personal relationships to know who his best friends are? You have never heard of friends'falling out?

@Gumby

"And yes, hackers and former hackers, even those working in IT Security are considered untrustworthy."

So what your saying is that banks, governments , corporations everywhere can not be trusted, because many of the people in the highest positions of trust within these organisations (or contracted to), with the "keys to the kingdom", with access to our most personal data (along with a multitude of other reasons including national security implications), are ex-hackers.

If your statement was even remotely correct as a general rule rather than the odd exception, then kaos would be reigning supreme in our banking systems, governments, and corporations.

#Scorchio!!

"Then you will have no difficulty at all with quoting appropriate passages and demonstrating absolutely why they are untrue."

Gumby tries to pass of hotly disputed claims as fact. I have never tried to claim I know the truth of all the different claims and counter claims that are being made in this saga. To prove one way or the other is impossible. But there is no doubt that Gumby is cherry picking a few known facts that support his opinion (rather than fact as he claims) and ignoring other known facts that cast doubt on that opinion being correct. Now with your posts you are doing exactly the same thing.

It's obvious that both of you have an opinion you want everyone else to agree with. In your case Scorchio, if anyone disagrees with you, you turn to attacking their positions using infantile methods;

"Tsk, silly child"

"You are not even a weak second to the sock puppets"

"Your powers of reason are feeble"

"Be brave, be grown up"

"How old are you? What educational attainments have you"

Like they say, a bloke who can't play football plays the man rather than the ball.

Scorchio!! or is it Gumby

"requiring him to show which of his posts were true, while the onus is upon you to show him the error of his ways."

Gee silly me, I always thought the onus of proving a statement claiming to be fact was on the party making the statement.

@Scorchio!!

log out and log back in as gumby lol

Has he ever denied his hacking exploits? No.

If he was as untruthful as both your persona's claim he would never have admitted his guilt. Fact is, when Assange was arrested, there was not very much evidence against him for the simple reason the Police here did not have the expertise to collect it. He was charged based on his admission of guilt. Evidence was later obtained from US authorities, but it wasn't actually required because of he's admission. Someone who habitually lies (as you and Gumby suggest) would have held out until they knew the jig was up lol.

Many hackers from that period are now working within the security IT sector in extremely sensitive positions of high trust. Are they considered untrustworthy with a history of dishonesty? No

Stealing is not prove of telling lies, it is theft. They are different. I can't believe I had to explain that to you.

@Scorchio!!

Can you explain what makes a legitimate news source?

Would you describe the Washington Post as a legitimate news source? A news organisation that depends on the US government for 61% of it's revenue can hardly afford to be forthright and impartial. This revenue is generated via Kaplan (owned by Washington Post co) while the newspaper looses money. Kaplan is a for profit education provider. This type of situation of news organisations being depend on government money via other interests while the news organisations loose money is growing in the US. So now we have a situation in the US where not only are news organisation beholden to their advertisers but also the government. Any animosity from the Government could single-handedly doom the Post Co.'s business, including the news section. Hardly conducive to a free and fearless press.

So please explain to me again what makes a legitimate news source?

A few people have denounced him for various reason, but the vast majority of people within Wikileak's have not. Also my point is that without weighing the personal vested interests of these people it means nothing, especially when there are competing organisations being set up and books written. Everyone knows that in all organisations large and small, there are jealousies, power struggles, differences of opinions, personality clashes etc etc etc. That some of these have come to the surface should not be a surprise to anyone. It would be more surprising if this was not the case. Some criticisms may be warranted, some may not. My point has always been and continues to be that neither you or Gumby are in a position to know with any certainty what is and what isn't.

"have a price in flesh and blood"

What flesh and blood? There has not been a single instance of "flesh and blood" attributed to Wikileaks.

Yes Assange is a danger. He is a danger to dishonest and corrupt governments and corporations.

@Gumby

Rubbish.

The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers". He also took into consideration the fact that there was no intention of personal gain or damage by the hacks. Yes, he also took into account his childhood, but it was only a minor part of his summary during sentencing. I remember the case well because it was high profile here.

"So should we give a medal to those inmates that beat on pedophiles too?"

Your giving the impression Assange was given a custodial sentence. He was not, he was released on a bond. He was not an "inmate".

"Or should the police not use felons as snitches?"

He was not a snitch, this gives the impression he was an informant that had a reduced sentence (or other special treatment) on offer as a result of his assistance. This was not the case. He was a free man (well on a bond) and the police sought his assistance because he had the technical expertise they lacked (at the time) and the police considered him trustworthy. He was not compelled nor coerced to assist, neither did he have anything to gain by helping except the simple act of performing a good deed for the public good.

"As I stated, there are enough ancillary statements and stories whose facts are not in dispute which tend to corroborate the reporter's statements."

So what stories and statements are they?

Just why are the news organisations or reporters more trustworthy? In their dealings with Wikileaks they showed they were quite untrustworthy when they broke various agreements. On various occasions they tried to freeze Wikileak's out of the loop despite agreements made between the parties. Yes they made various claims to justify their actions, most of these shown to be spurious by Glen Greenwald at Salon.com. Fact is, until Wikileaks had provided them with all the leaked documents under the agreement, they had no problem with what Wikileaks were publishing. Many media commentators believe it was simply a case that once the media organisations had obtained all the documents, they simply tried to cut Wikileaks and Assange out. Yes, their honesty is in question.

Lets not forget, most of the people making statements that are in dispute are also writing books they want to sell. Obviously their claims have to be considered carefully with regard to the full history between them and their competing interests.

I maintain what I have previously said about your posts. You cherry pick facts leaving out facts that are detrimental to your claims, twist events to suit your position, add in speculation and hearsay, and try to sell it as truth.

@Gumby

correction

It was Victorian Police Assange help not Federal Police. But the same applies, if he was considered untrustworthy he's assistance would not have been sought.

@Gumby

And also just how does his hacking lend credibility to your opinion?

The judge at sentencing gave such a light sentence because he determined that the hacking was neither destructive or for personal gain. His confession to this crime was also instant, full and detailed. He has no track record of untruthfulness prior to the US intelligence services campaign against him, wikileak's became a threat to mainstream media and a falling out with a few fellow wikileakers.

Are you aware that Assange help the Federal Police in Australia smash a pedophile ring? If the federal police considered Assange as being untrustworthy, they simply would not have asked for his help.

When all the KNOWN facts are considered, there is a lot of doubt to the veracity of your opinion, because you are not considering ALL THE KNOWN FACTS.

@gumby

My point is that you are providing hearsay and innuendo as evidence to truth. I am not claiming one or the other as the truthful and factual course of events. You are providing opinion and then trying to sell your opinion as fact.

The facts are there are allegations flying left, right and centre, US intelligence agencies are running a campaign to discredit both Assange and Wikileak's (yes this is fact as there is proof in the public domain) and have been since 2008, Wikileaks is a major threat to mainstream news organisations and they are running their own campaigns to mitigate this threat. The combination of these could equally be the cause of the pattern you are describing.

Fact is your opinion does not equal truth.

The reason people vote your "truth" down is because it is simply opinion being dressed up as truth.

You want your opinion to be considered as the truth? Provide solid evidence rather than speculation and opinion based on hearsay and innuendo.

Too funny.

"I suspect I'll be down voted because I dare to speak the truth."

But the truth is in dispute. Just what evidence do you have to prove the truth one way or the other?

You will be down voted not because you speak the truth, but because you assume to be the arbiter of truth without any proof one way or the other.

Yes, your too funny!

Oh dear...

The vast majority of unsubstantiated claims are being made about Assange. Are all the people making unsubstantiated claims about Assange also unhinged?

In addition the US intelligence services are now on public record as running a campaign to discredit both Wikileaks and Assange. This campaign dates back to 2008. The aim, to create as much controversy about both, so the media deals with them rather than the contents of the leaks. Judging by the comments sections within the register, this campaign has been highly successful.

Google hits 'prove we killed no Afghans' – Assange™

Or...

"Or perhaps you should choose your idols more carefully."

And whats your point?

Obviously the combined resources of the US intelligence services don't consider Assange as an idiot. Otherwise why would they be expending so much time and resources on discrediting him and Wikileaks?

Even his most ardent critics openly admit his intelligence, expert planning capabilities and technical expertise.

Many people blindly considered President Bush jnr an idiot. When you consider his aims, this perception gave him the room to achieve exactly what he wanted. So who were the idiots in that case?

Facts

It is not clear this is Assange's opinion, because as mentioned, most of these supposed facts are in dispute. To claim you have some sort of fly on the wall knowledge is a thinly veiled attempt at demonisation, as is your 9/11 reference.

Hang on a sec →

The previously undisclosed civilian deaths in the "War on Terror" did come from Wikileaks.

I did not claim the New York Times cover up source was Wikileak's. This was used as an example of a press too compliant to government deceit.

There's a great article on Salon.com about the cause of US media's compliance to government doctrine, makes interesting reading. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/10/journalism/index.html

Nothing of interest...

I'm not so sure Assange wanted to be famous. Nothing in his past prior to Wikileaks suggests this. The fact that we're all here talking about Assange rather than the many serious revelations is one of the tactics the CIA planned for and included in the leaked secret document at; http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008

It's not in Wikileak's interest nor especially Assange's interest that we're constantly discussing him rather than revelations contained in leaked documents.

Facts?

Problem is these are for the most part a grouping of unsubstantiated claims by people with either an axe to grind or a vested interest in running Assange/Wikileaks down. They may or may not be true, but can't be labeled as facts. They are in dispute and unless you were there how can you know the truth?

Wikileaks did in fact offer the US government the opportunity to have input into redacting documents (which is the normal practice)(the proof of this is on Wikileaks site and undisputed by the US government). They refused, so that a few early document releases were inadequately redacted is as much the fault of the US government as it is Wikileaks.

The CIA as far back as 2008 planned to destroy Wikileaks according to a leaked document. The document can be obtained at http://www.wikileaks.ch/wiki/U.S._Intelligence_planned_to_destroy_WikiLeaks,_18_Mar_2008

The summary of this document;

This document is a classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. ``The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classified information to WikiLeaks.org cannot be ruled out. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses ``trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whistleblowers, the report recommends ``The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site. [As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks' source exposed, it appears that this plan was ineffective]. As an odd justification for the plan, the report claims that ``Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the WikiLeaks.org website. The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks---U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay.

A vexed question?

Assange as traitor a vexed question? It's just a plain stupid question. He is not American so how can he be a traitor?

And if the article author and author's of comments here bothered to read the cables (and other releases), they would know there are many things revealed such as 10's of thousands previously unreported civilian deaths in the current "War On Terror". These facts alone (and there are many other important revelations by Wikileaks) make Wikileaks and Assange an important addition to the worlds media. A media that all too often acts like an extension of government press offices, with holding information simply to appease the government in power, win influence, be on the senator or president's speed dial. The New York Times, by its own admission helped cover up the Raymond Davis incident, a former Special Forces soldier (now working for CIA via company once named Blackwater) who shot and killed two Pakistanis on January 27. Why did they conceal this? Because the US government asked them to. No matters of national security, no reason given, one can only assume the US government wants to keep what's going on in Pakistan as quite as possible. When the mainstream press becomes so subservient that it keeps important news stories like this from the public, for no good reason, I say thank god we now have Wikileaks.

No one disputes that at times he gets a bit carried away, but can all of you honestly say you don't? At least he is out there trying to make a better world. What are all of you doing to make a better society?