"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
.com...

Just curious what you know about Assange that makes you say he's "not
exactly a saint".

He's a hacker, a convicted hacker at that (early 90s). He also wrote
software that allows hackers to search for insecure computer systems they
can exploit. He considers hacking a victimless crime provided the hackers
don't damage the computer systems they access (illegally)--that and the
apparent paranoia in which he has lived for a couple of decades make him
seem a bit brittle to me, if you know what I mean by that. It's also worth
noting that only one of the complaints of sexual misconduct brought against
him in Sweden has been dropped. I read one news story in which one of the
two woman who made complaints against him described him as having a "skewed"
attitude towards women and of not knowing how to take no for an answer.

I ask out of ignorance, as I don't know much about the guy; I'm planning
on doing some research online but haven't done so yet.

I do consider him a hero for what he's done. This doesn't mean, of course,
that he doesn't have flaws or imperfections, as you alluded to. But to me
it's the important things that people do, not the picayune human foibles
they may be subject to, that matter in the end.

Don't get me wrong, IMO "Question Authority" should be printed on everyone's
birth certificate. I think Wikileaks has served the public interest on many
occasions, in general Wikileaks strikes me as a good idea. But that doesn't
mean anyone who twists the establishment's tail gets a free pass for
anything else he's done.

There is also a responsibility not to do harm in releasing
information--Philip Agee comes to mind here. If people working with the
govt. and NATO in Afghanistan end up dead as a result of Wikileaks releasing
files that identify those people, then I don't see how Wikileaks doesn't
have blood on its hands.

Here's a good article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all