But what's the point in stating the obvious, if you don't want to see it?

I did not imply anything like what your question suggests.

I pointed to the fallacy in your original post - your confusion about the difference between privacy and secrecy.

Anyway, this knee biting ain't changing a thing - Wikileaks is already an achievement on world-historical scale, an inspiration to inumerable others. Your manner of cheap objection probably means nothing to Assange, who has governments that want to kill him - and whole countries (like most of Latin America) willing to fight for him, because they appreciate the moral blows he has struck against imperialists and tyrants of many kinds, but especially against the biggest center of imperialism in the world, which sits in Washington.

collections of private emails. Similarly, Wikileaks has published (without permission) copyrighted information

Moreover, Wikileaks as an organization, and Assange as activist, seem to have difficulty with the notions that some conversations might deserve confidentiality, even when the conversations are between officials and concern official business

It's not really a controversial matter: for example, every branch of my local, state, and federal governments keeps personnel discussions private. Sometimes publishing information about confidential communications can have untoward effects. Wikileaks publication of the East Anglia scientists' emails, for example, produced the gigantic phony "Climategate" media "scandal" that scuttled the Copenhagen summit. Assange, however, is indifferent to such issues: if exposing the names, of Afghanis opposed to the Taliban, puts those Afghanis on Taliban hit lists, Assange thinks that's just tough shit

Such examples should raise serious questions about Assange and Wikileaks

So I'm not impressed when Assange feels personally violated, by a minute-long clip showing him dancing in a nightclub, but doesn't scruple about exposing Afghanis to the Taliban

... Michela Wrong ... was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety on the grounds that Nairobi booksellers were reluctant to sell it for fear of being sued under Kenya's draconian libel laws. Wrong was angry because, while she supports what WikiLeaks is about, the book is not a government document and is freely available across the rest of the world. From email distribution lists she could see that the pirated version was being emailed among Kenyans at home and abroad ...

... Mr Leigh explained that they had tried to warn Mr Assange of the possible reprisals that informants might suffer if he published the material, but Mr Assange had replied “they’re American informants, they deserve to die” ...

I'm forced to guess those don't matter to you, compared to the violations (and the hearsay from other hostile witnesses) you think merit the greater concern.

When will you show commensurate outrage at a government that uses secrecy to cover up reports and evidence showing the murder of thousands of civilians? You are waging a one-sided attack on Wikileaks, nothing more.

and who would be in it, but Channel 4 released emails to Ofcom that it said made clear Mr Assange "was, in fact, given a detailed and accurate description of the programme as it evolved, including who would be likely to be featuring in it".

Mr Assange also complained he had not been shown a preview of the show, but Channel 4 said he "did not at any stage" ask for one.

Channel 4 also dismissed as "fanciful" his claims that the documentary broadcast material that was "prejudicial" to his legal hearings ...

Dancing Wikileaks fugitive Julian Assange told his TV show did not breach privacy
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/dancing-wikileaks-fugitive-julian-assange-told-his-tv-show-did-not-breach-privacy-8121802.html

an opportunity to preview the programme and essential facts were omitted; overall his privacy had been infringed.

After looking at the evidence of each complaint separately the regulator has cleared the complaints.

A C4 spokeswoman said: “The film by award-winning film-maker Patrick Forbes, commissioned as part of Channel 4’s True Stories strand, presented a definitive and balanced account of the Wikileaks story told by the people involved – and featured the first major television interview with Julian Assange.

“As Ofcom have said, that interview was conducted with Mr Assange’s informed consent.”

Julian Assange complaint dropped by Ofcom
10 September, 2012 | By Balihar Khalsa
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/julian-assange-complaint-dropped-by-ofcom/5046409.article?blocktitle=LATEST-NEWS&contentID=870

So easy to slip out a “leak” that serves a hidden political agenda, have WikiLeaks put it out and disseminate it worldwide. So easy to slip out disinformation, let your enemies jump all over it and publicize it, THEN discredit it yourself, thus making your enemies look like idiots. Pretty basic stuff for paid, fulltime propagandists who know how to “think outside the box” ...

WikiFreaks, pt. 3 “Mendax the Liar”
http://psychedelicdungeon.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/wikifreaks-pt-3-mendax-the-liar/

...to immediately disregard the veracity of any post. Welcome to ignore.

Or at least in a cell next to Bradley Manning.

The fact that this individual needs to reply to their own threads over and over speaks volumes.

Just as it does from the OWS-Forever folks. See a pattern?

to round out the picture

It is -- how you say? -- such a horror, no?

in the programme ... Ofcom found ... Mr Assange did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the footage of him dancing in a nightclub in Iceland ...
Fairness and Privacy cases
Not Upheld
Complaint by Mr Julian Assange
True Stories: WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, More 4, 29 November 2011

He stayed in Norfolk, England. It was a lovely estate and home. He has friends, he has a life. This is normal stuff, many commonwealth subjects have more contacts abroad than most Americans. Their world just seems larger. Click on the photograph and it will show the next one with descriptions to see how he was doing a while back. This has been going on a long time, it may take years to get it resolved.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2010/12/30/exclusive-photos-of-wikileaks-julian-assange.html

for him: I suppose we could call Vaughn Smith a friend of Assange's -- but by skipping out on his bail, Assange has stiffed Vaughn Smith for the £20 000

If your friends gave you $376,000 to stay out of jail, the least you might want to do is drop a hint that you're skipping town. But none such courtesies were extended to Julian Assange's donors ... Vaughan Smith, a former British army captain who housed Assange, sounds downright unhappy in a conversation with The Wall Street Journal. "I'm slightly concerned that I may have guaranteed 20 grand to be paid later," he said. "The interests of my family are obviously impacted by the loss of that sort of money" ...

"... I've gotten to know Julian well enough to be 100% sure he's not going to abscond ..."

I would say he is, by conventional standards, an unstable person and I do not believe that to be an insult. It is a stage of life or circumstance. Many people are, it is not a moral failing, they are not serene and settled enough to do any better. I've been ripped off by people I've believed in at great cost, and Julian may have burned some bridges. I don't rejoice in any of the woes that are being depicted here. The expectation is that a hero will not disappoint. There are few heros.

I don't judge Mr. Assange's life or his actions, that is for those who feel they have the right to do so and are vested in it. The passions that drive people can make them do crazy things, burn their bridges, etc. I have seen a number of people with great ability for doing well in life self-destruct. A sense of victim hood or being aggrieved leads people to do things that, to those on one side of an issue or the other, seem heroic or dastardly.

Wikileaks and Assange are not synonymous in my mind. I don't think one should be judged on the acts of the other. For me, Wikileaks is the only political issue in this affair, but the desire for government transparency is an issue some have tied to this one human being. But we have so much spin, that the most plainest of truths are distorted by power and big money.

Anonymous is composed of many individuals with the ability to make mischief with the data held in the world wide web, for good, evil, criminal gain or for ego trips. They have not been in my good books lately. Not that my opinion will change them.

So that may not satisfy either side on this debate here on DU. For me, Mr. Assange, like everyone, has the right to enjoy his life as much as anyone else, and will live with the consequences of his actions, for good or bad, sooner or later. We all have, or so some say, come into this world to experience this life and should be conscious of that every second, before it's gone.

posted of Julian at various dance clubs....you gotta be kidding.

Dancing Queen

Perhaps what I meant by the word private may not have mean the same thing to me as it does to you. Nothing loaded when I said that, nothing said in judgement. I don't see Mr. Assange as special or heroic, just famous.

Most of us would not want to be in the media eye, watching our every single moment. Everyone should get to enjoy their very short lives here on Earth. I'm glad he and the people at the club got to enjoy dancing and his having to pull up his pants was cute. He dances just like I used to dance, sort of dorky to some people, maybe.

No crimes being done in that video, no big deal. As far as the complaint about privacy, the poor man is very nervous now and everything is going upset him. I am glad I am not him.

Thanks, it was a very nice video and I enjoyed it. I haven't done anything like that for many years, it looks fun to me.

or do you do this for your own perverse desires? If the latter, what do you get from it?

It's an interesting story: Assange seems to have made a number of claims that were easily proved false -- with the extra bonus that he hilariously whined about the invasion of his privacy

Also, you know that I'm not asking only about the articles you post, but about your editorializing.

If you don't want posters at DU to be allowed to express opinions, then I guess you should discuss that with the site administration

I simply asked if you get some sort of financial benefit from your constant attacks on Assange, or if you do it for your own pleasure.

Privacy of dancing in a nightclub? Good grief.

... Assange ... threatened to sue the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival in the United States if they broadcast the documentary, WikiLeaks: Secrets and Lies, earlier this year ...

The Australian ... attempted to get the programme banned from public screenings in the US, sending a tersely-worded email, seen by the Guardian, headed "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" to festival organisers. Assange is understood to have sent a similar email to US cable news broadcaster CNBC.

In the email, which carried Assange's signature, he told a SXSW organiser: "Please also send me full details of SXSW's formal complaints procedure. This latter request is made without prejudice to any subsequent legal action I may take against SXSW for the screening of this libellous programme" ...

His most recent public appearance, on the balcony of the embassy in Knightsbridge, included a lengthy attack on critics of WikiLeaks, whom he described as a threat to freedom of expression ...

about nightclub photos?

Assange is so dismissive of the people who have died as a result of Wikileaks dumps (Afghan informants named in Wikileaks dumps who were killed and Assange said "What do they expect? They are informants&quot , yet squeals and squawks at the tiniest affront to himself. The classic guy who can dish it out but not take it.

If you are going to take on the full power of the military industrial complex, you should probably be prepared for some unflattering publicity.

The whole Assange mess irritates me. I am a staunch supporter of Bradley Manning. Assange, not so much.

Truly, I don't understand why Assange and his supporters are so adamant that he not be extradited to Sweden. If the US wanted to kidnap Assange and take him to Gitmo, they can do so from the UK, even from the Ecuador embassy. I don't see why it is such an enormous threat that Sweden might extradite Assange to the US -- UK might do the same. I don't see why they think Assange is safe in the UK, but would be at risk in Sweden. Just doesn't make sense to me.

Really, it appears to me that Assange has been neutralized by a 'honey trap' (that he opened himself up to by being an egotistical jerk, by all reports), even without his being extradited to Sweden. Locked in an embassy, unable to have secure communications with Wikileaks staffers (because you know the UK can totally monitor anything coming in or out of that embassy), it appears to me that Assange has imprisoned himself already. I don't see how being locked up in a Swedish jail would be any different.....

Like I said, the whole Assange-ego mess is an annoying distraction from the real issues of Bradley Manning's treatment, the war in Afghanistan, government transparency. I refuse to be forced to support the loathsome Assange in his petty whining just because I support these issues.