> Poitras has also violated her unambiguous promise to the subjects of the film that they would have an opportunity to review the film in advance and request changes, and that they could decline to appear if they or their lawyers felt that the movie put them at risk.
So I'm wondering whether Assange declined to appear, and she refused. That'd be funny, in a sad way.
Still, I've followed Assange's work for decades. Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks.
Edit: In the parent article, Poitras says:
> There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the film, and those requests were respected.
I wonder what the contract actually says about the right of subjects to decline to appear.
Any quality, good or bad, will affect the perception of other qualities. If people come to believe Assange is a sexist asshole, they will trust Wikileaks less, even if the two have little to do with each other.
Another example would be Hans Reiser. Does killing one's wife makes one a worse programmer? Probably not. Still, I bet many people would be reluctant to trust him on file systems stuff, because, well, he killed his wife!
For some reason my mind immediately went to the fact that Wikileaks has to honor protecting its sources.
I know it should be real obvious that the task of protecting sources itself is most paramount in their operation, but for some reason I get the feeling that "full disclosure" includes "how do you get the info / who do you get the info from / tell us juicy secrets / tell us the truth about your legal cases". I don't know why, it's not that I do or don't fully trust Wikileaks, I think they can do both good and bad for the world -- not very different from any government, but I don't expect Wikileaks to get a fair shake from many people.
Everyone is looking to get the best information these days to get ahead. Information and data is the name of the game so the possibilities are really endless when it comes to the lengths people would go to get that information.
Sure. But prudent leakers handle that themselves. So there really isn't anything to protect. Leaking is different from journalism. In journalism, identities of sources matter. In leaking, only the leaks matter. And, by the way, I don't believe that Snowden needed to dox himself. He left the decision to Poitras and Greenwald, and I think that they unnecessarily trashed his life.
I thought it was because both Snowden and Greenwald believed that the US would identify him sooner or later and if his identity wasn't public the CIA would quietly arrest him illegally abroad, like they did to others before, and nobody would even know.
> Poitras has also violated her unambiguous promise to the subjects of the film that they would have an opportunity to review the film in advance and request changes, and that they could decline to appear if they or their lawyers felt that the movie put them at risk.
So I'm wondering whether Assange declined to appear, and she refused. That'd be funny, in a sad way.
Still, I've followed Assange's work for decades. Maybe he's been a sexist asshole at times. The flesh is weak, no doubt. But I don't get how that can be a criticism of Wikileaks.
Edit: In the parent article, Poitras says:
> There were individuals who requested from the beginning not to appear in the film, and those requests were respected.
I wonder what the contract actually says about the right of subjects to decline to appear.