DarkCorp
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Am I the only one who thinks there is a strange double standard here?
On the one hand people think whistleblowers themselves should be charged because they broke a law.
Wikileaks on the other hand can do the same exact thing but because they didn't "promise to not breach security", then its ok?
There is a reason the whistleblowers get in trouble. Organisations like wikileaks do not have to swear the oath because they ARE NOT meant to have access to sensitive information. If people knew they would get their hands on the info then they would be just as responsible in swearing said oaths.
So many people think legal loopholes is bullshit when it goes against their agenda yet its ok when it supports it?
As some other people here have stated in past topics. Just because you can do it and not get caught doesn't make it right.
On the one hand people think whistleblowers themselves should be charged because they broke a law.
Wikileaks on the other hand can do the same exact thing but because they didn't "promise to not breach security", then its ok?
There is a reason the whistleblowers get in trouble. Organisations like wikileaks do not have to swear the oath because they ARE NOT meant to have access to sensitive information. If people knew they would get their hands on the info then they would be just as responsible in swearing said oaths.
So many people think legal loopholes is bullshit when it goes against their agenda yet its ok when it supports it?
As some other people here have stated in past topics. Just because you can do it and not get caught doesn't make it right.