aliquis

You're probably correct that it's the language barrier. The message has very little to do with the messenger, and I can't see who's claimed otherwise.

The difference seems to be about whether we SHOULD discuss the messenger. Assange still has the power to decide what to publish, and maybe more importantly when to publish it. Everyone who has a message to convey will wait for the right time to do so. This is true for political statements, for press releases, for when you ask your girlfriend to marry you or for when you tell your parents that you failed an exam. It would be silly not to accept that Assange cares about timing.

A discussion about the messenger shouldn't be seen as a dicussion about the truthfulness of the message. For example: The Russian government accused the Ukrainian government of being fascists, and one of their excuses for entering Crimea was that they needed to protect the Crimean Tatars from these fascists. But the Tatars are pro-Ukrainian, and many of them fled when the Russians took control. Those who remained are being harassed, and there are Tatars who were even denied re-entry to Crimea after having traveled to Ukraine. Sure, there are far-right extremists in Ukraine. Of course there are. But the Russians didn't want to admit that the phenomenon is far more prevalent in Russia. Knowledge of the messenger helps us to put all of this into a context.

All I'm saying is that we should be generous enough not to censor discussions just because we're not interested in them. In this case, it means discussions about both the message and the messenger. When combined, the outcomes will provide us with even more information. Ad hominem arguments like "you're obsessed with the messenger" are designed to silence one of these discussions.

Do you know whether recurring attacks often come from the same attacking machines, so that there would actually be a significant decrease in the number or severity of the attacks ones the attackers are reported? What I'm wondering is if the money and effort spent on reporting the issues will benefit the one who's doing the work, or all network administrators everywhere? The latter might mean that the problem suffers from a version of the tragedy of the commons [1], where no one wants to do the work since the benefits are shared by everyone.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

Well, I'd agree with you, but the way you phrased it made me feel uneasy. Are you saying that source criticism in journalism is overrated, or that Assange should be an exception to the rules?

This is the Internet. Isn't there enough room here for discussions about both the message and the messenger? Or is it that when the message gets strong or important enough, the messenger gets irrelevant in comparison?

These periodic reminders that Internet isn't a safe place and that anyone might be spying on us probably makes a lot of people learn about security, come up with better passwords, hesitate before downloading unknown software and so on.

When people get their identities stolen, or lose all the money from their bank accounts, this might be regarded as "random" events, in the same way that most people won't get mugged and when it happens it's because of "randomly" being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But more people have experience dealing with the government, and though they believe that criminals aren't interested in them they know that the government might be, and thus the government is seen as a more tangible threat.

Is it possible that governmental surveillance is on average a good thing, since it raises people's awareness and makes them protect themselves more? Having enough money in your bank account to buy food is, after all, a more basic need in Maslow's hierarchy than not having copies of your e-mail conversations in a government database.