I've been absolutely appalled at the double standards -- the screaming double standards -- on the story of Murdoch's hacking of public and private persons' cell phones and the hacking exploited by WikiLeaks.
It truly boggles the mind, how many people are plussing up the Google+ waves with puffed-up chests in indignation about what Murdoch's paper has been caught doing who were never, ever available to utter a word of criticism about WikiLeaks, doing the exact same thing (and, arguably, with more far-reaching damages to more people and governments around the world).
To my mind, they are very similar; hacking is wrong, unethical, and criminal in both cases and should be prosecuted, and yes, in both cases, there is not a direct relationship to actual hacking, but intermediaries are used. That doesn't sanitize it in either case.
What enables most of these lefty geeks and Internet-bred freaks to be unable even to compare these two very, very similar acts of criminality is that they maintain that WikiLeaks "doesn't hack".
Oh, no? Of course they hack. They have hacked in the past to get certain things, and they incite hacking, and exploit hacking. They are a very concerted operation dedicated to the instigation of hacking. That's what they do. They aren't a news operation and Assange is no journalist, not with his ideology of "the worse the better" for the US. As Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment lawyer, beautifully summarized it, Assange is a source, not a journalist. Full stop. A particularly fickle and manipulative and even smelly source, as Bill Keller has explained.