Wikileaks says it is under attack(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Wikileaks says it is under attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637
133 comments
There's a difference between truth and security of truth. One reveals to all, while the other protects by doing the opposite.
Managing information like this is not easy, and though it's easy to fault a government for hiding and/or obscuring the truth, there are some things that are better left unknown.
Managing information like this is not easy, and though it's easy to fault a government for hiding and/or obscuring the truth, there are some things that are better left unknown.
From what I understand, Wikileaks is willing to work with the government in order to hide the things that are truly dangerous...and not just secret because someone did something illegal/unethical
Who is to be the one to judge what is dangerous? Assange?
As I said in another comment, I don't believe that Assange knows the power of this information, whether we're talking secrets or classified information.
As I said in another comment, I don't believe that Assange knows the power of this information, whether we're talking secrets or classified information.
@nhangen: The government. They offered to collaborate in order to make sure nothing bad would be released.
The government ignored them, however. What does that say?
The government ignored them, however. What does that say?
Well their stance is that his actions are unlawful and that he's dealing with stolen information.
It's more complicated than you're presenting.
It's more complicated than you're presenting.
I don't like Assange. However my belief is that the kind of stuff he is leaking is similar to the kind of stuff that governments manage to figure out about each other through spying anyways. Therefore the risk of injury is not as big as the government would have you believe, but the risk of public embarrassment is huge.
And incidentally, if you really believe in the first amendment, his actions should be entirely legal. At this point he is part of the press, and the government has no right to limit his free speech, or the freedom of the press. OK, so I don't like him. But there is a well-known principal of constitutional law that the important precedents are set by people who are hard to like. Because if they were nice people, they wouldn't have been in court in the first place. But by defending the rights of least likable people, we defend everyone's rights.
If you want to compare it to something, compare to the publication of plans for making a hydrogen bomb. The government tried to sue to stop publication, and failed. Now you can find discussion of the subject on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design. Which matters more? The Constitution, or the release of information that could kill tens of millions of people? The actual ruling of the court was that the Constitution mattered more!
And incidentally, if you really believe in the first amendment, his actions should be entirely legal. At this point he is part of the press, and the government has no right to limit his free speech, or the freedom of the press. OK, so I don't like him. But there is a well-known principal of constitutional law that the important precedents are set by people who are hard to like. Because if they were nice people, they wouldn't have been in court in the first place. But by defending the rights of least likable people, we defend everyone's rights.
If you want to compare it to something, compare to the publication of plans for making a hydrogen bomb. The government tried to sue to stop publication, and failed. Now you can find discussion of the subject on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller-Ulam_design. Which matters more? The Constitution, or the release of information that could kill tens of millions of people? The actual ruling of the court was that the Constitution mattered more!
It's not as black and white as a first amendment issue. This isn't press, this is sensitive and classified information.
He could play a much greater role in change were he to use this information in a more strategic fashion than to recklessly publish 100% of it.
He could play a much greater role in change were he to use this information in a more strategic fashion than to recklessly publish 100% of it.
This isn't press, this is sensitive and classified information.
In what way, at this point, is Assange not part of the press?
Remember, a large part of the Constitution is meant to provide checks and balances to prevent government from being able to abuse its power. The proper Constitutional role of the press SHOULD be to inform the public on the actions of the government so that the public can get properly outraged about things they do not agree with.
In what way, at this point, is Assange not part of the press?
Remember, a large part of the Constitution is meant to provide checks and balances to prevent government from being able to abuse its power. The proper Constitutional role of the press SHOULD be to inform the public on the actions of the government so that the public can get properly outraged about things they do not agree with.
I suppose you're right that he could be considered part of the press, and there are no laws prohibiting the sharing of government secrets. But I'm hesitant to proclaim anyone with a blog or government secret as a true member of the media.
There actually are laws prohibiting the sharing of government secrets. Lots of them. Bradley Manning, the suspected informant, is likely to go to jail for this incident.
But once published, they are published.
As for whether random bloggers are members of the media, I agree that it isn't a simple cut and dried situation. However at this point wikileaks is so prominent, and is so frequently part of the information infrastructure that more traditional media provides, that I believe it clearly is media.
But once published, they are published.
As for whether random bloggers are members of the media, I agree that it isn't a simple cut and dried situation. However at this point wikileaks is so prominent, and is so frequently part of the information infrastructure that more traditional media provides, that I believe it clearly is media.
Any of the state actors unhappy with this release have undoubtedly looked at the issue somewhat closely.
They'd know:
* a DDOS wouldn't change anything
* wikileaks has decent contingency plans, and are prepared for a lot beyond a simple denial of service
* It'd just get wikileaks in the news more in the run up to the release
Conclusion: Misguided amateur patriots or complete fabrication
They'd know:
* a DDOS wouldn't change anything
* wikileaks has decent contingency plans, and are prepared for a lot beyond a simple denial of service
* It'd just get wikileaks in the news more in the run up to the release
Conclusion: Misguided amateur patriots or complete fabrication
On the Wikileaks Twitter feed:
"Now is a good time to download some "history insurance" https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance 1:04 AM Nov 26th via web"
Yes, you're right, even if the servers are down, they can leak the key via twitter etc. to this file.
"Now is a good time to download some "history insurance" https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5723136/WikiLeaks_insurance 1:04 AM Nov 26th via web"
Yes, you're right, even if the servers are down, they can leak the key via twitter etc. to this file.
it wasn't that long ago the fbi had hoover, i think you give bureaucrats too much credit
I think Assange underestimates the power that this information wields, and as a result is being reckless and potentially dangerous to those he's trying to "protect" under the guise of freedom.
This is a dangerous game to play, especially for someone with little experience doing so.
I don't know how I feel about the concept of Wikileaks itself, but I do feel uncomfortable that this man seems to enjoy playing God.
Replace one tyrant with another and you end up in the same place.
This is a dangerous game to play, especially for someone with little experience doing so.
I don't know how I feel about the concept of Wikileaks itself, but I do feel uncomfortable that this man seems to enjoy playing God.
Replace one tyrant with another and you end up in the same place.
> I do feel uncomfortable that this man seems to enjoy playing God.
You can't help but wonder if he is playing out some international hacker of intrigue fantasy, but I think that even if he is, that mindset does more good for his cause than it does harm.
You can't help but wonder if he is playing out some international hacker of intrigue fantasy, but I think that even if he is, that mindset does more good for his cause than it does harm.
I'd like to hear why you think the latter portion of your statement is true.
The first part I can agree with, but I'm not sure how it helps...I think he's in over his head.
The first part I can agree with, but I'm not sure how it helps...I think he's in over his head.
Self-image can be a powerful feedback loop that reinforces other qualities. I think that the types of things he would value if his self image was of a "persecuted international man of intrigue" would be things like vigilance, perseverance, cunning, suspicion, and those would be helpful to his role @ Wikileaks due to the nature of his work.
My $0.02.
My $0.02.
Before disparaging wikileaks and/or the person of Julian Assange for whatever shortcomings they've got it would be good to contrast this with the opposite, say a leak from inside the North Korean or Iranian regime.
Such a leak would be applauded and the perpetrator would be declared a hero by those exact same governments that would like wikileaks to go away.
Don't shoot the messenger.
And realize that whatever your government does it does so in your name too. If it can't stand the light of day because it is illegal or embarrassing then maybe it should not be done.
Such a leak would be applauded and the perpetrator would be declared a hero by those exact same governments that would like wikileaks to go away.
Don't shoot the messenger.
And realize that whatever your government does it does so in your name too. If it can't stand the light of day because it is illegal or embarrassing then maybe it should not be done.
I suppose that's true if you consider the interests of Iran or North Korea to be just as valid as the interests of the western world. If the U.S. and Iran/North Korea were two equally evil governments fighting only for their own self-interest, that would be the case. However, as much as I am disappointed with the state of the U.S. right now, I think that what's good for America is much better for the Hacker News crowd than what's good for North Korea or Iran. While I don't support the way the U.S. government has been acting over the past decade or so, it still supports free speech, free markets, and democracy far more than its enemies.
Revealing private diplomatic information is not free expression, it is an attack on the country. It gives an information advantage to that country's adversaries and sours its relations with its allies. If wikileaks did the same to North Korea, the U.S. would celebrate it not because it represents free speech, but because it would weaken their government. There are some legitimate government secrets, and diplomatic cables are one of them.
Revealing private diplomatic information is not free expression, it is an attack on the country. It gives an information advantage to that country's adversaries and sours its relations with its allies. If wikileaks did the same to North Korea, the U.S. would celebrate it not because it represents free speech, but because it would weaken their government. There are some legitimate government secrets, and diplomatic cables are one of them.
The interests of Iran or North Korea are from the perspective of their leaders just as valid as our interests are to our leaders. All of them would condemn wikileaks for publishing their information, regardless of which country you'd be looking at. The same would go for China, Russia and pretty much every other nation in the world.
Which ones you would think are 'valid' and which are 'invalid' apparently depends on your own interests in the world, and not so much on the 'badness' of that particular government. I would welcome total openness from my government about stuff like this, I would hope for the citizens of those other countries to do the same.
This is not an attack on any country, and to sketch it as such is not an honest depiction of the facts, it is an attack at those that perpetrate illegal acts in the name of all of us.
That 'if you've got nothing to fear, you've got nothing to hide' thing works both ways.
Either we, the citizens of all those states have a right to privacy, or the government does not have a right to privacy either. A society without privacy will have zero privacy for everybody, and I think part of the anger and the backlash against all this is that the governments are slowly waking up to this and they don't like it much.
If your perspective changes depending on which nation you are from that's a fair indication that you are probably wrong, if only because no nation is 'absolutely better in all respects' than any other.
Many North Koreans would agree with that statement about the US (of course, they've all been brainwashed, right?).
Which ones you would think are 'valid' and which are 'invalid' apparently depends on your own interests in the world, and not so much on the 'badness' of that particular government. I would welcome total openness from my government about stuff like this, I would hope for the citizens of those other countries to do the same.
This is not an attack on any country, and to sketch it as such is not an honest depiction of the facts, it is an attack at those that perpetrate illegal acts in the name of all of us.
That 'if you've got nothing to fear, you've got nothing to hide' thing works both ways.
Either we, the citizens of all those states have a right to privacy, or the government does not have a right to privacy either. A society without privacy will have zero privacy for everybody, and I think part of the anger and the backlash against all this is that the governments are slowly waking up to this and they don't like it much.
If your perspective changes depending on which nation you are from that's a fair indication that you are probably wrong, if only because no nation is 'absolutely better in all respects' than any other.
Many North Koreans would agree with that statement about the US (of course, they've all been brainwashed, right?).
I think you're taking moral relativism too far when you compare the US with a country like North Korea. I would actually say the US is "absolutely better in all respects" than North Korea; care to name a respect in which North Korea is better than the US?
Or we can just not like Mr. Assange for needlessly putting peoples lives in danger?
I don't know why but when I read the headline I chuckled. It is so apropos.
I don't know why but when I read the headline I chuckled. It is so apropos.
Whose life has been threatened by him? Please provide sources.
If any of that data is HUMINT it is quite easy to put lives in danger.
What if the reason it's kept out of the light of day is that it makes the already difficult job of people working in my nation's interest even more difficult?
Much of what's here is not in the least surprising, but having official confirmation just makes it that much more complicated for people out there trying to make things better.
Not all secrets are eeeevil, you know.
Much of what's here is not in the least surprising, but having official confirmation just makes it that much more complicated for people out there trying to make things better.
Not all secrets are eeeevil, you know.
my nation is a different one from yours.
And that goes for a large number of people.
Not all secrets are evil, however I'm fairly sure that the fact that some secrets in fact are evil is what drives the feeding frenzy around wikileaks. If all that came to the surface would be an impeccably functioning diplomatic machinery with the highest standards for ethics I highly doubt this would get as much press and attention as it does.
And that goes for a large number of people.
Not all secrets are evil, however I'm fairly sure that the fact that some secrets in fact are evil is what drives the feeding frenzy around wikileaks. If all that came to the surface would be an impeccably functioning diplomatic machinery with the highest standards for ethics I highly doubt this would get as much press and attention as it does.
Anyone knows what's the point of stalling those "leakage"? It's becoming quite annoying for me: all those newses about what it is going to be about or newses about DOS attack. Why can't they just publish it already? Or maybe they should setup wikileaksleaks.org for leaks about wiki leaks...
They don't publish them immediately because they want a worldwide simultaneous release with the New York Times, Der Speigel, and the Guardian.
Also called 'Embargo'.
It won't matter - the guy at the Guardian has already posted to twitter that they will publish the papers even if wikileaks go down.
Whoever is behind the attack should just DDOS all of the media sites that have the leaked information.
In seriousness though, the attack probably will moderate the damage slightly, as I imagine Wikileaks was going to publish all the raw documents on its site, whereas the other sites will probably just give summaries of the important points. Sure, Wikileaks will eventually come back up and have all the raw data available, but the peak viewing time was going to be today. If I were trying to minimize number of eyeballs viewing the raw documents, I'd take this approach.
In seriousness though, the attack probably will moderate the damage slightly, as I imagine Wikileaks was going to publish all the raw documents on its site, whereas the other sites will probably just give summaries of the important points. Sure, Wikileaks will eventually come back up and have all the raw data available, but the peak viewing time was going to be today. If I were trying to minimize number of eyeballs viewing the raw documents, I'd take this approach.
I think the newspapers will link to full copies for perusal, but include highlights/excerpts in their articles.
The biggest problem the DDoS creates, in my eyes, is that anyone reading about the leaks will go to Wikileaks.org and find a dead page and then forget about it, thus minimising their exposure to the other doings of Wikileaks.
The biggest problem the DDoS creates, in my eyes, is that anyone reading about the leaks will go to Wikileaks.org and find a dead page and then forget about it, thus minimising their exposure to the other doings of Wikileaks.
I'm pretty sure the raw data will be available as torrent :) No need for any website...
Assange is such an attention whore that I wouldn't put it past him to turn off all his servers and send out a press release saying "Look at me, I'm under attack!"
Let's wait and see. Besides, whore or not, the world is a better place due to wikileaks.
How so? What changes have actually happened because of the leaks that happened? We'd all forgotten within a week.
No institutional change per se, but a realization that state institutions enjoy too many information protections. These protections are ostensibly in place to further "national security", but are in fact a means to cover up crime.
Julian Assage's demeanor or persona is irrelevant.
Julian Assage's demeanor or persona is irrelevant.
Apparently this leak will show that an additional 15,000 civilians have died in Iraq. While that may not sound like much compared to the total who died, but think about it - 15,000 people like you and I died and the state department decided to hide this. If any other government did this there would be mass hysteria and public outrage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Notable_leaks
some of those had a little bit of impact
some of those had a little bit of impact
The one with most direct consequences I can see was that a police officer got sacked because he was a member of the British National Party.
How the hell can that be legal? Are police officers banned from joining all political parties or just the BNP?
How the hell can that be legal? Are police officers banned from joining all political parties or just the BNP?
Perhaps because the police are supposed to be impartial and serve all equally. The BNP is overtly racist and advocates explicit discrimination against and persecution of minorities. A member of the BNP is by definition not a proper person to be a policeman.
Membership of BNP is incompatible with being a police officer because it's incompatible with the police force's equal opportunities policy. Police officers are contractually obliged to follow the policy. Rightly or wrongly (rightly imo) that's the justification for sacking him.
Membership of, say, the Green Party, does not conflict with the officer's obligations.
Membership of, say, the Green Party, does not conflict with the officer's obligations.
How does someone's party affiliation keep the police force from following its equal opportunities policy?
The BNP is an overtly racist party. If you join them, it is assumed you follow their policies and general belief structure. Those policies and beliefs are incompatible with what the police are ordered to do as part of their jobs.
It's better than a policy of ignoring the beliefs of your officers, isn't it?
It's better than a policy of ignoring the beliefs of your officers, isn't it?
it's policy, it's the same as someone wearing their Army uniform to a KKK rally. Agencies like that can't be seen endorsing extremists.
It's not the same as the uniform-at-KKK-rally example, since his membership was a secret.
I'd agree that policemen shouldn't wear their uniforms to a meeting of any political party. This is very different though.
I'd agree that policemen shouldn't wear their uniforms to a meeting of any political party. This is very different though.
You already forgot about Iceland?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Modern_Media_Initiati...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Modern_Media_Initiati...
How about the WikiLeaks attack helicopter video? It was a reminder for many Americans of the true horrors of war.
The American press has been embedded and self-censored out of relevancy when it comes to war reporting.
The American press has been embedded and self-censored out of relevancy when it comes to war reporting.
My issue with the "Collateral Murder" video is that it was released in such a heavily editorialized manner; the raw footage would have served the same purpose. Instead, we got a video telling us exactly how we should interpret the footage. Not a fan of that, personally.
and it's also taken completely out of context. It's easy to play armchair general unless you're the guy flying that bird.
Exactly. And my thing is, considering fog of war, I do think the aircrew of that chopper ultimately made the right decision given the information they had; which is far more horrifying than the editorialized nonsense Wikileaks published.
In war, you can make all the right decisions and innocent people will still needlessly die. It's a far stronger statement of the horrors of war and the need to avoid it than the ridiculous claim that the military was intentionally targeting reporters and children.
In war, you can make all the right decisions and innocent people will still needlessly die. It's a far stronger statement of the horrors of war and the need to avoid it than the ridiculous claim that the military was intentionally targeting reporters and children.
I haven't been able to look at this set, but one of the intriguing topics is that the Saudis are urging the US to attack Iran.
This piece of information makes an attack on Iran (and the subsequent bloodshed and mayhem) less likely, once the light has been shined on the Saudi hand. This, IMHO, is a good thing. If we have to attack Iran (and I'm not saying we should), then we should do so because Iran is a threat to US, and not to the Saudis.
This piece of information makes an attack on Iran (and the subsequent bloodshed and mayhem) less likely, once the light has been shined on the Saudi hand. This, IMHO, is a good thing. If we have to attack Iran (and I'm not saying we should), then we should do so because Iran is a threat to US, and not to the Saudis.
It has to start somewhere. It hasn't gotten better yet, but it still might. History is hard to see while it's being made...
... or it might get worse!
Potential informants, no longer trusting the US to be able to keep their identities secret, clam up. Intelligence dries up. Bombs go off. People die. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
Potential informants, no longer trusting the US to be able to keep their identities secret, clam up. Intelligence dries up. Bombs go off. People die. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.
What evidence do you have that that is actually what will happen?
The point is that leaks of this magnitude have much broader effects than you can imagine. You can argue about whether it is a net positive or negative, but there WILL be negative consequences and to pretend otherwise is just fooling yourself.
I think it's fooling yourself to claim that you have any idea as to whether this will affect future informers.
It's also a matter of whose perspective you're coming from. "The US is hurt in diplomatic relations" is bad for some, good for others.
None at all. I'm the one arguing that we don't know whether it is a net good or bad.
Much like throwing pennies off the top of the Empire State Building, though, uncertainty about whether something will have positive or disastrously negative consequences is generally a good argument against doing it.
Much like throwing pennies off the top of the Empire State Building, though, uncertainty about whether something will have positive or disastrously negative consequences is generally a good argument against doing it.
What evidence is there that informants no longer trusting US handlers is a bad thing ?
"We'd all forgotten within a week."
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
That remains rather unproven, but I don't feel like arguing about it.
I agree, I don't think the guy is really in it for altruistic reasons.
That being said, the US doesn't look so great in complaining about the consequences of released sensitive information. If it is so important and people's lives depend on it, then why not invest more in information assurance?
That being said, the US doesn't look so great in complaining about the consequences of released sensitive information. If it is so important and people's lives depend on it, then why not invest more in information assurance?
The US Government, and the US armed forces are looking for a way to better control their information and how it is accessed and by who. There are plenty of people working on the problems, the thing is that the whole system is currently inherently insecure and that securing such a system takes time.
Why does he have to be in it for altruistic purposes if what he does accomplishes an altruistic outcome?
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."
-Abraham Lincoln (http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/December/...)
-Abraham Lincoln (http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/December/...)
I'm sorry, I fail to see how that resolution would be recognizably altruistic from a modern perspective. Had Abraham Lincoln "saved" the Union without freeing any slaves, there would have been no philanthropic regard for others, it would have instead been the government capitulating to monied interests. That Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice an altruistic and noble outcome for political expediency shouldn't detract from the actual good freeing the slaves wrought.
To be fair, I'm a consequentialist, we might be arguing morality at cross-purposes.
To be fair, I'm a consequentialist, we might be arguing morality at cross-purposes.
>That Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice an altruistic and noble outcome for political expediency shouldn't detract from the actual good freeing the slaves wrought.
Exactly. My quote was an example to support the sentiment of your post, not argue against it.
Ultimately the end result and lasting impact was the freeing of the slaves, history and time rendered Abe's intentions/motivations nearly irrelevant outside of historical study.
Exactly. My quote was an example to support the sentiment of your post, not argue against it.
Ultimately the end result and lasting impact was the freeing of the slaves, history and time rendered Abe's intentions/motivations nearly irrelevant outside of historical study.
Aha! My apologies, I should have realized.
yes, an ad hominem, brilliant tactical response dude
I can't say I have a lot of pity for Wikileaks.
I feel -- and you guys are welcome to trash me on this and I'm sure you will -- that taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to our government to perform diplomacy. And diplomacy always involves the keeping of secrets. It did 500 years ago, and it will 500 years from now.
So no matter how much arm-waving you want to do about freedom and truth, nations still have to have secrets. And while I oppose the secrecy state that we've created, it's the taxpayers that have created it, not wikileaks. It's our monster to tame. Assange neither represents us nor has our best interests in mind.
Assange is no representative of freedom or honor in my book. In my book he's a low-life self-promoting pimp of anarchy, and I imagine what goes around will certainly come around to him.
If you want to leak a few documents about the Iraq war as part of informing the public that it's not going well, then fine, more power to you. Hell I'll contribute to your defense fund. The truth has to be free. But if you're going to dump all the state department cables from countries all over the planet on the internet, then you have attacked my country. And while I'm all with you and fully support getting to an open society, that doesn't even begin to forgive an act of war like this.
This discussion has gotten to absolutes -- people are arguing that everything needs to be open. Other people are arguing that everything must be secret. The truth is that neither position is going to work, and I have to say I'm pretty pissed at Assange at taking such a serious issue like openness and crapping all over it. He's done more harm to his own cause with this than his opponents could ever help to accomplish. For the next ten years we'll have story after story trickle out about what harm this has caused. It will make a nice backdrop to even further draconian security measures.
There is a space between anarchy and the security state. Let's find that spot and live there.
I feel -- and you guys are welcome to trash me on this and I'm sure you will -- that taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to our government to perform diplomacy. And diplomacy always involves the keeping of secrets. It did 500 years ago, and it will 500 years from now.
So no matter how much arm-waving you want to do about freedom and truth, nations still have to have secrets. And while I oppose the secrecy state that we've created, it's the taxpayers that have created it, not wikileaks. It's our monster to tame. Assange neither represents us nor has our best interests in mind.
Assange is no representative of freedom or honor in my book. In my book he's a low-life self-promoting pimp of anarchy, and I imagine what goes around will certainly come around to him.
If you want to leak a few documents about the Iraq war as part of informing the public that it's not going well, then fine, more power to you. Hell I'll contribute to your defense fund. The truth has to be free. But if you're going to dump all the state department cables from countries all over the planet on the internet, then you have attacked my country. And while I'm all with you and fully support getting to an open society, that doesn't even begin to forgive an act of war like this.
This discussion has gotten to absolutes -- people are arguing that everything needs to be open. Other people are arguing that everything must be secret. The truth is that neither position is going to work, and I have to say I'm pretty pissed at Assange at taking such a serious issue like openness and crapping all over it. He's done more harm to his own cause with this than his opponents could ever help to accomplish. For the next ten years we'll have story after story trickle out about what harm this has caused. It will make a nice backdrop to even further draconian security measures.
There is a space between anarchy and the security state. Let's find that spot and live there.
I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal.
Remember, everything they do...they do in our name.
Remember, everything they do...they do in our name.
I feel like they are allowed to keep their secrets provided they don't make something secret just because it might make them look bad or because it's illegal.
But if we let them keep their secrets, how do we learn enough about their motivations to figure out when they are abusing it? Human nature being what it is, if they have the right to make whatever they want secret, they will DEFINITELY use the right to cover up things that make them look bad or are illegal.
Classic case in point, United States v. Reynolds, the case that established the state secrets privilege. When the documents were finally declassified, the only real "secrets" in the report were evidence of serious errors that would have greatly helped the lawsuit against the government.
But if we let them keep their secrets, how do we learn enough about their motivations to figure out when they are abusing it? Human nature being what it is, if they have the right to make whatever they want secret, they will DEFINITELY use the right to cover up things that make them look bad or are illegal.
Classic case in point, United States v. Reynolds, the case that established the state secrets privilege. When the documents were finally declassified, the only real "secrets" in the report were evidence of serious errors that would have greatly helped the lawsuit against the government.
By law, information may not be classified merely because it would be embarrassing or to cover illegal activity. Information may only be classified to protect national-security objectives/interests.
I imagine this release is more contentious since it undoubtedly contains sources, methods, and likely personal opinions of the diplomatic corps and the clandestine services operating under the guise of the diplomatic corp.
I imagine this release is more contentious since it undoubtedly contains sources, methods, and likely personal opinions of the diplomatic corps and the clandestine services operating under the guise of the diplomatic corp.
My guess is that to the average person nothing much of import will be revealed -- but I could be wrong. In either case, I don't think the short-term fallout is important.
What's completely insane (in my view) is that the diplomacy corps of the United States may have just been damaged beyond repair. It could take a generation or more to recover from this, and it could hurt a hell of a lot of people. Even if you hate the United States, that's a lot of collateral damage on the path to openness. There are a lot of very serious things going on in the world, and people have spent their entire lives getting into position to help nations come to agreement over various things. These do sneaky things, sure, but they also prevent wars. Getting rid of them by exposing all of their reports and identities is whacked, not to mention the damage to foreign governments when it comes out who has been secretly helping whom.
The far-reaching impact could truly be mind-boggling in scale. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it all being greeted with silence from around the world -- there's really no point in anybody making a spectacle of reacting.
I can't help but feel that this is going to be very destabilizing to a lot of nations. And U.S. secrecy is not going to be affected at all. If anything it will just increase to more insane levels beyond where it already is.
What's completely insane (in my view) is that the diplomacy corps of the United States may have just been damaged beyond repair. It could take a generation or more to recover from this, and it could hurt a hell of a lot of people. Even if you hate the United States, that's a lot of collateral damage on the path to openness. There are a lot of very serious things going on in the world, and people have spent their entire lives getting into position to help nations come to agreement over various things. These do sneaky things, sure, but they also prevent wars. Getting rid of them by exposing all of their reports and identities is whacked, not to mention the damage to foreign governments when it comes out who has been secretly helping whom.
The far-reaching impact could truly be mind-boggling in scale. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to see it all being greeted with silence from around the world -- there's really no point in anybody making a spectacle of reacting.
I can't help but feel that this is going to be very destabilizing to a lot of nations. And U.S. secrecy is not going to be affected at all. If anything it will just increase to more insane levels beyond where it already is.
I think there's a lot of value in all our cards being on the table, for everyone. We are playing at just about every table, and this is not a zero-sum game.
I think one of the most important things to recognize here is that we're not the only ones whose cards have been revealed. It sounds like there's verification the Chinese government was behind the attacks against Google, Yahoo and the rest. That's a big deal, and it could hurt China.
I also think that in general, having a clear understanding of US goals makes it easier to come up with creative solutions that benefit all. It does also potentially make it easier to screw the US over - but frankly that's difficult to do, and I'd say given the power the US wields, any direct action against US interests comes with strong likelihood that it's a net negative for both the opposing power and the US. Win-win situations, when you can come up with them, carry far less risk. But you can't come up with win-win situations when people are holding their cards close to their chest.
I think one of the most important things to recognize here is that we're not the only ones whose cards have been revealed. It sounds like there's verification the Chinese government was behind the attacks against Google, Yahoo and the rest. That's a big deal, and it could hurt China.
I also think that in general, having a clear understanding of US goals makes it easier to come up with creative solutions that benefit all. It does also potentially make it easier to screw the US over - but frankly that's difficult to do, and I'd say given the power the US wields, any direct action against US interests comes with strong likelihood that it's a net negative for both the opposing power and the US. Win-win situations, when you can come up with them, carry far less risk. But you can't come up with win-win situations when people are holding their cards close to their chest.
Look I have no problem with taking drastic action against the government for keeping too many secrets.
But this is a bridge too far. This is like using a nuclear bomb to put out a city that is on fire. It's not going to have the effect that its supporters want. Quite the opposite.
But this is a bridge too far. This is like using a nuclear bomb to put out a city that is on fire. It's not going to have the effect that its supporters want. Quite the opposite.
Wikileaks was willing to have the government trim the truly dangerous parts. The government decided against that, because they "didn't want to give Wikileaks legitimacy".
Wikileaks is a news service, not a terrorist organization...you can negotiate with them. Expecting them to do say what you want, is not journalism...that's PR.
Wikileaks is a news service, not a terrorist organization...you can negotiate with them. Expecting them to do say what you want, is not journalism...that's PR.
Egads, man. Listen to yourself.
The government has too many secrets. That's a given. I firmly support making society more open.
But when you come into possession of all the state department cables, you're participating in a theft. Now maybe its a theft for wondrously good reasons we can all agree to, but it's still a theft. You are a thief. Perhaps you are a thief for a good cause, but your role in this matter is not super-hero, its a thief for a good cause.
You can't go back and say that since wikileaks was willing to negotiate with the government they stole from and the government wasn't that somehow this makes a total dump more palatable. That sounds completely crazy in my book. Look at it this way: what's the state department going to do? Go through each doc and censor out things they don't like? Do you have any idea how long it would take the state department to do that, even if they were ordered to? Hell, they can't figure out what's classified or not right now, without a gun to their head. It's not like threatening to release all their communications is going to make the agency more functional.
And let's say through some magic they decided that yes, they would vet the papers and somehow managed to do that. Let's additionally assume that they perfectly and totally vetted them -- no detail is left in there that at any point in the future is going to jeopardize U.S. interests. That's an impossible thing in itself, but let's imagine they do. At this point you have an agency actively participating in disseminating information that it has previously and publicly said was non-distributable. What? Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? The entire purpose of the state department is to engender and promote trust among fellow nations. Even if it's a "correct" result in yours and my book, even if the state department itself wants to do it, you simply can't take the diplomatic branch of the government and completely change the way it works overnight. It would be total chaos.
Nope, the government is stuck not being able to vet those docs, and for about a dozen different good reasons. That doesn't mean that docs shouldn't be released, just that assuming that vetting could happen is too much.
I have immense sympathy for this cause, but continuing to defend Assange like this is going to go nowhere. You can't steal something from a crook and then complain that the crook isn't helping you organize the things you stole. Two wrongs don't make a right. To suggest that somehow wikileaks is off the hook for responsibility simply because they offered the U.S. a chance to vet the docs isn't to look into the matter in much detail. It's just throwing stuff out there in hopes that some of it will stick.
Like I said, I'm 99% with everybody in their complaints about secrecy. So I'll close this thead. No point in making much of it. If you've decided that wikileaks is good, you'll just keep throwing out things and I'll just keep showing you how they don't apply. No need to do that. I have no desire to get into a debate or argument. I just wanted to clarify that this idea that keeps getting peddled that somehow it's better because of the vetting offer just doesn't fly for me at all.
The government has too many secrets. That's a given. I firmly support making society more open.
But when you come into possession of all the state department cables, you're participating in a theft. Now maybe its a theft for wondrously good reasons we can all agree to, but it's still a theft. You are a thief. Perhaps you are a thief for a good cause, but your role in this matter is not super-hero, its a thief for a good cause.
You can't go back and say that since wikileaks was willing to negotiate with the government they stole from and the government wasn't that somehow this makes a total dump more palatable. That sounds completely crazy in my book. Look at it this way: what's the state department going to do? Go through each doc and censor out things they don't like? Do you have any idea how long it would take the state department to do that, even if they were ordered to? Hell, they can't figure out what's classified or not right now, without a gun to their head. It's not like threatening to release all their communications is going to make the agency more functional.
And let's say through some magic they decided that yes, they would vet the papers and somehow managed to do that. Let's additionally assume that they perfectly and totally vetted them -- no detail is left in there that at any point in the future is going to jeopardize U.S. interests. That's an impossible thing in itself, but let's imagine they do. At this point you have an agency actively participating in disseminating information that it has previously and publicly said was non-distributable. What? Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? The entire purpose of the state department is to engender and promote trust among fellow nations. Even if it's a "correct" result in yours and my book, even if the state department itself wants to do it, you simply can't take the diplomatic branch of the government and completely change the way it works overnight. It would be total chaos.
Nope, the government is stuck not being able to vet those docs, and for about a dozen different good reasons. That doesn't mean that docs shouldn't be released, just that assuming that vetting could happen is too much.
I have immense sympathy for this cause, but continuing to defend Assange like this is going to go nowhere. You can't steal something from a crook and then complain that the crook isn't helping you organize the things you stole. Two wrongs don't make a right. To suggest that somehow wikileaks is off the hook for responsibility simply because they offered the U.S. a chance to vet the docs isn't to look into the matter in much detail. It's just throwing stuff out there in hopes that some of it will stick.
Like I said, I'm 99% with everybody in their complaints about secrecy. So I'll close this thead. No point in making much of it. If you've decided that wikileaks is good, you'll just keep throwing out things and I'll just keep showing you how they don't apply. No need to do that. I have no desire to get into a debate or argument. I just wanted to clarify that this idea that keeps getting peddled that somehow it's better because of the vetting offer just doesn't fly for me at all.
How do you feel about Watergate ?
I'm not sure that's really a fair comparison. The information leaked about Watergate was about specific illegal activity being conducted by specific people.
It's not really even comparable to the leak of the Pentagon Papers -- those revealed a pattern of multiple presidential administrations deliberately lying to the public about US involvement in southeast Asia.
These last couple of wikileaks releases? They've just been raw, massive data dumps with a comparably terrible SNR.
It's not really even comparable to the leak of the Pentagon Papers -- those revealed a pattern of multiple presidential administrations deliberately lying to the public about US involvement in southeast Asia.
These last couple of wikileaks releases? They've just been raw, massive data dumps with a comparably terrible SNR.
Exactly. Like I said in the last thread, if you come into the possession of classified documents from a democratically-elected government then it is ethical to publish them if and only if they provide evidence of criminal activity on the part of government officials.
So Watergate? Right on. Random dumps of sensitive information? Not so much.
So Watergate? Right on. Random dumps of sensitive information? Not so much.
The government of Iraq was democratically elected before it was taken down.
Same with the Guatemala one.
Haider was democratically elected in Austria.
Some of those you could defend, some you could not, which ones you will defend probably depends on your viewpoint.
What your viewpoint is however does not matter in the longer term, democratically elected governments are not immune from perpetrating illegal acts (and the US has a pretty good share of the world market there).
You now get the good with the bad, which I think is preferable to getting just lies and spin.
Same with the Guatemala one.
Haider was democratically elected in Austria.
Some of those you could defend, some you could not, which ones you will defend probably depends on your viewpoint.
What your viewpoint is however does not matter in the longer term, democratically elected governments are not immune from perpetrating illegal acts (and the US has a pretty good share of the world market there).
You now get the good with the bad, which I think is preferable to getting just lies and spin.
The government of Iraq was democratically elected before it was taken down
¿lolque?
¿lolque?
It was, it may not have been a democratic election by your standards, but then again, the US elections are not democratic by mine.
edit: hacker news, the only site where your candid opinion (an unpopular one, apparently) will get you modded down.
Look here, if you think that the US has democratic elections I would suggest you have a long hard look at Sweden, which has a much less money and dynasty focused system, and which comes a lot closer to being truly democratic. Two parties are just as bad as one, especially when to foreigners those two parties are pretty much indistinguishable except op a few unimportant issues which seem to be added just to polarize the voters.
I'd like to point at my own country but unfortunately they're currently not the best example.
edit: hacker news, the only site where your candid opinion (an unpopular one, apparently) will get you modded down.
Look here, if you think that the US has democratic elections I would suggest you have a long hard look at Sweden, which has a much less money and dynasty focused system, and which comes a lot closer to being truly democratic. Two parties are just as bad as one, especially when to foreigners those two parties are pretty much indistinguishable except op a few unimportant issues which seem to be added just to polarize the voters.
I'd like to point at my own country but unfortunately they're currently not the best example.
Every site will downmod a candid opinion it doesn't agree with. Reddit downmods my pro-ID and pro-Christian opinions.
Of course, the Watergate breakin itself was just intended to do a little "information liberating" too. Heh.
Watergate was a leak about just one crime, this is a leak about a multitude of potential crimes and potentially embarrassing information, I think the comparison is a valid one because it exposes the hypocrisy present in many of the arguments against leaks of any sort.
The lack of editorial oversight and the massive volume is a blessing, not a detraction, after all if this sort of information would have been released at the time of the 'red scare' it would have been over and done with much quicker for "I am not a crook" Nixon.
Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary. Now you have to wonder how much this will cause. Looking forward to the next installment, and looking forward to diplomats that, instead of becoming even shadier will live up to a new standard of transparency and openness. After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible. If that means that there might be a chilling effect on their communications then so be it, that's the bad guys as far as I'm concerned.
The number of people arguing that governments need secrets to operate are ignoring the painful fact that for the most part these secrets are just used to hide that which can't stand the light of day, not because those secrets serve a concrete purpose to the betterment of all.
The lack of editorial oversight and the massive volume is a blessing, not a detraction, after all if this sort of information would have been released at the time of the 'red scare' it would have been over and done with much quicker for "I am not a crook" Nixon.
Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary. Now you have to wonder how much this will cause. Looking forward to the next installment, and looking forward to diplomats that, instead of becoming even shadier will live up to a new standard of transparency and openness. After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible. If that means that there might be a chilling effect on their communications then so be it, that's the bad guys as far as I'm concerned.
The number of people arguing that governments need secrets to operate are ignoring the painful fact that for the most part these secrets are just used to hide that which can't stand the light of day, not because those secrets serve a concrete purpose to the betterment of all.
>Watergate was a leak about just one crime, this is a leak about a multitude of potential crimes and potentially embarrassing information, I think the comparison is a valid one because it exposes the hypocrisy present in many of the arguments against leaks of any sort.
I'm not arguing against leaks of any sort -- I brought up the Pentagon Papers specifically because I think their leak was ultimately a positive thing -- I'm arguing against the haphazard dumping of information without any particular rhyme or reason.
>Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary.
Again, that was specific information.
>After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible.
There's more to this than simple accountability. Diplomacy often requires keeping your hand close to your chest. If your diplomats are negotiating the terms of an agreement and are given instructions that "ideally we would like this, but if you can't hardball them to those terms, we will still accept X", those instructions are worthless if they're out in the open.
In fact, one of the cables released by the NYT discusses negotiations with Pakistan to remove potentially weaponizable nuclear material from a nuclear reactor there. Apparently one of the sticking points for the Pakistanis was that if knowledge of the removal was made public, the local populace would be up in arms about American interference with Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs.
Guess what just happened? Is that a net positive?
I'm not arguing against leaks of any sort -- I brought up the Pentagon Papers specifically because I think their leak was ultimately a positive thing -- I'm arguing against the haphazard dumping of information without any particular rhyme or reason.
>Remember how it all came apart because of one tiny detail, a botched burglary.
Again, that was specific information.
>After all, they do represent all of us, and I'd like to them to be as accountable as possible.
There's more to this than simple accountability. Diplomacy often requires keeping your hand close to your chest. If your diplomats are negotiating the terms of an agreement and are given instructions that "ideally we would like this, but if you can't hardball them to those terms, we will still accept X", those instructions are worthless if they're out in the open.
In fact, one of the cables released by the NYT discusses negotiations with Pakistan to remove potentially weaponizable nuclear material from a nuclear reactor there. Apparently one of the sticking points for the Pakistanis was that if knowledge of the removal was made public, the local populace would be up in arms about American interference with Pakistan's nuclear weapons programs.
Guess what just happened? Is that a net positive?
I think the reason that would happen is because there is a strong push in the Islamic world to own nuclear weapons too, because apparently that's the only way you will be taken serious at the diplomatic table.
That's the whole reason why Kim and his ilk as well as tons of other tin-pot dictators and movie star wanna-bes do the exact same thing.
The US is hypocritical in this sense that they would like to deny those weapons to others while hanging on to their own stockpile.
If US diplomats could work in the light of day on this subject it would be the Pakistanis that would have to bow, the hypocrisy is what drives the need for secrecy.
The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
That's the whole reason why Kim and his ilk as well as tons of other tin-pot dictators and movie star wanna-bes do the exact same thing.
The US is hypocritical in this sense that they would like to deny those weapons to others while hanging on to their own stockpile.
If US diplomats could work in the light of day on this subject it would be the Pakistanis that would have to bow, the hypocrisy is what drives the need for secrecy.
The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
You didn't answer the question, though - is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive? And that's just one example found in the absolute most cursory glance at a brief couple of page summary of part of this leak.
>The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1]
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuc...
>The countries that are the biggest proponents of non-proliferation all have a nuclear stockpile...
So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms? If not, I don't see why it matters. It's not like they're building up their stockpiles, either. Quite the opposite, in reality.[1]
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/24/barack-obama-nuc...
> is the fact that this leak has likely put the brakes on limiting the further spread of nuclear weapons a net positive?
I think this leak has done no such thing.
It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time.
Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist.
Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb.
Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant.
> So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms?
If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination.
The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control.
The threat is just as large as it ever was.
30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
I think this leak has done no such thing.
It has merely documented a situation, which will continue to exist for some time.
Having the knowledge that the situation exists out there might actually put pressure on the parties involved to do something about it, rather than to let it persist.
Also, I'm not at all afraid of the 'terrorists' acquiring such weapons of mass destruction, I sleep pretty good and I estimate my chances of dying from crossing the street significantly larger than from rogue states or terrorists acquiring a dirty or fissile bomb.
Fear mongering has very little effect on me in general, but I do perceive that the terrorists have gotten value for their money. After all fear runs rampant.
> So does that make it morally wrong for them to try to reduce the proliferation of those arms?
If you want to be credible about non-proliferation I think you should not only commit to reduction of your own stockpile but you should commit to elimination.
The current reduction strategy is just a step back from the overkill situation in the cold war, which is offset in large part by better targeting and by higher yield as well as more reliable systems for simulation and stockpile control.
The threat is just as large as it ever was.
30,000 bombs or 5,000 it makes no difference.
At this point you have an agency actively participating in disseminating information that it has previously and publicly said was non-distributable. What? Were they lying then? Or are they lying now?
Neither. They're making the best of a bad situation in which their hand is forced.
You make some good points, and I do have some mixed feelings about the way WikiLeaks is operating, and about Bradley Manning's choice to just vacuum up everything he could lay his hands on rather than confining himself to information that would prove a particular point. Still, in the end, I don't know how I'm going to feel about the material being released until I see what's in it.
Neither. They're making the best of a bad situation in which their hand is forced.
You make some good points, and I do have some mixed feelings about the way WikiLeaks is operating, and about Bradley Manning's choice to just vacuum up everything he could lay his hands on rather than confining himself to information that would prove a particular point. Still, in the end, I don't know how I'm going to feel about the material being released until I see what's in it.
Wikileaks didn't steal anything
Sure they did. You are just going to use semantics to say they didn't. They got passed classified information and they took it. When you take something that doesn't belong to you in that way, it makes you a thief. They have knowingly received stolen materials and they didn't give it back.
You can argue whether or not this release is good or bad, right or wrong, however semantics are somewhat important. Would you say that learning something while reading a book in a bookstore is stealing? How do you propose to return stolen information?
Even if wikileaks physically returned whatever they physically received, but made a copy for their own purposes, is that still stealing? There are laws that apply to information, such as copyright, but this information is not protected by copyright. I read somewhere that there was no classified information in this release, so it also wouldn't be protected by those laws.
For me, the 2 main questions are: 1) is it legal (yes) 2) will it do more good than harm? (unknown)
Even if wikileaks physically returned whatever they physically received, but made a copy for their own purposes, is that still stealing? There are laws that apply to information, such as copyright, but this information is not protected by copyright. I read somewhere that there was no classified information in this release, so it also wouldn't be protected by those laws.
For me, the 2 main questions are: 1) is it legal (yes) 2) will it do more good than harm? (unknown)
They got passed classified information and they took it. When you take something that doesn't belong to you in that way, it makes you a thief.
US officials stole classified information from the UN. Chinese officials stole classified information from Google. Let's be honest here: they're all at it.
US officials stole classified information from the UN. Chinese officials stole classified information from Google. Let's be honest here: they're all at it.
> It's our monster to tame.
It is my feeling that this monster cannot be tamed, but must be slain, and the most horrible thing that could be constructed from its corpse must also be destroyed.
But everyone has their own opinion, and I'll agree that absolutist argument can poison the waters of common ground.
It is my feeling that this monster cannot be tamed, but must be slain, and the most horrible thing that could be constructed from its corpse must also be destroyed.
But everyone has their own opinion, and I'll agree that absolutist argument can poison the waters of common ground.
I also agree that somewhere indeterminable there's a line to be crossed.
But until I find that line I defer to my juvenile glee of seeing the American government submit to their own (ridiculous) privacy policy: If you don't have anything to hide, all your private, personal and professional life are belong to us.
But until I find that line I defer to my juvenile glee of seeing the American government submit to their own (ridiculous) privacy policy: If you don't have anything to hide, all your private, personal and professional life are belong to us.
Looks like the Guardian have gone live with this already...
http://grab.by/grabs/1f0906251076b904622300ccf4496b71.png
http://grab.by/grabs/1f0906251076b904622300ccf4496b71.png
Off topic, but I had to ask this: Am I the only one here that thinks that this upcoming leak will pose a threat to the national security and should be stopped?
Reports about brutal repression of Tibetan protesters would be a threat to Chinese national security. Should those be stopped? Or do you only support freeing damaging information about countries you don't like?
The national security of what country? I suspect it could improve the security and life of some affected countries. If there was no exploitation and shady operations that seriously harm others, there would not be such excitement in the US government.
The national security of all countries involved. Sensitive diplomatic information is often better handled by diplomats. Unleashed to the masses, it may cause unnecessary aggression, maybe even riots somewhere. Not to mention that it puts a lot of people's lives at risk.
Best handled by diplomats? Because us unwashed masses can't handle the truth, public debate just second-guesses those who are in charge, and we should really leave the important things to the ruling class?
Erm.. Well, seeing as you can't really have anything to base this on other than the US Government's say-so, I'm not sure what kind of discussion there is to have on the matter as of yet.
You trust these governments far more than I do, I will say that.
You trust these governments far more than I do, I will say that.
Not really, on freedom of speech grounds.
That said, I'm a bit torn on wikileaks as an organization. I think there needs to be an organization like wikileaks that serves as an outlet for whistleblowers, but I also think that wikileaks is falling too far down the path of self-aggrandizement for me to take them seriously.
For one, they've heavily promoted some releases that have turned out to contain very little truly new information. More importantly, their inclination to editorialize hurts their credibility in a massive way. The "Collateral Murder" video is case in point -- you not only have the title the video was released under, but the entire thing was annotated telling you exactly how you were supposed to interpret it. You're a helicopter pilot observing a combat zone and somebody traveling with a group of armed men pokes a cylindrical object around a corner in the direction of your forces - are you likely to think that object is A. a weapon or B. a pro-grade telephoto lens. According to the Colateral Murder video, it's ridiculous to think A.
Things like that make me somewhat distrustful of wikileaks since it makes it clear they have an agenda beyond the simple dissemination of information, and forces me to wonder whether they'd actually publish information contrary to that agenda if they were to receive it.
That said, I'm a bit torn on wikileaks as an organization. I think there needs to be an organization like wikileaks that serves as an outlet for whistleblowers, but I also think that wikileaks is falling too far down the path of self-aggrandizement for me to take them seriously.
For one, they've heavily promoted some releases that have turned out to contain very little truly new information. More importantly, their inclination to editorialize hurts their credibility in a massive way. The "Collateral Murder" video is case in point -- you not only have the title the video was released under, but the entire thing was annotated telling you exactly how you were supposed to interpret it. You're a helicopter pilot observing a combat zone and somebody traveling with a group of armed men pokes a cylindrical object around a corner in the direction of your forces - are you likely to think that object is A. a weapon or B. a pro-grade telephoto lens. According to the Colateral Murder video, it's ridiculous to think A.
Things like that make me somewhat distrustful of wikileaks since it makes it clear they have an agenda beyond the simple dissemination of information, and forces me to wonder whether they'd actually publish information contrary to that agenda if they were to receive it.
I'd love to hear somebody say they don't take Steve Jobs or Larry Ellison seriously because they're too "self aggrandizing". What happened to results mattering most? There are a lot of reasons to dismiss people and organizations, but how ego size is just about the most shallow reason I can think of.
Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison aren't trying to fill the role of an information clearinghouse. The information they're disseminating should be what's important; instead I've increasingly gotten the impression that wikileaks being in the spotlight is being given more consideration.
Am I to take from this that journalism is a higher calling that requires a self-less attitude and a humble ego? Because I'm pretty sure that kind of journalism has never existed.
Regardless of whether Wikileaks is self-aggrandizing or not (and the recurring theme here is that people "feel" it is, but can never substantiate), the information released and the results achieved speak for themselves.
Regardless of whether Wikileaks is self-aggrandizing or not (and the recurring theme here is that people "feel" it is, but can never substantiate), the information released and the results achieved speak for themselves.
I'm pretty sure most companies have information they'd rather wasn't public. Most people do too. I don't see why governments would be any different.
There's a careful balance between transparency and secrecy.
There's a careful balance between transparency and secrecy.
national security has a direct-line relationship to the bottom line of u.s. startups... we get to witness the dividing of those who will make an atom bomb, and those who will not.
(i.e. if your business depends on imperialism, you are an imperialist. now consider oil and hegemony)
(i.e. if your business depends on imperialism, you are an imperialist. now consider oil and hegemony)
As you grow up however, you kind of start realising that much of the above is sort of true in theory, but not true in practice, especially if the freedom of speech concerns a criticism of those who have more power than you. It is because power corrupts that many people had to die to ensure that we today live in relative freedom. It is because those in power have the means to subvert criticism and silence such criticism that it has been necessary for many to be shunned, called lunatics, heretics, traitors, or to die, so that truth can be spoken to power, so that truth can be spoken to power in order to preserve our liberty.
The right to free speech does not apply only to the dissemination of pictures of cats. A society and its adherence to its principles are tested and shown when power is seriously criticised, when power is or has the potential to be seriously undermined, not, when someone writes about lolcats because people even in North Korea can write about lolcats.
I am very amazed that people even consider an attack on wikileaks to be 'good', or that a real attack on the wikileaks founder would have been even better, because, they consider the leak to be a potential attack on their own percieved or real self interests, such as the image of their nation around the world, or that the world may find out that real life is so much more interesting that any fantasy book that can be written or any idealistic principle that can be formulated.
I consider it amazing that anyone may even think of supporting an attack by what may be a state actor, not because of any breach of law, but because it is embarrassing to such state actor.
We are not children any more, and if our principles are to die with the passing of our childhood, then we might need to consider the principles in the first place, their truth, their applicability, whether our generation of grown up adults wants to stand by them and continue supporting them. If we as the people wish to turn a blind eye to government censorship, to dirty tactics by governments through reputation damage by means of charges unsupported by evidence, if we are going to eat up the effective propaganda (PR I read somewhere began as an industry after the second world war and was based on the effectiveness of Hitler's tactics) and blindly state that such an attack is a good thing whether by anyone, let alone the government, simply because our perceived interest may potentially be damaged or undermined, not because of any reason of principle, not because we consider it to be an illegal activity not even based on reasonable moral arguments, but simply and only because it is a criticism which embarrasses, then something has gone badly wrong since the time I was born and now that I have grown up.
Truth is Power. Suppression of truth allows power to corrupt. That is why we have such principles of freedom of speech and such principles are not quantifiable simply by our embarrassment when criticised, or even more woringly, by the embarrassment of politicians.