• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wikileaks. Any comments?

I'm torn on the subject.
There are clearly times when keeping secrets ISN'T unethical or inappropriate.
Conversely, there are clearly times when leaking secrets ISN'T unethical or inappropriate.

Situations and the information being discussed greatly affects the appropriateness of whether to leak or not.


I think the fact that Wikileaks releases all information with a consequences be damned approach is, on the whole, reprehensible.
 
joobz said:
I think the fact that Wikileaks releases all information with a consequences be damned approach is, on the whole, reprehensible.
Click to expand...

I would recommend reading this essay. Whether you agree or disagree, Assange is not simply dumping things without purpose:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
Click to expand...

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/201...iracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/

In order to have an educated conversation about Wikileaks, we all need to read that essay and the works Assinage has produced. I just read it today and realized I was mistaken about a good many things.

His goal is to eliminate the ability of governments and corporations to effectively conspire in secret by making them paranoid. Thus, the cable leaks, which have no revelatory information, aren't leaked for their content, but to force changes in the operating procedure of the government.

Now, that is an overly brief explanation. Assagne's goal is quite provocative.
 
Last edited:
I think people would have a very different opinion on Wikileaks if it was revealing the secrets of a country they liked and possibly compromising missions they supported.

Let's suppose that people start using wikileaks to torpedo legislation they just don't agree with but is not in any way criminal. Then what? Actually that's kind of what is happening already.
 
Travis said:
I think people would have a very different opinion on Wikileaks if it was revealing the secrets of a country they liked and possibly compromising missions they supported.

Let's suppose that people start using wikileaks to torpedo legislation they just don't agree with but is not in any way criminal. Then what? Actually that's kind of what is happening already.
Click to expand...

This is probably right, but only if you can find truth that fits your agenda. And that's Wikileaks ultimate defense here -- they put out the unredacted, unspun truth. That's a hard thing to argue against. I'll take the stance that the public is not used to having the truth available so plainly. We are more comfortable with, not just the facts, but the facts presented with a dose of "this is how you should think about the facts."

From what I have read, the material is neither as exciting as I expected, nor as inflammatory as has been reported. It's just people doing what people do. I too am a victim of news-tainment and, as much as I hate to admit it, the effects would have been greatly magnified if they had been released piecemeal in "breaking news" style with better graphics.
 
It seems to me that this current dump of information is making the United States look GREAT.

  1. China is fed up with North Korea and would like the Korean Peninsula to be united with the South in Control! That makes the USA look GREAT. It does not make the USA look bad at all.
  2. All the countries in the Mid East hate Iran? That makes the USA look good and it is information on the USA side and in American Interests. The Saudis wish the USA would bomb Iran? That makes the USA and the right-wingers in particular look good.
When I listen to the creator of WikiLeaks interviewed on the BBC, I can tell that he definitely wants to hurt and embarrass the United States. Instead he has done the opposite. Wikileaks belongs on Fail Blog.

On the other hand, I do not believe this dirt that what he is doing is harmless. There was a guy in the FBI during the Cold War who was selling secrets to the Soveit Union. When he was caught he eventually told reporters in prison that it is all just a game -- he said there were people on the other side doing the same thing. But he was wrong. Telling the Soviets what we know also tells them who we got the information from and those people were caught in Russia and hung.

Also, in a real sense, this guy is providing important information to aid to people who want to find a way to kill westerners go make Allah happy. So he is, unintentionally, I suppose, on the side of kooks who want to fly jets into buildings.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
His goal is to eliminate the ability of governments and corporations to effectively conspire in secret by making them paranoid. Thus, the cable leaks, which have no revelatory information, aren't leaked for their content, but to force changes in the operating procedure of the government.

Now, that is an overly brief explanation. Assagne's goal is quite provocative.
Click to expand...
I think I must have missed the election where we elected him and gave him this power over the Government.

And, you know, rewrote the Constitution.
 
roger said:
I think I must have missed the election where we elected him and gave him this power over the Government.

And, you know, rewrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything?

He hasn't done anything illegal. Leaking is illegal, transmitting leaked material isn't.

I do have to say that I love when people just say "Constitution" for no reason in particular. What part of the Constitution are you talking about? What part could he violate as a private citizen OF AUSTRALIA?

I was hoping people would actually read the article and develop more interesting arguments. I don't entirely agree with his program, but it's an interesting perspective.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
The first 3 letters are all that's really important.
Click to expand...

I enjoy the apologists defending the government's ability to keep useless secrets from its citizens.

What right do we have to know how our tax dollars are being spent in foreign invasions and occupations?

And so, so, funny to see this coming from the "small government" crowd.
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
I enjoy the apologists defending the government's ability to keep useless secrets from its citizens.

What right do we have to know how our tax dollars are being spent in foreign invasions and occupations?

And so, so, funny to see this coming from the "small government" crowd.
Click to expand...
What is being revealed here? That behind the scenes diplomats aren't so diplomatic?

Did you really think that Bush and Obama really believe Pakistan is a "strong ally against terror"? In diplomacy, you have to stroke and schmooze some pretty sleazy people. But amongst friends you discuss what you really think. Anyone who reads the newspapers knew, for example, that privately Arab leaders wanted a strong response to Iranian nukes. Of course, they feared instability in their own countries if this was officially known.

What good does this information being made official do? Would you like to see a law making all internal diplomatic discussions and strategys available online?
 
WildCat said:
What is being revealed here? That behind the scenes diplomats aren't so diplomatic?

Did you really think that Bush and Obama really believe Pakistan is a "strong ally against terror"? In diplomacy, you have to stroke and schmooze some pretty sleazy people. But amongst friends you discuss what you really think. Anyone who reads the newspapers knew, for example, that privately Arab leaders wanted a strong response to Iranian nukes. Of course, they feared instability in their own countries if this was officially known.

What good does this information being made official do? Would you like to see a law making all internal diplomatic discussions and strategys available online?
Click to expand...

This last round of leaks was pretty useless. The military documents were much more interesting and gave insight into the absolute farce that are efforts in the Middle East have become.

It should be noted that these leaks came out before we learned that our brilliant military intelligence apparatus couldn't figure out that we were negotiating with and spending millions of dollars on an impostor.

The reason I linked the in-depth article about Assange's philosophy, however, is that he has a very clear reason for the Cable-leaks even though their content was pretty unimpressive. I agree with much of what he says concerning the danger of our secret-fetish in the USA. He is literally trying to destroy that system.
 
Jason V said:
It's difficult to tell the difference between things governments are glad of being "leaked" and those they're not so glad about. China supports an end to North Korea? I'm going to have to wear a tinfoil tinted hat about wikileaks for now and believe me I seldom wear one.
Click to expand...


Apparently confirmed by Chinese officials: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/30/china-wants-korean-reunification

Bill Thompson said:
When I listen to the creator of WikiLeaks interviewed on the BBC, I can tell that he definitely wants to hurt and embarrass the United States. Instead he has done the opposite. Wikileaks belongs on Fail Blog.
Click to expand...


That may be his personal opinion of the U.S., but why does everyone ignore all of the leaks regarding other countries and complain about Wikileaks being solely an America-hating enterprise?

On the other hand, I do not believe this dirt that what he is doing is harmless.
Click to expand...


The very nature of Wikileaks pretty much guarantees some form of "harm" will come to one or more organizations or individuals. The goal, of course, is to catch only those that deserve it.

roger said:
I think I must have missed the election where we elected him and gave him this power over the Government.

And, you know, rewrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...


See? This is a problem. Wikileaks' existence isn't to destroy America, as some of you seem to believe. They've also leaked important information about wrongdoings in foreign governments and foreign companies. This unintelligent, hyper-patriotic over-reaction to anything that makes America look bad needs to go away. If you don't know you've got spinach in your teeth, you can't clean yourself up...

Is it no longer true that The People have power over the government? And what power do we have without knowledge of what our government does in our name?
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
In the same way that if you believe that an omniscient God can see all your actions, similarly, if you are some civil servant having to enforce some awful policy or action that will almost certainly result in many civillians being killed (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan,.. or for the 60s crowd, Vietnam) then, for that civil servant or politican, the prospect of any action being potentially made public is - morally - a wonderful thing,
Click to expand...

But who determines what action is an awful war crime in the making and what action is necessary for the security of one's country? The journalist?

What if the leaking journalist is, say, a member of the far left who thinks all American actions in the ME are evil per se and thus releases the names of all CIA agents there? What if he's a racist, and decides to leak only those communications that show Black politicians in a bad light?

Just because official secrecy can be used, and is sometimes used, to hide crimes hardly means all secret documents are a cover of an evil government conspiracy for the heroic reporter to uncover (as the fantasy has it). There is a serious downside here that people have not considered.

No wonder he's been accused of rape by those *****.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lying slut should have know that he... oh wait, all rape accusations should be taken seriously except those against people you like.

What must I do to get on the "automatically defended from rape accusations without knowing the facts" list? Is there an official "get out of jail free" card?
 
Checkmite said:
About damn time already, sheesh.
Click to expand...

Unrelated to the leaks. It's for rape.

However, once they have him in custody, he could face charges here. Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN legal analyst, said he wouldn't be surprised if the FBI already has sealed warrants against him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom