Wikileaks. Any comments?

[Bill Thompson]

Sorry, is this the humor section? Wikileaks is the end of civilisation?

Bwhaaaaa.

Information, not military might, is what win wars.

The United States beat Japan because we broke their code and they did not break ours.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Great argument. It reminds me of the referendum we had in Holland about the EU "Constitution" a couple of years ago. The best argument our PM had was "if we say no, the lights will go out in Europe". "we" did vote no, and the lights are still on.

Oh, and look here. Set up a mirror of wikileaks in 5 easy steps. Over 500 mirrors now.

You are wrong. Knowledge is power. We are giving Al Qaeda power if we give them classified information.

 

[Kestrel]

what about plans of attack?
what about crypto keys for subs?
what about ways delta force folks can phone in rescue choppers?
what about an analysis of US weaknesses?
what about basically handing the Iranians how they can slaughter Israel and the United States?

Are you OK with this and other information being made public?
If you cheer Wikkileaks, you cheer death and distruction.

Since Wikileaks has released nothing even close to your examples, this is a strawman argument.

 

[qayak]

The United States beat Japan because we broke their code and they did not break ours.

No!

Japan knew going into the war that they were facing a superior force in both size and equipment. They assumed, and convinced their people, that their superior will power could win the war for them.

They were wrong in their arrogance.

 

[qayak]

They revealed a criminal conspiracy.

Assange revealed what, exactly?

Only criminal conspiracy revealers are patriots now? Wow! I bet all those people fighting in wars weren't aware.

By the way, why is it illegal for military personal to look at the wikileaks information?

 

[dirtywick]

Only criminal conspiracy revealers are patriots now? Wow! I bet all those people fighting in wars weren't aware.

By the way, why is it illegal for military personal to look at the wikileaks information?

Simple as it sounds, probably because they're still classified whether they're leaked or not. Seems silly but it's a scenario that's never happened or been foreseen, there's not a protocol in place, and nobody knows what to do.

 

[Orphia Nay]

If there was actually something illegal revealed in the docs the leaker would have sent them to the NY Times, or a federal prosecutor instead of wikileaks. Wikileaks is like little sister threatening to tell mom that you came home after curfew.

Thank you! I was just thinking something similar...

It may be just me, but what actual scoops has wikileaks actually released? To me, it just seems like they're showing the human (infallible) side of diplomacy, and extremists (both pro and anti wikileaks) are making a big deal about it. I find it hard to have an opinion one way or another since I'm not sure what good or what harm they're doing.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Thank you! I was just thinking something similar...

It may be just me, but what actual scoops has wikileaks actually released? To me, it just seems like they're showing the human (infallible) side of diplomacy, and extremists (both pro and anti wikileaks) are making a big deal about it. I find it hard to have an opinion one way or another since I'm not sure what good or what harm they're doing.

If I was conspiratorially minded, I'd suggest that Assange was a US plant instructed to release mildly embarrassing but harmless documents so that the government could rally social and political will to lower opinion of 'whistleblowers' and create more legal space to go after them.

In reality, I'm sure that's just how it'll work out rather than some master plan, but I think this is going to end badly for transparency supporters.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You are wrong. Knowledge is power. We are giving Al Qaeda power if we give them classified information.

Indeed. However, I hear the government is mining internet forums to get ammunition for their platitude cannon, so at least we'll be able to return fire.

 

[Orphia Nay]

If I was conspiratorially minded, I'd suggest that Assange was a US plant instructed to release mildly embarrassing but harmless documents so that the government could rally social and political will to lower opinion of 'whistleblowers' and create more legal space to go after them.

In reality, I'm sure that's just how it'll work out rather than some master plan, but I think this is going to end badly for transparency supporters.

I came across some conspiracy-minded folk saying they think Assange might be a "Nordic ET":
http://www.freedomcrowsnest.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85831

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Information, not military might, is what win wars.

The United States beat Japan because we broke their code and they did not break ours.

Cough H-bomb cough...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
I didn't mispeak, your failure to follow a conversation is your problem. And btw, it's your strawman, attacking an argument ("there is no extraordinary renditon") I didn't make. Have fun with that.

Yawn. Your posts are so predictable.

 

[zooterkin]

By the way, why is it illegal for military personal to look at the wikileaks information?

Don't know if it's illegal, but I work for an American company, and we had a recent announcement:

The recent publication of classified documentation by WikiLeaks is cause for an important reminder that X personnel should not use X company equipment or resources to access the WikiLeaks website to view or download information. Doing so may introduce potentially classified information onto unclassified X networks. Rumors that the information is no longer classified because it is now in the public domain are NOT true. Executive Order 13526, Section 1.1(4)(c) states “Classified Information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.”

The information published via WikiLeaks has not been declassified by an appropriate authority and remains classified until it is reviewed by the Original Classification Authorities (OCAs). The OCAs will determine if any of the material has been declassified, conduct damage assessments, and make a determination regarding continued classification.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It may be just me, but what actual scoops has wikileaks actually released?

The internet is your friend.

 

[ddt]

Anonymous has launched "Operation Payback", and they've DDoS-ed several sites in turn, a.o.: PayPal, Assange's Swiss bank that froze his account, the Swedish public prosecutor, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Mastercard. PandaLabs has graphs. The Economist has a sort-of interview with Anonymous.

 

[dtugg]

Cough H-bomb cough...

The hydrogen bomb wasn't invented until the early '50s /pedant

The Japanese were beaten long before Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although they refused to acknowledge that fact).

 

[Kaylee]

Anonymous has launched "Operation Payback", and they've DDoS-ed several sites in turn, a.o.: PayPal, Assange's Swiss bank that froze his account, the Swedish public prosecutor, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Mastercard. PandaLabs has graphs. The Economist has a sort-of interview with Anonymous.

The internet has been the best thing since we discovered how to use fire. Easy access to information and people, and at least in the US, can be fairly inexpensive. I hope that the Assange episode doesn't end up ruining it for us.
I'm a little concerned about that.

 

[Wildy]

Per BBC News article today:

Shouldn't this wait until he's proven guilty? If Watergate was occurring today, would Visa and Mastercard cut off Woodward and Bernstein?

Actually Visa cut off Wikileaks ability to get donations from people using their Visa cards. Technically it doesn't matter if Assange is guilty or not because they cut off Wikileaks, not him.

Why are the newspapers exempt so far?

Because apparently they are journalist organisations and Wikileaks isn't.

Just curious about the reasoning.

There doesn't appear to be any. For all we know Visa, Mastercard, Amazon and Paypal have had it strongly suggested to them that they do this.

what about plans of attack?
what about crypto keys for subs?
what about ways delta force folks can phone in rescue choppers?
what about an analysis of US weaknesses?
what about basically handing the Iranians how they can slaughter Israel and the United States?

Are you OK with this and other information being made public?
If you cheer Wikkileaks, you cheer death and distruction.

And has Wikileaks actually made any of that public?

Incidentally, if we were to cheer Geraldo Rivera would be be cheering death and destruction because he leaked troop movements?

In all fairness, if you are going to read all the secrets of Western Civilization openly, let's also have openness of the Muslim Militant societies. For starters, tell us were Osama bin Laden is . Otherwise, the Wikkileaks leaks are not fair.

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.

The only thing I have agaisnt wikileak is that they are mostly leaking about the USG. I am waiting eagerly leaks about *MY* own government. That will force them to be more transparent , *OR*, to be much more secretive, and thus be less effective at being crook.

Another ethical value wikileaks ignores is fairness. Going after America in general is OK with me. It is the biggest country and in deep with two wars. True revelations about the war are important. However, Assange appears to be releasing everything on America without context. I think it is unethical that he is not being fair by not releasing the documents of other nations or not holding back on the US release. It should be obvious at his location that much of the leak is just embarrassing chaff. I feel it is unethical to release that material of only one nation if you cannot do the same for other nations.

(my bold)

This kind of argument is really starting to annoy me. Wikileaks releases the documents that they have. If they don't have the documents they don't release them. They aren't breaking into places and getting the documents, people are sending the documents to them. It's very simple and I don't understand how it is that people can't seem to figure that out.

Next, he says he is going to release documents on a large, American bank. It sounds like some of the documents will describe perfectly ethical behavior. In that case, why are those specific ones being released?

Since we don't actually know what is in the documents that are going to be released it's a bit quick to pass judgement on them. It may be that the bits with perfectly ethical behaviour are pages of a bigger document that also has unethical bits on it.

Doesn't a company and the people in it have rights to their trade secrets?

That depends on the trade secrets.

It doesn't matter. The inconsistencies do not matter. The overriding point is, it's all about (HIM) , Assange.

(HIS) will be done on Earth, as it is in Heaven.

(YOU) sure do like pointing out personal pronouns don't (YOU)?

 

[BenBurch]

...
Shouldn't this wait until he's proven guilty? If Watergate was occurring today, would Visa and Mastercard cut off Woodward and Bernstein?
...

Doing business with anybody is a matter of free will as long is it isn't for racial or religious discrimination.

You have no RIGHT to a merchant account with Paypal, MasterCard or Visa.

And they have the RIGHT to refuse to service anybody they feel violates their ethics or who sheds a bad light on them.

For example, PayPal will not deal with donations to porn sites, and they have every right to do so.

You don't need to be proven guilty for me to think that your actions are horrible and that I won't associate myself or my company with them.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

To think that Wikki Leaks is a good thing is to think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing. Why do you think that the destruction of the United States and eventually Western Civilization is a good thing?

As an American, I actually find that statement rather offensive. How low is your opinion of my country's resilience? Or do you honestly believe that Wikileaks poses a threat greater than any this nation has faced in its entire history?