Split From The ClimateGate of WikiLeaks

[dudalb]

Mhaze, I am not a big fan of wikileaks (I think that Assinge's Political Agenda is pretty obvious by now) but,frankly, when you have CNN,Fox News, The NYT, The Washinton Post, and everybody else quoting the leaked documents. whatever condifentaility they once had is long gone. By the time they or links to them are posted on JREF, the horse had left the barn and is about five miles away.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Mhaze, I am not a big fan of wikileaks (I think that Assinge's Political Agenda is pretty obvious by now) but,frankly, when you have CNN,Fox News, The NYT, The Washinton Post, and everybody else quoting the leaked documents. whatever condifentaility they once had is long gone. By the time they or links to them are posted on JREF, the horse had left the barn and is about five miles away.

That was kind of the point with the climategate emails too: they were in the public domain, the horse had not only bolted it was in the next state, yet jref saw fit to place a ban on their reproduction here.

 

[Trakar]

That was kind of the point with the climategate emails too: they were in the public domain, the horse had not only bolted it was in the next state, yet jref saw fit to place a ban on their reproduction here.

In one case we are talking about private emails between private individuals, in the other we are talking about the official reports between government officials. There are national security issues to argue, but no respect of individual expectations of privacy is relevent to the wikileaks releases. A more appropriate comparison to "climategate" would be a dump of the private communications between soldiers and their families.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

In one case we are talking about private emails between private individuals, in the other we are talking about the official reports between government officials. There are national security issues to argue, but no respect of individual expectations of privacy is relevent to the wikileaks releases. A more appropriate comparison to "climategate" would be a dump of the private communications between soldiers and their families.

You are suggesting that all the emails in wikileaks are official documents. If that's the case then everything will be an attachment in the email and on official letterhead, wont it? If not, they are emails from one person to another and fall under your private banner.
The climategate emails were from one person to another, but those people too were representing different universities etc; sending emails from work on work resourses - they are not private in the sense you use the word.

 

[Trakar]

You are suggesting that all the emails in wikileaks are official documents. If that's the case then everything will be an attachment in the email and on official letterhead, wont it? If not, they are emails from one person to another and fall under your private banner.
The climategate emails were from one person to another, but those people too were representing different universities etc; sending emails from work on work resourses - they are not private in the sense you use the word.

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that all of the state department memos, reports and updates contained in the wikileaks US diplomatic service intercepts are official state department correspondence and communications. All of the personal emails stolen from the servers at CRU were personal correspondance from individuals to other individuals. It is sheer intellectual disingenuity to attempt the conflation of the two as contextually synonymous.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

..., I am stating that all of the state department memos, reports and updates contained in the wikileaks US diplomatic service intercepts are official state department correspondence and communications.

Ergo, they are all on letterhead correct?
Similarly, all correspondence sent from (say) East Anglia to Penn State are official university correspondence. And I would suggest the intellectual dishonesty is yours, not mine.

A quick comparison. Let's say I was working at East Anglia and I was to send an inappropriate email (say porn) to a colleague at another university and was caught. I could not claim "it was private" as a defence. Same here. If I sent it from my home (private email address) to another person's home - completely different, completely private.

 

[Trakar]

Ergo, they are all on letterhead correct
Similarly, all correspondence sent from (say) East Anglia to Penn State are official university correspondence.

Factually incorrect. They may have been transferred through University servers, but they were private, individual communications, to other private individuals not official university communications, nor in conjunction with official university operations. Wikileaks diplomatic intercepts do not involve (at least not among the information I've seen so far) personal individual messages (though it is possible that some of the intelligence briefings discussing wiretapped diplomatic conversations may verge into this, I haven't been through all of the dumps so I can't say for certain) between individuals.
Wikileaks is a dump of confidential and classified state Department documents and reports. The "Climategate" hacking was a violation of civil rights and law against every individual amongst the private emails exposed for public view.

And I would suggest the intellectual dishonesty is yours, not mine.

Again, factually incorrect, this isn't an "opinion" or "perspective" issue.

A quick comparison. Let's say I was working at East Anglia and I was to send an inappropriate email (say porn) to a colleague at another university and was caught. I could not claim "it was private" as a defence. Same here. If I sent it from my home (private email address) to another person's home - completely different, completely private.

of course, no messages are sent straight from one home to another, they all go to servers (generally several of them) inbetween sender and destination.

If you and a colleague are exchanging love letters (regardless of how explicit they are), as long as it is through personal email, there is nothing to "defend" against. If you are somehow arguing that an outsider could hack the server and then cherry-pick out excerpts of your exchange and post them in the university paper as examples of rampant pornographic misuses borne out of misguided university grants and tenured academia, and that the criminal hacking and violation of the individuals' rights and expectations of privacy were justified because the cherry-picked quotes demonstrate that they are pornographers who should have no expectation nor right of privacy, then you would be getting a little closer to an appropriate senario for comparison.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that all of the state department memos, reports and updates contained in the wikileaks US diplomatic service intercepts are official state department correspondence and communications. All of the personal emails stolen from the servers at CRU were personal correspondance from individuals to other individuals. It is sheer intellectual disingenuity to attempt the conflation of the two as contextually synonymous.

Nonsense. Both are work related correspondences.

I'm not sure if you understand what "personal" means? A personal email is "Hey Bob, you coming over for the game tonight? I'm ordering pizza". Certainly not some business correspondence about state matters and foreign policy. That's just absurd.

 

[Trakar]

Nonsense. Both are work related correspondences.

I'm not sure if you understand what "personal" means? A personal email is "Hey Bob, you coming over for the game tonight? I'm ordering pizza". Certainly not some business correspondence about state matters and foreign policy. That's just absurd.

You argue my point for me, the CRU emails were personal correspondance. Wikileaks concerned official state department reports and documentation.

 

[mhaze]

I would like to thank the Mods and whoever else was interested in splitting this fascinating subject and placing it back in the open, where it should be.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You argue my point for me, the CRU emails were personal correspondance. Wikileaks concerned official state department reports and documentation.

Hey Bob, there is no warming and it's a travesty there isn't, how's the wife and kids?

Sincerely

All the guys at East Anglia.


Ummmm?????

 

[mhaze]

So....we gotta hide that decline, don'cha'know?



Nope. No government-paid-research-related stuff there.

See no evil, hear no evil.

Oh wait. Unless it's the USA as revealed by Wikileaks.

 

[Trakar]

Hey Bob, there is no warming and it's a travesty there isn't, how's the wife and kids?

Sincerely

All the guys at East Anglia.


Ummmm?????

seriously? this is your charaterization of the exchanges and yet you deny intellectual disingenuity?

The CRU emails were individual to individual and they certainly weren't reports about university business. They were private discussions, between specific individuals concerning individual opinions and considerations about subjects of personal interest.

 

[mhaze]

Wikileaks is a dump of confidential and classified state Department documents and reports. The "Climategate" hacking was a violation of civil rights and law against every individual amongst the private emails exposed for public view. ....

I know if one was accused of one of the above two categories of action, any sane individual would wish it to be the latter.

I know if anyone was publishing or republishing either of the above two categories, any sane individual would wish it to be the latter.

If it is not clear why this is so, that indicates some serious misunderstandings.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

seriously? this is your charaterization of the exchanges and yet you deny intellectual disingenuity?

No, not seriously. Your failure to see my humour confirms much.

The CRU emails were individual to individual and they certainly weren't reports about university business. They were private discussions, between specific individuals concerning individual opinions and considerations about subjects of personal interest.

As were the emails between private individuals on their private thoughts.

I was honestly having trouble understanding how you can't see this. Then I realised like many, you are simply barracking; "if it supports my world view, it is ok".

 

[mhaze]

No, not seriously. Your failure to see my humour confirms much.



As were the emails between private individuals on their private thoughts.

I was honestly having trouble understanding how you can't see this. Then I realised like many, you are simply barracking; "if it supports my world view, it is ok".

Which was the thesis of the thread, and nicely confirms it.

 

[Trakar]

I know if one was accused of one of the above two categories of action, any sane individual would wish it to be the latter.

I know if anyone was publishing or republishing either of the above two categories, any sane individual would wish it to be the latter.

If it is not clear why this is so, that indicates some serious misunderstandings.

Both are crimes, I don't think either should be published. I don't see either as a "better" or "preferrable" crime, I'll leave those parsings of personal morality and legality to those like yourself who seem to think that some crimes are acceptable and others are not.

As for the board's decisions, reprinting private CRU communications would have left them in a potential liability situation if the authors had chosen to pursue that course of action. Reprinting the State Dept. documents, after they had already been publically published, does not place them in any legally liable position. Ethics go beyond the law, but it appears that law is the standard applied in both cases, and fairly consistently from what I can tell.

 

[Trakar]

No, not seriously. Your failure to see my humour confirms much.



As were the emails between private individuals on their private thoughts.

I was honestly having trouble understanding how you can't see this. Then I realised like many, you are simply barracking; "if it supports my world view, it is ok".

You are the one with apparent double standards, but feel free to continue pointing your fingers at the rest of the world, just don't expect the state of confusion to end so long as you persist along your current path.

 

[Trakar]

Which was the thesis of the thread, and nicely confirms it.

Confirmational bias at work

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You are the one with apparent double standards, but feel free to continue pointing your fingers at the rest of the world, just don't expect the state of confusion to end so long as you persist along your current path.

Huh????
I haven't actually stated a position on this except to say if it is OK for one set to be discussed and reporoduced (wikileaks), then it should be perfectly acceptable for the climategate emails to be discussed and reporoduced.
I have noticed that those of oneside (the left?) are aghast at the hacking and theft of the climategate emails yet applaud loudly and defend Assange and his actions
I am pointing out this obvious double standard and the blind hypocrisy therein.

It is you who now flip flop.....

In one case we are talking about private emails between private individuals, in the other we are talking about the official reports between government officials.

So they are very different in your opinion. And it seems you are comfortable that wikileaks is ok, climategate not

I'm not suggesting anything, I am stating that all of the state department memos, reports and updates contained in the wikileaks US diplomatic service intercepts are official state department correspondence and communications. All of the personal emails stolen from the servers at CRU were personal correspondance from individuals to other individuals. It is sheer intellectual disingenuity to attempt the conflation of the two as contextually synonymous.

Again, they are different. Climategate not ok, wikileaks ok.

Wikileaks is a dump of confidential and classified state Department documents and reports. The "Climategate" hacking was a violation of civil rights and law against every individual amongst the private emails exposed for public view.

Ummm
Apart from this being absolute nonsense, you again assert they are very different: one is ok, one is not

You argue my point for me, the CRU emails were personal correspondance. Wikileaks concerned official state department reports and documentation.

Different, one ok, one not.

Both are crimes, I don't think either should be published.

flip flop.

As for the board's decisions, reprinting private CRU communications would have left them in a potential liability situation if the authors had chosen to pursue that course of action. Reprinting the State Dept. documents, after they had already been publically published, does not place them in any legally liable position. Ethics go beyond the law, but it appears that law is the standard applied in both cases, and fairly consistently from what I can tell.

I am not going to discuss this here, off topic. Please take it to the appropriate complaint thread.

You are the one with apparent double standards, but feel free to continue pointing your fingers at the rest of the world, just don't expect the state of confusion to end so long as you persist along your current path.

Please show me my double standard.
I am saying is that people (like you) are barracking and not applying the same principles consistently.
And if Assange has broken the law, let him be dealt with under law.