Is Wikileaks everything it says it hates?

[Travis]

I think this is a relevant question.

Government Intelligence Agency | Wikileaks
Acquires "secret" information | Acquires "secret" information
Disseminates some of this secret information | Disseminates some of this secret information
Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage | Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage
Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria | Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria
Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts | Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts

Does it bother anyone else that an organization dedicated to ending "secrecy" has this supposed monster file that contains information of illegal conduct by major banks but is not sharing it so it can use that "information" to it's own benefit?

Also, how can they even hope to accomplish their goals through their current tactic? If there is something you want kept secret and you find out someone in the room is telling everyone things they learn that are secrets are you more likely to just spill everything or would you clam up and be much more selective in who you talk to?

 

[Random]

Also, how can they even hope to accomplish their goals through their current tactic? If there is something you want kept secret and you find out someone in the room is telling everyone things they learn that are secrets are you more likely to just spill everything or would you clam up and be much more selective in who you talk to?

Actually, that is one of their goals. By revealing secret communications between officials, they hope to cause officials to act as if their conversations may be made public at any point, thus improving things.

A businessman may want to give a bribe to a Senator, and the Senator may be willing to accept that bribe, but if the Senator believes his conversations can be made public at any time, he will not accept the bribe. Rather than exposing corruption, the goal is to prevent corruption from happening in the first place.

Politicians, officials and corporations act differently in public than they do in private, and Wikileaks is trying to make their actions more in line with their public personas.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think this is a relevant question.

Government Intelligence Agency | Wikileaks
Acquires "secret" information | Acquires "secret" information
Disseminates some of this secret information | Disseminates some of this secret information
Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage | Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage
Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria | Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria
Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts | Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts

Does it bother anyone else that an organization dedicated to ending "secrecy" has this supposed monster file that contains information of illegal conduct by major banks but is not sharing it so it can use that "information" to it's own benefit?

Also, how can they even hope to accomplish their goals through their current tactic? If there is something you want kept secret and you find out someone in the room is telling everyone things they learn that are secrets are you more likely to just spill everything or would you clam up and be much more selective in who you talk to?

When Wikileaks gets an army, we can start worrying.

 

[Checkmite]

Actually, that is one of their goals. By revealing secret communications between officials, they hope to cause officials to act as if their conversations may be made public at any point, thus improving things.

A businessman may want to give a bribe to a Senator, and the Senator may be willing to accept that bribe, but if the Senator believes his conversations can be made public at any time, he will not accept the bribe. Rather than exposing corruption, the goal is to prevent corruption from happening in the first place.

Politicians, officials and corporations act differently in public than they do in private, and Wikileaks is trying to make their actions more in line with their public personas.

A whole lot of speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. Here's some of my own: Wikileaks is a vehicle Assange is using to embarrass the US government. The particulars of the released materials are irrelevant, so long as they are classified US government documents. Documents hinting at hijinks are a welcome but unnecessary bonus.

 

[Delscottio]

A whole lot of speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. Here's some of my own: Wikileaks is a vehicle Assange is using to embarrass the US government. The particulars of the released materials are irrelevant, so long as they are classified US government documents. Documents hinting at hijinks are a welcome but unnecessary bonus.

Has there only been US documents released? I assumed any "secret" documents (regardless of country) passed to Wikileaks would be leaked?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

By revealing secret communications between officials, they hope to cause officials to act as if their conversations may be made public at any point, thus improving things.

Which is a stupid idea.

More likely, it will have the effect of making things worse by making public officials not write or record anything.

If you're a politician and are willing to break the law to begin with, and now you know that people are reading your e-mail, you'll just stop using e-mail.

 

[Random]

A whole lot of speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. <snip>

From an interview between Assange and Time Magazine:

RS: One of the unintended consequences is the opposite effect, which is what we've seen with the Department of Defense, and even the State Department, here in the U.S., of trying to make secrets more impenetrable rather than less and trying to take precautions against what has happened from happening again in the future. How do you regard that?

JA: Well, I think that's very positive. Since 2006, we have been working along this philosophy that organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye. If their behavior is revealed to the public, they have one of two choices: one is to reform in such a way that they can be proud of their endeavors, and proud to display them to the public. Or the other is to lock down internally and to balkanize, and as a result, of course, cease to be as efficient as they were. To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

To me, that is a very good outcome, because organizations can either be efficient, open and honest, or they can be closed, conspiratorial and inefficient.

Jeez... talk about a false dichotomy.

By this logic, isn't Wikileaks itself conspiratorial and inefficient?

 

[I Ratant]

Has there only been US documents released? I assumed any "secret" documents (regardless of country) passed to Wikileaks would be leaked?

.
Which documents truly labeled "SECRET", and not "CONFIDENTIAL" or just not public domain have Wikileaks leaked?
Passing on "SECRET" stuff is a bad thing to do, the passer can end up in Leavenworth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Has there only been US documents released? I assumed any "secret" documents (regardless of country) passed to Wikileaks would be leaked?

That was very much the model of Wikileaks when it was originally founded. Now... not so much. They're pretty exclusively US-focused.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A whole lot of speculation with absolutely no supporting evidence. Here's some of my own: Wikileaks is a vehicle Assange is using to embarrass the US government. The particulars of the released materials are irrelevant, so long as they are classified US government documents. Documents hinting at hijinks are a welcome but unnecessary bonus.

Yes, yes, it's all about you. Wikileaks hates freedom.

When they released information about police killings in Kenya, it was all so they would have more credibility later when they went after the USA.

The fact that they don't do research, and that they just leak what has been given to them by others, is irrelevant. They hate the USA because people keep giving them leaks that embarrass the USA and they don't have the decency to bury the information until they have equal and opposite dirt on... I dunno, Osama bin Laden or someone, that part of the US-partisan talking point isn't very clear.

 

[ddt]

That was very much the model of Wikileaks when it was originally founded. Now... not so much. They're pretty exclusively US-focused.

That seems to be the case now because they got 250,000 US documents which are being vetted before publishing. Assange has said there are also Russian documents in the pipeline (Time link), and it's also said they have Chinese documents (link).

 

[Travis]

Question: how would we know about stuff that is leaked to them that they choose to not share?

 

[Oliver]

That was very much the model of Wikileaks when it was originally founded. Now... not so much. They're pretty exclusively US-focused.

You're wrong. If anything, they may get more information from American Sources than from other sources.

However, those are the recent files Wikileaks published from around the world:

http://mirror.infoboj.eu/

 

[Oliver]

Question: how would we know about stuff that is leaked to them that they choose to not share?

We already know about them. For example, they did not release thousands of the "Iraq Diaries" files. And we know that they received 500000 cables but they're talking about publishing only about half of them. And they blacked out names in released information to make sure that no lives are at risk... There may be even more examples and the fact, that Assange told the press that they receive much more stuff than they're able to filter for relevance and importance...

 

[Oliver]

...than they're able to publish.

 

[TraneWreck]

Question: how would we know about stuff that is leaked to them that they choose to not share?

Lot's of hidden "good acts?"

Let's assume the worst about the organization: hey only release information to smear the US government.

So what? What's in the leaked material is in the leaked material.

If they got a hold of John Wayne Gacy's journal and sat on the information about his charity work, he still killed boys and buried them in his crawl space.

Among the many ways your comparison breaks down, Wikileaks isn't producing the material. THey're just publishing it, and they're not really even doing that. They're giving newspapers access to the material, going through it to redact sensitive information, then allowing those papers to print stories and make the stuff available.

If Wikileaks was fighting a war and withholding information about the puppet they set up in an occupied area, then you might have a point.

 

[Cain]

I think this is a relevant question.

Government Intelligence Agency | Wikileaks
Acquires "secret" information | Acquires "secret" information
Disseminates some of this secret information | Disseminates some of this secret information
Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage | Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage
Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria | Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria
Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts | Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts

Nice table.

Clearly we need to stop Wikileaks from invading countries and killing people.

 

[little grey rabbit]

I think this is a relevant question.

Government Intelligence Agency | Wikileaks
Acquires "secret" information | Acquires "secret" information
Disseminates some of this secret information | Disseminates some of this secret information
Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage | Keeps some of the information secret to use as leverage
Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria | Decides what is and isn't dangerous or relevant based on an unknown set of criteria
Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts | Withholds knowledge of certain criminal acts

Does it bother anyone else that an organization dedicated to ending "secrecy" has this supposed monster file that contains information of illegal conduct by major banks but is not sharing it so it can use that "information" to it's own benefit?

Also, how can they even hope to accomplish their goals through their current tactic? If there is something you want kept secret and you find out someone in the room is telling everyone things they learn that are secrets are you more likely to just spill everything or would you clam up and be much more selective in who you talk to?

It doesn't bother per se, but I do see it as something with just as much an agenda as say the US government.

I have always considered that there was a chance (a slim chance, but a chance none the less) that the gigantic security apparatus built up after 9/11 could at some point turn around and bite the Illuminati on the bum - after it realised it was just chasing shadows. The only question would be how long it would take Ameriguns to realise that.

Hence wikileaks would be the Illuminati's attempt to try and compell the US government's information collection to retreat a bit - the Illuminati must have a monopoly on global information collection.

On the positive side it is great to see Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay recognise Palestine based on the 1967 borders - no prizes to see the great Satan scold them.

 

[Buckyball]

"By this logic, isn't Wikileaks itself conspiratorial and inefficient?"

So, you care more about Wikileaks meeting this definition than your own government?

Okay, fine, let's all condemn Wikileaks. Now is it okay to talk about the US Government?

Your comment is from the same playbook Glenn beck uses... for example, exposing Van Jones as a conspiratorial, race-burdened nutjob, when Glenn Beck himself is the same thing with a MUCH larger forum. But to some people, Van Jones is somehow worse. So, they give the doughboy a pass.