• 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?

To me there's a difference between leaking documents that may show ethical or legal wrongdoing, and leaking documents that are secret, yet are neither illegal or unethical.
 
TraneWreck said:
If he only released documents that displayed unethical behavior, people would complain that he was painting an unfair picture---you know, not giving any context.

I prefer the mass of information. This allows me and others that I respect and trust to go through the documents and discover for themselves what is and isn't important.

The only real problem that Wikileaks will cause is the doubling down of secretiveness in our government. Part of the reason they were able to get all of these transmissions was that agencies are required to share information in the wake of 9-11. If you'll recall, 9-11 occured in no small part because the FAA didn't have the information the FBI had. The FBI didn't have what the CIA had, and so on. Thus, more people were given access. This will most certainly end.

Of course, the better reaction would be to simply realize the futility of 99% of our secretive behavior.
Click to expand...

I agree that the nation is too secretive. I was on a sub and some of the stuff I marked confidential was silly. Of course, some of the stuff I had to mark as radioactive was equally stupid, but if I gave that out in the public everyone would have been pissed (joke).

Basically, we disagree on what is ethical. I feel Assange is unethical. You argue that having everything out for analysis can provide context and allow for fairness. I disagree. By thinking he can provide that fair context, and releasing the non-damaging stuff, Wikileaks almost acts like the government's attorney. That is the attorney's job to decide the best defense of the government.

This leads to the bank example. The bank wouldn't complain that it provides unfair context beyond that being their defense in public opinion. I am senior in business school. The ethics of trade secrets and whistleblowing is not taken lightly. Leaking that a bank is engaged in fraud is very ethical. Releasing everything, especially elements unrelated to a crime or unethical behavior, is very unethical.
 
TraneWreck said:
He's giving us mountains of information and letting us decide on the relevance, importance
Click to expand...

You now know the Saudis are urging the United States to bomb Iran.

What does tranewreck want to do? Do you think you or your family should decide that? Extend that to the rest of this forum - including the truthers, birthers and freaks. What do they want to do? What do they think? You are not an elected leader, so why should you or they decide the relevance and importance of these issues? Ongoing diplomatic issues and maneuvers should be left to the diplomats.

Let us speculate on past crimes and where the blame should go, though.

The only problem I have with this is it's stuff most everyone in the game most likely knows, but doesn't admit because there's a weird kind of stability to the world.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I agree that the nation is too secretive. I was on a sub and some of the stuff I marked confidential was silly. Of course, some of the stuff I had to mark as radioactive was equally stupid, but if I gave that out in the public everyone would have been pissed (joke).

Basically, we disagree on what is ethical. I feel Assange is unethical. You argue that having everything out for analysis can provide context and allow for fairness. I disagree. By thinking he can provide that fair context, and releasing the non-damaging stuff, Wikileaks almost acts like the government's attorney. That is the attorney's job to decide the best defense of the government.

This leads to the bank example. The bank wouldn't complain that it provides unfair context beyond that being their defense in public opinion. I am senior in business school. The ethics of trade secrets and whistleblowing is not taken lightly. Leaking that a bank is engaged in fraud is very ethical. Releasing everything, especially elements unrelated to a crime or unethical behavior, is very unethical.
Click to expand...

We'll have to see what gets out in the leaks. If the bank docs are like the military leaks, trade secrets will likely be left out.

Here are some of Assanage's vague statements:

It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.

Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation. For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.
Click to expand...

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

The Enron e-mails were hugely important, though we subsequently did little to deal with the systematic problems shared by the industry in general. Since no one in Washington, Obama most certainly included, want to deal with the wide-spread corruption in the financial industry, I sincerely look forward to this leak.

If you recall, not only did the Enron docs show illegal behavior, they illustrated a deviant culture:

This is Bob Badeer (a trader at Enron's West Power desk in Portland, CA, where all these tapes were recorded) and Kevin McGowan (in Enron's central office in Houston, TX, as he mentions in the transcript):

KEVIN: So,

BOB: (laughing)

KEVIN: So the rumor’s true? They’re ****in’ takin’ all the money back from you guys? All those money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?

BOB: Yeah, grandma Millie, man. But she’s the one who couldn’t figure out how to ****in’ vote on the butterfly ballot.

KEVIN: Yeah, now she wants her ****in’ money back for all the power you’ve charged right up – jammed right up her ass for ****in’ 250 dollars a megawatt hour.

BOB: You know – you know – you know, grandma Millie, she’s the one that Al Gore’s fightin’ for, you know? You’re not going to –

KEVIN: They’re so ********** and they’re so, like totally ...

BOB: They are so **********.
Click to expand...
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/to-hell-with-aunt-millie-part-deux-by.html

It should be pointed out for historical purposes that Enron's willfull manipulation of energy prices, in addition to seriously hurting many people, directly led to the infamous California recall election and the emergence of the Governator. The scope of such deviant behavior is astonishing.

The military and diplomatic leaks revealed little in terms of new information, but they displayed in clear text the absolute farce our misadventures in the Middle East have become. They showed how generally useless our secret-keeping efforts are, and they have the general effect of demystifying out leaders.

The bank leaks will show real crimes, but if all they succeed in doing is helping destroy this reverence we Americans have for the "wealthy elites," it will be well worth it.
 
Last edited:
If the U.S. government wants this information kept secret, then it should do a better job keeping this information secret.
 
IDB87 said:
You now know the Saudis are urging the United States to bomb Iran.
Click to expand...

As I've said several times, this was a fact easy to discern from 1) the sectarian disputes between the nations and 2) the insane financial benefit Saudi Arabia would receive from such an invasion.

The leaks offered no new insight, they simply showed the cowardice and manipulative nature of the Saudi diplomat.

IDB87 said:
What does tranewreck want to do? Do you think you or your family should decide that? Extend that to the rest of this forum - including the truthers, birthers and freaks. What do they want to do? What do they think? You are not an elected leader, so why should you or they decide the relevance and importance of these issues? Ongoing diplomatic issues and maneuvers should be left to the diplomats.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I sort of thought I lived in a democracy, or at least a representative republic. I most certainly have a say in whether my nation seeks war.

I don't buy this authoritarian fetish you display. I remember living through a period long, long ago (2003) when my leaders lied and manipulated evidence to gin up support for an astonishingly stupid war that has failed on just about every level (but we killed Saddam!!!!).

The problem with democracy is that lots of really stupid people get to vote as well (truthers, birthers, and freaks). That doesn't mean that my country should be engaged in the profession of keeping secrets from the public. Once again, 99% of the stuff Wikileaks put out is useless, uninformative nothing. Yet great expense and effort went into keeping it secret.

The free and open transmission of information is essential to a democracy. Since the lion's share of our press corps is more interested in helping keep those secrets, Wikileaks is a valuble democratic institution.

IDB87 said:
Let us speculate on past crimes and where the blame should go, though.
Click to expand...

I would prefer to be out front, you know, to stop those crimes from happening. Information is necessary to achieve that end.


IDB87 said:
The only problem I have with this is it's stuff most everyone in the game most likely knows, but doesn't admit because there's a weird kind of stability to the world.
Click to expand...

I don't know about stability, but I do agree that most of this stuff was known.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I hate Assange. Not the same way American conservatives hate him because they luv Amerka! I find him childish and petulant.

Lets start with how he leaks things in general and compare that to the pentagon papers. That is one we hear the most. Lets add what is expected of a good leak/whistle blower.
Click to expand...

The guy who leaked the pentagon papers supports wikileaks.
 
TraneWreck said:
As I've said several times, this was a fact easy to discern from 1) the sectarian disputes between the nations and 2) the insane financial benefit Saudi Arabia would receive from such an invasion.
Click to expand...

But Iran may not have been fully aware of it. It's one thing to speculate, it's another to actually hear it. If we are trying to completely isolate Iran, this is how it's going to happen.

Hmm, I sort of thought I lived in a democracy, or at least a representative republic. I most certainly have a say in whether my nation seeks war.
Click to expand...

A war where apocalyptic weaponry is involved is a war that will start suddenly and end just as fast. I think it requires a type of secrecy to be successful. Basically I think the decision to bomb Iran and take out its' nuclear capabilities is best left to those in charge - I don't want the responsibility of voting on something like a nuclear war.

I don't buy this authoritarian fetish you display. I remember living through a period long, long ago (2003) when my leaders lied and manipulated evidence to gin up support for an astonishingly stupid war that has failed on just about every level (but we killed Saddam!!!!)
Click to expand...

And I understand that you are still jaded. How does your inability to move on translate to me having an authoritarian fetish? Better yet, how does this translate to preventing Iran from having world-ending weapons?

The problem with democracy is that lots of really stupid people get to vote as well (truthers, birthers, and freaks).
Click to expand...

Yes. Lets give them the responsibility of deciding the fate of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

That doesn't mean that my country should be engaged in the profession of keeping secrets from the public.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree that most of this stuff is downright embarrassing and should be brought to light, but ongoing diplomatic maneuvers should -never- be brought to the attention of the public. There is no plus side to leaking the fact that the Saudis want us to bomb Iran. It just exacerbates the situation.

Once again, 99% of the stuff Wikileaks put out is useless, uninformative nothing. Yet great expense and effort went into keeping it secret.
Click to expand...

99% of it does not involve nuclear weapons. It's the 1% I care about.

The free and open transmission of information is essential to a democracy. Since the lion's share of our press corps is more interested in helping keep those secrets, Wikileaks is a valuble democratic institution.
Click to expand...

Opinion noted.
 
Claiming to have damaging info on banks now.

In his interview with Forbes, Julian Assange confirmed that the next Wikileaks dump is going to target big business.

Obviously, we can barely contain ourselves.

We don't know much, but we do know its a U.S bank, and we do know Assange thinks what he has could destroy at least two major financial insitutions.

From Forbes:

F: Is it a U.S. bank?

JA: Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

F: One that still exists?

JA: Yes, a big U.S. bank.

F: The biggest U.S. bank?

JA: No comment.

F: So do you have very high impact corporate stuff to release then?

JA: I mean, it could take down a bank or two.
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/juli...g-down-one-or-two-banks-2010-11#ixzz16nAPbKRa
 
ThunderChunky said:
The guy who leaked the pentagon papers supports wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't think this is about wikileaks at all. If wikileaks didn't exist then the solider who stole the documents would just find another venue to release them. I wonder if the guy who leaked the pentagon papers supports that soldier.
 
TraneWreck said:
The Enron e-mails were hugely important, though we subsequently did little to deal with the systematic problems shared by the industry in general. Since no one in Washington, Obama most certainly included, want to deal with the wide-spread corruption in the financial industry, I sincerely look forward to this leak.

If you recall, not only did the Enron docs show illegal behavior, they illustrated a deviant culture:
Click to expand...

First, let me say I appreciate this discussion.


I had to look up the source of those Enron emails. They were part of an investigation. That is important. The owners of the emails received their due process.

A leak by it's nature denies these people their rights. That doesnt make it wrong, it just makes it a hell of a thing to be left to people with no accountability.

I can't say what it would look like if I was in charge of wikileaks. Likely, the size of the release would be smaller. How much, I do not know. My biggest concern would be what system do I establish to decide what is released and what does not. He may feel he is doing it for the American people and the world, but he is not accountable to them.

I don't entirely disagree with him. If I researched it deep enough, I may agree with the internal measures to wikileaks. However, what I know right now, I have many questions about their internal measures.
 
I see nothing I wouldn't expect to see in normal international relations, with self-interest and fears of the neighbors and bad guys.
That we see it is disturbing, but look at the alleged source.
One person.
Divulging state secrets.
Now, how many state conspiracies are there which rely on 10's of thousands of people, some of whom will be disenchanted with the course of whatever they are involved in, -not- doing the same thing, and exposing genuine conspiracies... Watergate, Irangate... but not 9/11 or JFK or TWA 800, the conspiracies of these would be equally vulnerable to a leak, and yet there aren't any... because they're not conspiracies.
 
IDB87 said:
But Iran may not have been fully aware of it. It's one thing to speculate, it's another to actually hear it. If we are trying to completely isolate Iran, this is how it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

Iran was aware of it. It was not a complicated or subtle idea.

IDB87 said:
A war where apocalyptic weaponry is involved is a war that will start suddenly and end just as fast. I think it requires a type of secrecy to be successful. Basically I think the decision to bomb Iran and take out its' nuclear capabilities is best left to those in charge - I don't want the responsibility of voting on something like a nuclear war.

And I understand that you are still jaded. How does your inability to move on translate to me having an authoritarian fetish? Better yet, how does this translate to preventing Iran from having world-ending weapons?
Click to expand...

These two paragraphs are interesting. Just switch one letter, n-->q, and it's like we're in 2003 all over again.

This is why I pointed out the authoritarian fetish. For some reason, no matter how many times we learn, for example, that there were no WMD's in Iraq, or we spent many moths and several millions of dollars negotiating with an imposter in Afghanistan, people will still argue that we little people should just sit back and leave the decision making to the adults.

What did secrecy get us in Iraq? It turned out that the government actually had worse information than was obtainable by simply reading the publicly available reports and words of the weapons inspectors. This was in no small part because they were manipulating evidence, using suspect sources (remember "Curveball?"), and outright lying.

Now you're non-ironically (I presume) arguing that this same apparatus should be blindly trusted to make decisions with regard to Iran. If one American bomb falls in Iran, you can rest assured that the ridiculous religious authority running that country will be around for another century.

But we're to leave the cost-benefit analysis to the people who couldn't figure out they paid an imposter millions of dollars in Afghanistan.

No thanks.


IDB87 said:
Yes. Lets give them the responsibility of deciding the fate of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Click to expand...

No, I think I'll vote, too.


IDB87 said:
I understand and agree that most of this stuff is downright embarrassing and should be brought to light, but ongoing diplomatic maneuvers should -never- be brought to the attention of the public. There is no plus side to leaking the fact that the Saudis want us to bomb Iran. It just exacerbates the situation.
Click to expand...

Again, this is not news. Spending time and effort keeping a well-known fact secret is stupid.

IDB87 said:
99% of it does not involve nuclear weapons. It's the 1% I care about.
Click to expand...

What should have been kept secret that wasn't? Surely there was something more than the well-known fact that the Saudis (Sunni) aren't fans of Iran (Shia), or that the destruction of their competition would be good for exports.
 
I rather remember a one-liner from the BBC sitcom "Yes Prime Minister".

' "To brief" is an irregular verb:

'I brief

'You leak

'He/she is prosecuted under the Official Secrets Acts'

Seems like we are in this situation again. "I didn't like what you revealed, so I'm going (to try) to hang you out to dry."

I do remember, though, the Belgrano incident, where a British jury refused to convict a Civil Servant who told the truth, much to the discomfort of the British government, especially Margaret Thatcher.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
First, let me say I appreciate this discussion.


I had to look up the source of those Enron emails. They were part of an investigation. That is important. The owners of the emails received their due process.

A leak by it's nature denies these people their rights. That doesnt make it wrong, it just makes it a hell of a thing to be left to people with no accountability.

I can't say what it would look like if I was in charge of wikileaks. Likely, the size of the release would be smaller. How much, I do not know. My biggest concern would be what system do I establish to decide what is released and what does not. He may feel he is doing it for the American people and the world, but he is not accountable to them.

I don't entirely disagree with him. If I researched it deep enough, I may agree with the internal measures to wikileaks. However, what I know right now, I have many questions about their internal measures.
Click to expand...

I will concede that these massive dumps from private leaks are more concerning to me than those from the government. "America" acts on our behalf, a private bank doesn't. I think we have a greater right to the government information than to the personal e-mails of a bank employee.

The best way to do this would be to release the whistleblower information, the clear examples of wrongdoing, and let a court decide what else should be made public.

Unless what gets dumped is full of essential business information, trade secrets and such, I would still argue that the importance of making wide-spread unethical behavior public trumps the right of the business to keep said behavior secret. Back when people were naive and believed that the press was meant to perform a watch-dog role in our society (vs. Breathlessly reporting on Kim Kardashian's locale), this sort of action would have been hailed as necessary and beneficial.

Let us not forget that one of the great efforts in journalistic history was Upton Sinclair's revelations about the private meat-packing industry. Trashy e-mails that reveal unethical behavior are the financial version of fetid meat and people losing fingers in the grinders. I don't see much of a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom