• 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 poll

What do you think of wikileaks?

  • Total voters
    135
I think it's just like everything else.

After the out of court settlements come the movie and book deals, everyone makes a buck and has their 15 minutes, everyone wins.

Except for some soon to be forgotten patsy sitting in Leavenworth.

Then it's overshadowed by the next scandal and fades into obscurity.
 
I think they're self-promoting, hypocritical, and irresponsible, and their "theories" about transparency (which Julian Assange recently, and embarrassingly, expanded on in a Time interview) are some of the worst kind of self-justifying tripe.

But, I also tend to think that their right to publish the documents that they receive (as it relates to U.S. law) was pretty well settled in New York Times v. U.S.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
Because the information produced via espionage is only useful to people who can analyze and exploit it. It may be useful in the absolute sense to those people, but frankly, having the positions of the US submarine on a given day sitting in your lap isn't going to do you a lot of good. Unless you run a brothel, I suppose. Also, half of knowing secret stuff is not letting the other guy know that you know. If someone on the web published the positions of the US submarine on a given day, then when that given day came, the subs would not be in those positions, making the information useless even to those who could use it.
Click to expand...
Espionage produces a wide variety of information. About military specifications, diplomatic negotiations, internal politics. Much of that is of interest to a lot of people, which makes it useful.

There's a public website that keeps track of current CV locations: http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html Submarines are better at hiding, though.

And the main purpose of not letting the other guy know that you know is to protect your source. Most information does not become invalid if the other guy knows you know.
 
applecorped said:
So, if someone stole your cell phone and gave me all of your texts and voice mails and I released them to the public would I be protected?
Click to expand...

That's a bad comparison because I am a person, the government is not. My right to privacy is protected because I am an individual human being. The government is simply supposed to enforce my rights, but it shouldn't keep secrets from its own citizens. The government has documents of criminal activities, such as killing down noncombatants and civilians. That is a crime that needs to be brought to justice, and there would be no documentation for the public if it wasn't for Wikileaks.
 
AnnoyingPony said:
That's a bad comparison because I am a person, the government is not. My right to privacy is protected because I am an individual human being. The government is simply supposed to enforce my rights, but it shouldn't keep secrets from its own citizens. The government has documents of criminal activities, such as killing down noncombatants and civilians. That is a crime that needs to be brought to justice, and there would be no documentation for the public if it wasn't for Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the gov't should never be able to keep anything secret from the public?
 
And you trust Julian Assange to be the arbitrator of what should and shouldn't be revealed? Does this mean anyone with a computer should be able to reveal whatever they can get their hands on no matter the consequences?
 
Oliver said:
And to chose the right option at aboves poll ...

Wiki Rebels
THE DOCUMENTARY
Click to expand...


"Exclusive rough-cut of first in-depth documentary on WikiLeaks and the people behind it!

From summer 2010 until now, Swedish Television has been following the secretive media network WikiLeaks and its enigmatic Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange.

Reporters Jesper Huor and Bosse Lindquist have traveled to key countries where WikiLeaks operates, interviewing top members, such as Assange, new Spokesperson Kristinn Hrafnsson, as well as people like Daniel Domscheit-Berg who now is starting his own version - Openleaks.org!

Where is the secretive organization heading? Stronger than ever, or broken by the US? Who is Assange: champion of freedom, spy or rapist? What are his objectives? What are the consequences for the internet?"

Also on YouTube:

 
egslim said:
Espionage produces a wide variety of information. About military specifications, diplomatic negotiations, internal politics. Much of that is of interest to a lot of people, which makes it useful.
Click to expand...

You are equating interesting with useful. This is not necessarily the case. A website that published the bra sizes of various celebrities might be interesting, but would you consider it a useful information source? On top of that, it's doubtful that you would find raw intelligence, the stuff actually produced by espionage, very interesting at all. It would be things like isolated lists of phone records, a densely worded, out of context statement of...something, a photograph of a bunch of glowing dots with a GPS position and time stamp. Intelligence agencies devote teams of analysts and resources to putting to make sense of these seemingly meaningless bits of information for the people who actually make decisions. You don't have that.

And, again, even you came across something out of a spy movie, like the pass codes from the US Nuclear Football and could recognize what they were, how would you actually use this information?

There's a public website that keeps track of current CV locations: http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocation.html Submarines are better at hiding, though.
Click to expand...

It was an example.

And the main purpose of not letting the other guy know that you know is to protect your source. Most information does not become invalid if the other guy knows you know.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, sort of. Protecting the source is the most important thing, since it can give you more info. However, as much as you want to protect your source, the other side wants to discredit it, so if it is in the power and interest of power being leaked to change its plans because of leaked information, it probably will. The previous information isn't "invalid", an analyst can work out with some degree of accuracy where the subs are based on where they were supposed to be, however, it's not as useful as actually knowing where the subs will be.
 
Rogue1stclass said:
You are equating interesting with useful.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Information about bra sizes of various celebrities could probably be used to make some money from online advertisements, so that makes it useful. Should add some pictures, though.

Basically, if someone is interested for whatever reason, then it can be exploited.
 
Other. As I said in another thread, the people that are actually stealing the information should be caught and prosecuted. They are the ones breaking the law.

And while Wikileaks is responsible for what they publish, I would put their role at about the same level as TMZ reporting on Paris Hilton or Karissa Shannons sex tape. The theft was the crime, the publishing is what publishers do.

Does anyone really think that mainstream news organizations would've acted any differently if they had been given the information?
 
Travis said:
Let's see smug douchebag that hates my country vs smarmy politicians that at least are also citizens of my country?????
Click to expand...
The "smug douchebag" has no responsibility to my country (the U.S.); the "smarmy politicians" that were elected to represent the citizens of the U.S. do. So who has committed the breach of trust? A non-citizen who has no obligation to the U.S. or an elected official (or appointed official who swore an oath) who does?

The more facts that come out about how the U.S. government operates, the scarier it gets. How can we know what to vote for (and against) and what to protest against if we are not told the truth about misdeeds? It is unlikely that those committing the misdeeds will tell us. We need whistle-blowers to keep us informed because we can no longer trust in the integrity of our own government.

I'm going to Godwin this thread. If we hide from the truth about what our government does in our name, how are we any different from those Germans who didn't know (didn't want to know) what Hitler was doing? If we don't know, how can we protest? How can we elect different people, write our Congressmen, speak out publicly against these actions?

I'm a pretty naive person, and tended to believe that most people in government kept the good of the country in mind and adhered to the basic principles of the Constitution (except Nixon and others of his kind and they must have been an aberration). I was shocked to find out that we tortured people, locked them up without their rights, and basically, didn't follow our own laws. I always thought we were the good guys. I certainly am not happier knowing these things, but I am a better American because I can try to move our country away from a direction I abhor.

There is too much secrecy in the government, and too much of it is for the wrong reasons. Hiding actions from citizens because you know they will not be approved is a wrong reason. Hiding breaches of the law is another, as is hiding hypocrisy. I think there should be narrow limits on what can be classified and that the criteria should be clearly stated and widely published. I no longer trust the government to make these decisions for the good of the country without regulation that limits them. (I realize that regulations come from the government, but they are discussed and can be monitored by citizens. That's the best we're going to get.)
 
A corrupt, scheming, manipulative, self-promoting, self-serving, arrogant attitude or .....Julian Assange? I'll take the devil I know as opposed to the devil I don't know. I'll take those I can have a say in voting out over someone I can't.
 
Last edited:
applecorped said:
Should there be any? If yes, how much? If no, why?
Click to expand...

I'll take a shot at that one. Only as much as is necessary for national security and only for as long as it is necessary for that purpose. Embarrassment is not a security breach. Neither is being seen in a negative light. Especially if the embarrassment and/or negative light are earned.

If bad behaviour can be declared secret and hidden from the public there is no incentive to improve behaviour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom