Let's go through the irrelevant ad homs one at a time:
1: Hacker who served his time. Didn't really cause damage.
2: Accused of rape. Kind of questionable story on the part of the accuser. I apply "innocent until proven guilty" to everyone.
3: Unelected + unappointed. Imagine if you had to be elected or appointed to reveal this stuff. Wouldn't be such a thing as a whistle blower.
Again, the mental lengths that people go to to justify Assange's history and ignore any possiblity of him just being a fucking arse is quite spectacular.
I will defend reason and clear thinking no matter the target.
"Being a fucking arse" does not delegitimize someone. You're being one. Should we consider your opinions suspect?
For Australia to extradite Assange, the UK or US would have to have a good reason to do so.
So far, neither country has met the burden of proof to do so, and Australia is under no obligation to do it even if they did.
Look I don't completely agree with him but you aren't addressing his argument.
I'm mobile so it would be a pain in the ass to quote the most relevant part of his post on the last page, but If you are a resident of any country that has extradition with the US, breaking the laws involved with dissemination and handling of classified information is actionable. He already said he doesn't think that the US will nab him right now, since it's too obvious and unpopular, but the guy has been living on the run for a while now, never staying in the same house for more than a couple days. It's pretty clear he fears some action being taken against him, hence the insurance file. Whistleblowing is one thing, and it is protected by law. Widespread mishandling of all private govermental communiques is something else entirely and we do have laws against it, and in Assange's case the government could take action legally.
Let's go through the irrelevant ad homs one at a time:
1: Hacker who served his time. Didn't really cause damage.
2: Accused of rape. Kind of questionable story on the part of the accuser. I apply "innocent until proven guilty" to everyone.
Try looking at it from the position not of whether Assange is a nice, trustworthy kind of guy in isolation, but the real world where you are taking his word over that of others. Personally, in that world, I think you are all fucking nuts, because he clearly has a past & present which would make most rational people pause when compared to, I don't know, the entire government sector of several countries and much of their media and relevant NGO sectors. People from his own organisation have publicised their doubts about him.
I begin to think that most of the people who unthinkingly support Assange here are simply reacting to headlines, without actually having bothered to read up on the subject. Even reading the past 2 threads on the matter would make your position several times more educated than it seems to be at the moment.
3: Unelected + unappointed. Imagine if you had to be elected or appointed to reveal this stuff. Wouldn't be such a thing as a whistle blower.
Er, almost every whistleblower has been in some kind of appointment (such as the alleged Wikileaks source intelligence analyst), several have been elected, and many more elected officials have enabled whistleblowers to bring their case to public. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't have access to anything to blow the whistle on, would they?
I'm seeing the mishandling argument being taken as a given too much. How have the releases been mishandled?
If any information doesn't qualify as whistleblowing and potentially harms innocents (yes, taking diplomacy hits with other nations for no benefit harms the public as well), it is mishandled. Prior wikileaks releases show that little regard is given to the handling of what is disseminated, and instead huge swaths are released worldwide.
For Australia to extradite Assange, the UK or US would have to have a good reason to do so.
So far, neither country has met the burden of proof to do so, and Australia is under no obligation to do it even if they did.
Look I don't completely agree with him but you aren't addressing his argument.
I'm mobile so it would be a pain in the ass to quote the most relevant part of his post on the last page, but If you are a resident of any country that has extradition with the US, breaking the laws involved with dissemination and handling of classified information is actionable. He already said he doesn't think that the US will nab him right now, since it's too obvious and unpopular, but the guy has been living on the run for a while now, never staying in the same house for more than a couple days. It's pretty clear he fears some action being taken against him, hence the insurance file. Whistleblowing is one thing, and it is protected by law. Widespread mishandling of all private govermental communiques is something else entirely and we do have laws against it, and in Assange's case the government could take action legally.
And I am against extradition, especially when we've signed treaties with Great Britain that allow us to easily extradite British citizens to the US for charges, but Great Britain cannot do it to US citizens that have broken their laws. That's an unequivalent extradition scenario, so I'm not going to support one-sided treaties.
I'm seeing the mishandling argument being taken as a given too much. How have the releases been mishandled?
If any information doesn't qualify as whistleblowing and potentially harms innocents (yes, taking diplomacy hits with other nations for no benefit harms the public as well), it is mishandled. Prior wikileaks releases show that little regard is given to the handling of what is disseminated, and instead huge swaths are released worldwide.
We don't know exactly what's in this one, and I still haven't seen an example from the previous two. I ask, but no one provides. I look, and I do not find.
I'm seeing the mishandling argument being taken as a given too much. How have the releases been mishandled?
1. No names or evidence of an experienced committee of document checkers, i.e. ones who understand enough of the military / diplomatic environment to judge the potential damage.
2. No evidence of a negative bias system of release, i.e. one which sets criteria for when documents should not be released based on the potential consequences, simply Assange's word that they consider consequences.
3. No evidence of widespread checking of documents, considering the number of leaked names etc that got through in the Afghan docs, and the number of documents being processed.
4. No accountability of either checkers, sources, or publishers.
...the list goes on. I put the various points that way because the actual assessment of damage done is by the government, and clearly people who support the leaks are unlikely to accept that, prefering to think that thousands of people are partaking in a group lie instead.
Essentially, everything has amounted to Wikileaks / Assange's word that 'if anyone knows how to do this, we know how to do this'. For an organisation which is apparently all about transparancy, they are extraordinarily reluctant to release any information about how they work.
Yes, because they would reveal how they protect their sources if they did so.
The only thing I have against Wikileaks right now is that the rest of the site disappeared when they posted all the Afghan and Iraq logs, which is inhibiting access to documents on Chinese and other country's activities.
And I am against extradition, especially when we've signed treaties with Great Britain that allow us to easily extradite British citizens to the US for charges, but Great Britain cannot do it to US citizens that have broken their laws. That's an unequivalent extradition scenario, so I'm not going to support one-sided treaties.
What you describe is being against one-sided extradition, not being against extradition.
Are you, for example, against being able to prosecute a murderer or rapist who flees the country several hours after committing a crime?
Yes, because they would reveal how they protect their sources if they did so.
The only thing I have against Wikileaks right now is that the rest of the site disappeared when they posted all the Afghan and Iraq logs, which is inhibiting access to documents on Chinese and other country's activities.
Fail. Government and military intelligence regularly publish some elements of their processes - for example, who sits on various intelligence committees, and the criteria they use - while keeping others such as source protection and the actual material confidential.
In this case, Wikileaks could do exactly the same and publish how they review material recieved prior to publishing, and who does it. None of this would endanger their sources. They don't even need to keep the material confidential, because they intend to release it anyway.
Instead, the organisastion which is all about transparancy refuses to publish any internal details about why we should have confidence in their analysis of material and statements. One suspects, as various people on this thread have realised, that this is largely because we shouldn't.
Still waiting for your / Loklar / [whoever is in favour of sharing all government information] plan to deal with the real-world consequences of achieving perfectly open information. Can't wait, it promises to be the intellectual piece of the decade!
Yes, because they would reveal how they protect their sources if they did so.
The only thing I have against Wikileaks right now is that the rest of the site disappeared when they posted all the Afghan and Iraq logs, which is inhibiting access to documents on Chinese and other country's activities.
Fail. Government and military intelligence regularly publish some elements of their processes - for example, who sits on various intelligence committees, and the criteria they use - while keeping others such as source protection and the actual material confidential.
In this case, Wikileaks could do exactly the same and publish how they review material recieved prior to publishing, and who does it. None of this would endanger their sources. They don't even need to keep the material confidential, because they intend to release it anyway.
Instead, the organisastion which is all about transparancy refuses to publish any internal details about why we should have confidence in their analysis of material and statements. One suspects, as various people on this thread have realised, that this is largely because we shouldn't.
The difference here is military vetters have a MILITARY that they can hide behind and feel no threat or pressure because they have tons of people to deflect and defend them. Wikileaks vetters do not have these same protections and circumstances, and some of them cannot be revealed due to living in countries where they would be immediately jailed upon being outed, such as China.
The difference here is military vetters have a MILITARY that they can hide behind and feel no threat or pressure because they have tons of people to deflect and defend them. Wikileaks vetters do not have these same protections and circumstances, and some of them cannot be revealed due to living in countries where they would be immediately jailed upon being outed, such as China.
Cool, so the ones who don't live in China...and the processes they use? Unless you are worried about the admittedly large problem processes being unfairly jailed?
Altalicious on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited November 2010
Do we know anything yet? Or are we still chewing on the messenger?
The only point to revealing Wikileaks internal works is to make it easier to destroy Wikileaks. How about you start your own freedom org, and you can post the entire administrative chain and processes openly on the internet, and see how willing people are to hand you information.
Undocumented also means unbribable, unpressurable, and untrackable. The solution here is to get a mole into Wikileaks and leak their entire structure if you want them gone so you can stop feeling uncomfortable.
The solution here is to get a mole into Wikileaks and leak their entire structure if you want them gone so you can stop feeling uncomfortable.
I want them gone so I and people I know can do our job defending the country against some pretty fucking nasty people with a marginally smaller chance of getting shot or maimed, ta.
I apologise if this gets in the way of your desire to have masses of government documents published which you are never going to read.
Oh, and undocumented also means unaccountable. So, precisely what you would object to if the government were doing it. Well done.
Pretty much every person - certainly from the government, but also other areas which deal with leaks / information, such as the mainstream media or NGOs - who has commented, publically or privately, officially or unofficially, on what Assange is doing has condemned his actions.
Shocking. The establishment doesn't like someone rocking the boat and standing up to them.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Also: when you say people should know what the government do on their behalf...I assume you read all of the publically released information from the government, right? You read every notary record of every minor legal judgement, every decimal point of every tax calculation, every comma and full-stop of the latest hundreds of pages on health & safety regulation, correct? You're keeping up your responsibility here, your part of the bargain as a citizen?
*snip*
I have read every single word ever written or chiseled in the history of the English language, including Modern, Post-Modern, Post-Post-Modern, Middle, Old, and even Ye Olde English. So, yes, I have read everything released by the Government except for a limerick George Washington wrote in Gaelic that has never been translated.
The one thing I learned from that exhausting exercise is that it is humanly impossible to read everything ever written and that I don't have a god damn clue what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that someone has to read everything relevant to a topic to make any kind of judgment about anything? Sure, sampling can be slanted in order to manipulate, but just as no single government official has ever read all 400 zillion pages being leaked, you can't expect any non-government official to either. That doesn't mean that we throw away information gleaned from the things we do read. Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it sounds like you are suggesting that the full context of any information about the government is ALL information about the government, and that if you aren't aware of every single bit of it, then you have no right to judge any of it. Is that what you are saying? I hope not, because that is ridiculous.
I'll just repost this from the chat thread, because apparently Echo's belief in open information doesn't extend to directly addressing people who might disagree with him:
Seems Altalicious decided I'm an official Wikileaks spokesman or something.
Wait
You aren't the representative of all subversive Scandanavians?
News to me.
Clearly I am honorbound to come up with a theoretical plan to deal with the theoretical chaos the WL release will theoretically cause, because I approve of WikiLeaks' continued existence. Because I am totally in a position of power and can put that theory into action.
Alternatively, certain beliefs or positions have consequences, the support of which allows those consequences to occur. Reasonable people can therefore question whether supporters of said belief or position have thought of the consequences of what they are supporting. If they have not, reasonable people can justifiably pillory said believers or demand that they take some responsibility for what they are supporting. This becomes infinitely more important when you are supporting an organisation taking action based on said belief or position, and that organisation primarily survives off public support. It may be comfy for you to disown all responsibility, but the unfortunte fact is that people like you are keeping Wikileaks alive.
I'm sure Mr Godwin, among others, can give many analogies which demonstrate why mindless support of an idea with little thought of the consequences can be a bad thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can look through 90% of the threads in this forum and find a similar argument on many different topics which - because the subject matter is different - you would agree with.
In short:
If you will support fucking idiot ideas, yes, you are honourbound to have some concept of what you are enabling, otherwise you fail to achieve even the slim criteria for being a fucking idiot.
I'll just repost this from the chat thread, because apparently Echo's belief in open information doesn't extend to directly addressing people who might disagree with him:
Seems Altalicious decided I'm an official Wikileaks spokesman or something.
Wait
You aren't the representative of all subversive Scandanavians?
News to me.
Clearly I am honorbound to come up with a theoretical plan to deal with the theoretical chaos the WL release will theoretically cause, because I approve of WikiLeaks' continued existence. Because I am totally in a position of power and can put that theory into action.
Alternatively, certain beliefs or positions have consequences, the support of which allows those consequences to occur. Reasonable people can therefore question whether supporters of said belief or position have thought of the consequences of what they are supporting. If they have not, reasonable people can justifiably pillory said believers or demand that they take some responsibility for what they are supporting. This becomes infinitely more important when you are supporting an organisation taking action based on said belief or position, and that organisation primarily survives off public support. It may be comfy for you to disown all responsibility, but the unfortunte fact is that people like you are keeping Wikileaks alive.
I'm sure Mr Godwin, among others, can give many analogies which demonstrate why mindless support of an idea with little thought of the consequences can be a bad thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can look through 90% of the threads in this forum and find a similar argument on many different topics which - because the subject matter is different - you would agree with.
In short:
If you will support fucking idiot ideas, yes, you are honourbound to have some concept of what you are enabling, otherwise you fail to achieve even the slim criteria for being a fucking idiot.
I think your concept of "enabling" is pretty idiotic.
Pretty much every person - certainly from the government, but also other areas which deal with leaks / information, such as the mainstream media or NGOs - who has commented, publically or privately, officially or unofficially, on what Assange is doing has condemned his actions.
Shocking. The establishment doesn't like someone rocking the boat and standing up to them.
Shocking. You entirely managed to miss my point, which was that "the establishment" is a collection of individuals, and in this case, includes a significant proportion of "non-establishment" voices from the media and NGO world. "The establishment" is a tired assertion of mass-groupthink which allows people who disagree with the government to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them without any actual engagement or discussion of the issue. Much as some people on this thread are doing, in fact.
Apparently you find it easier to believe that one person is right and hundreds of thousands of others are in some sort of government mind-meld which means they are all toeing "the establishment" line. It seems to have escaped you that there is a more likely option in that situation.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
Also: when you say people should know what the government do on their behalf...I assume you read all of the publically released information from the government, right? You read every notary record of every minor legal judgement, every decimal point of every tax calculation, every comma and full-stop of the latest hundreds of pages on health & safety regulation, correct? You're keeping up your responsibility here, your part of the bargain as a citizen?
*snip*
I have read every single word ever written or chiseled in the history of the English language, including Modern, Post-Modern, Post-Post-Modern, Middle, Old, and even Ye Olde English. So, yes, I have read everything released by the Government except for a limerick George Washington wrote in Gaelic that has never been translated.
The one thing I learned from that exhausting exercise is that it is humanly impossible to read everything ever written and that I don't have a god damn clue what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that someone has to read everything relevant to a topic to make any kind of judgment about anything? Sure, sampling can be slanted in order to manipulate, but just as no single government official has ever read all 400 zillion pages being leaked, you can't expect any non-government official to either. That doesn't mean that we throw away information gleaned from the things we do read. Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it sounds like you are suggesting that the full context of any information about the government is ALL information about the government, and that if you aren't aware of every single bit of it, then you have no right to judge any of it. Is that what you are saying? I hope not, because that is ridiculous.
Er, no.
The statement that it's important to release this stuff assumes that someone will do something about it, correct? Unless it is the actual release which is important, in some kind of cathartic State bowel movement. I'm not entirely sure, it's not my argument, but I'll assume the latter isn't the reason.
Given that the only other people who want to use this information is people who want to gain advantage / damage the government or country, I can only assume that there is some legitimate body who desperately require access. So far, the answer that I've had from Loktar, Echo and the others, is that it's the citizen who requires access to this information. Fair enough. So therefore the citizen is going to read it, correct? Well, most people don't give a fuck, so clearly they aren't going to trawl through all of it. Actually, most of the media have thrown up their hands and admitted that the previous releases are too big for them to look through seriously, and have given up after a week or so as well.
So it's the citizens who are demanding it who are going to read through it all, right? I mean, they're the ones who say it's important, yes? So it's Echo, Loktar, and all the people who support Wikileaks who are going to read this stuff. But, wait a second, you seem to be saying that isn't the case? That there is too much information? To be honest, I see your point, and I haven't seen anyone here actually take responsibility for reading any of this stuff, they just seem to go off the media headlines, most of which say: we generally knew this shit already. So...who exactly is it massively important that we release this for? Because I can assure you that the one group of people who will read this stuff in it's entirety are the ones who stand to gain from using it against us. Seems like a pretty high price to pay for releasing stuff that no legitimate party actually wants to read.
I'm saying it's ridiculous to demand that it's vitally important that the government release a massive amount of information that - as you quite rightly point out - nobody who 'needs' it is ever going to read.
Also: when you say people should know what the government do on their behalf...I assume you read all of the publically released information from the government, right? You read every notary record of every minor legal judgement, every decimal point of every tax calculation, every comma and full-stop of the latest hundreds of pages on health & safety regulation, correct? You're keeping up your responsibility here, your part of the bargain as a citizen?
*snip*
I have read every single word ever written or chiseled in the history of the English language, including Modern, Post-Modern, Post-Post-Modern, Middle, Old, and even Ye Olde English. So, yes, I have read everything released by the Government except for a limerick George Washington wrote in Gaelic that has never been translated.
The one thing I learned from that exhausting exercise is that it is humanly impossible to read everything ever written and that I don't have a god damn clue what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that someone has to read everything relevant to a topic to make any kind of judgment about anything? Sure, sampling can be slanted in order to manipulate, but just as no single government official has ever read all 400 zillion pages being leaked, you can't expect any non-government official to either. That doesn't mean that we throw away information gleaned from the things we do read. Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it sounds like you are suggesting that the full context of any information about the government is ALL information about the government, and that if you aren't aware of every single bit of it, then you have no right to judge any of it. Is that what you are saying? I hope not, because that is ridiculous.
Er, no.
The statement that it's important to release this stuff assumes that someone will do something about it, correct? Unless it is the actual release which is important, in some kind of cathartic State bowel movement. I'm not entirely sure, it's not my argument, but I'll assume the latter isn't the reason.
Given that the only other people who want to use this information is people who want to gain advantage / damage the government or country, I can only assume that there is some legitimate body who desperately require access. So far, the answer that I've had from Loktar, Echo and the others, is that it's the citizen who requires access to this information. Fair enough. So therefore the citizen is going to read it, correct? Well, most people don't give a fuck, so clearly they aren't going to trawl through all of it. Actually, most of the media have thrown up their hands and admitted that the previous releases are too big for them to look through seriously, and have given up after a week or so as well.
So it's the citizens who are demanding it who are going to read through it all, right? I mean, they're the ones who say it's important, yes? So it's Echo, Loktar, and all the people who support Wikileaks who are going to read this stuff. But, wait a second, you seem to be saying that isn't the case? That there is too much information? To be honest, I see your point, and I haven't seen anyone here actually take responsibility for reading any of this stuff, they just seem to go off the media headlines, most of which say: we generally knew this shit already. So...who exactly is it massively important that we release this for? Because I can assure you that the one group of people who will read this stuff in it's entirety are the ones who stand to gain from using it against us. Seems like a pretty high price to pay for releasing stuff that no legitimate party actually wants to read.
I'm saying it's ridiculous to demand that it's vitally important that the government release a massive amount of information that - as you quite rightly point out - nobody who 'needs' it is ever going to read.
Okay, I understand what you are suggesting, but for my money: I personally think the fear of information exposure to the public is enough to stop the government from doing various things they might otherwise do. Losing the trust of the public is a pretty bad thing with measurable effects.
So, no, I don't think it is important for me, personally, to ever read a single leaked paragraph as long as enough other people are to send the message that what the government does is potentially visible to public scrutiny.
The mere existence of Wikileaks has a potential chilling effect. And while it can certainly cut both ways, my opinion is that the effect is more in the public good than bad.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
Cool, another blanket assertion used by people who aren't willing to engage with the actual issue.
Please provide an argument for whether the majority is or is not right in this case, and why. You know, like in a debate or a discussion.
You were the one implying a majority does not support Assange or Wikileaks and that such support is somehow relevant to this discussion. How about you start off by proving the first and explaining your logic for the second and then we can have a debate on the legitimacy of said claims.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
That isn't what "information wants to be free" means.
Given that the capability exists, information that is intended to be kept secret is only going to remain so as long as everyone with access to it considers that this should be the case. As such, organisations in the public eye are probaby going to have to come to terms with the idea that if they are doing something that is, or is widely considered to be, questionable, then information is going to leak.
If that check had existed prior to the commencement of operations in Afghanistan, it's worth considering if they would have commenced at all. Certainly it's going to be a consideration the next time military action is contemplated.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
Well, I don't necessarily agree that any and all information should be free. But your "question" is ridiculous. If there was a culture of total transparency, then why would it matter if you had any of that information? In a world of full transparency, you would be unable to defraud me or do anything negative to me with that information anyway.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
Well, I don't necessarily agree that any and all information should be free. But your "question" is ridiculous. If there was a culture of total transparency, then why would it matter if you had any of that information? In a world of full transparency, you would be unable to defraud me or do anything negative to me with that information anyway.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
Also, you could do a ton of negative shit to you. Stalking, for one.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
If, hypothetically, society was organised in such a way that all records were public, people wouldn't base security on keeping certain information secret. Some other method of authentication would be used for, for example, accessing bank accounts.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
If, hypothetically, society was organised in such a way that all records were public, people wouldn't base security on keeping certain information secret. Some other method of authentication would be used for, for example, accessing bank accounts.
It doesn't really matter whether Wikileaks commands public support or not. The entire point of the exercise is to demonstrate that pretty much anything can be leaked by anyone, without necessarily exposing themselves.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
Well, I don't necessarily agree that any and all information should be free. But your "question" is ridiculous. If there was a culture of total transparency, then why would it matter if you had any of that information? In a world of full transparency, you would be unable to defraud me or do anything negative to me with that information anyway.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
Also, you could do a ton of negative shit to you. Stalking, for one.
Well, in a full information-free world - which would be a total alien culture to the one we live in - Altalicious wouldn't have the privacy to stalk or defraud me, actions that require stealth and sneakiness and staying away from the millions of public webcams that we would all have access to, which would be impossible.
The entire world would be like Cheers, where everybody knows your name.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
If, hypothetically, society was organised in such a way that all records were public, people wouldn't base security on keeping certain information secret. Some other method of authentication would be used for, for example, accessing bank accounts.
What "other method" would this be then?
Verification is based on one of: something you know, something you have, or something you are.
Completely open information eliminates the first one, and some implementations of the second.
Or for a serious answer, what japan said is right.
The ultimate point I am trying to make, though, is that the question he posed is stupid and irrelevant in this discussion. No, I don't want anyone in this culture to have my pin number. But yes, in this culture, I do want more government transparency. He seems to imply that this is a contradiction or something, but it isn't. "Information wants to be free" is nothing but a soundbyte, so if you want to argue against soundbytes, go for it. The rest of us will be over here discussing the actual topic.
Posts
So far, neither country has met the burden of proof to do so, and Australia is under no obligation to do it even if they did.
1: Hacker who served his time. Didn't really cause damage.
2: Accused of rape. Kind of questionable story on the part of the accuser. I apply "innocent until proven guilty" to everyone.
3: Unelected + unappointed. Imagine if you had to be elected or appointed to reveal this stuff. Wouldn't be such a thing as a whistle blower.
I will defend reason and clear thinking no matter the target.
"Being a fucking arse" does not delegitimize someone. You're being one. Should we consider your opinions suspect?
Look I don't completely agree with him but you aren't addressing his argument.
I'm mobile so it would be a pain in the ass to quote the most relevant part of his post on the last page, but If you are a resident of any country that has extradition with the US, breaking the laws involved with dissemination and handling of classified information is actionable. He already said he doesn't think that the US will nab him right now, since it's too obvious and unpopular, but the guy has been living on the run for a while now, never staying in the same house for more than a couple days. It's pretty clear he fears some action being taken against him, hence the insurance file. Whistleblowing is one thing, and it is protected by law. Widespread mishandling of all private govermental communiques is something else entirely and we do have laws against it, and in Assange's case the government could take action legally.
Try looking at it from the position not of whether Assange is a nice, trustworthy kind of guy in isolation, but the real world where you are taking his word over that of others. Personally, in that world, I think you are all fucking nuts, because he clearly has a past & present which would make most rational people pause when compared to, I don't know, the entire government sector of several countries and much of their media and relevant NGO sectors. People from his own organisation have publicised their doubts about him.
I begin to think that most of the people who unthinkingly support Assange here are simply reacting to headlines, without actually having bothered to read up on the subject. Even reading the past 2 threads on the matter would make your position several times more educated than it seems to be at the moment.
Er, almost every whistleblower has been in some kind of appointment (such as the alleged Wikileaks source intelligence analyst), several have been elected, and many more elected officials have enabled whistleblowers to bring their case to public. If it were otherwise, they wouldn't have access to anything to blow the whistle on, would they?
If any information doesn't qualify as whistleblowing and potentially harms innocents (yes, taking diplomacy hits with other nations for no benefit harms the public as well), it is mishandled. Prior wikileaks releases show that little regard is given to the handling of what is disseminated, and instead huge swaths are released worldwide.
And I am against extradition, especially when we've signed treaties with Great Britain that allow us to easily extradite British citizens to the US for charges, but Great Britain cannot do it to US citizens that have broken their laws. That's an unequivalent extradition scenario, so I'm not going to support one-sided treaties.
We don't know exactly what's in this one, and I still haven't seen an example from the previous two. I ask, but no one provides. I look, and I do not find.
1. No names or evidence of an experienced committee of document checkers, i.e. ones who understand enough of the military / diplomatic environment to judge the potential damage.
2. No evidence of a negative bias system of release, i.e. one which sets criteria for when documents should not be released based on the potential consequences, simply Assange's word that they consider consequences.
3. No evidence of widespread checking of documents, considering the number of leaked names etc that got through in the Afghan docs, and the number of documents being processed.
4. No accountability of either checkers, sources, or publishers.
...the list goes on. I put the various points that way because the actual assessment of damage done is by the government, and clearly people who support the leaks are unlikely to accept that, prefering to think that thousands of people are partaking in a group lie instead.
Essentially, everything has amounted to Wikileaks / Assange's word that 'if anyone knows how to do this, we know how to do this'. For an organisation which is apparently all about transparancy, they are extraordinarily reluctant to release any information about how they work.
The only thing I have against Wikileaks right now is that the rest of the site disappeared when they posted all the Afghan and Iraq logs, which is inhibiting access to documents on Chinese and other country's activities.
What you describe is being against one-sided extradition, not being against extradition.
Are you, for example, against being able to prosecute a murderer or rapist who flees the country several hours after committing a crime?
Fail. Government and military intelligence regularly publish some elements of their processes - for example, who sits on various intelligence committees, and the criteria they use - while keeping others such as source protection and the actual material confidential.
In this case, Wikileaks could do exactly the same and publish how they review material recieved prior to publishing, and who does it. None of this would endanger their sources. They don't even need to keep the material confidential, because they intend to release it anyway.
Instead, the organisastion which is all about transparancy refuses to publish any internal details about why we should have confidence in their analysis of material and statements. One suspects, as various people on this thread have realised, that this is largely because we shouldn't.
Still waiting for your / Loklar / [whoever is in favour of sharing all government information] plan to deal with the real-world consequences of achieving perfectly open information. Can't wait, it promises to be the intellectual piece of the decade!
The difference here is military vetters have a MILITARY that they can hide behind and feel no threat or pressure because they have tons of people to deflect and defend them. Wikileaks vetters do not have these same protections and circumstances, and some of them cannot be revealed due to living in countries where they would be immediately jailed upon being outed, such as China.
Cool, so the ones who don't live in China...and the processes they use? Unless you are worried about the admittedly large problem processes being unfairly jailed?
Undocumented also means unbribable, unpressurable, and untrackable. The solution here is to get a mole into Wikileaks and leak their entire structure if you want them gone so you can stop feeling uncomfortable.
Apparently it might be related to US/Turkey relations in some respect, but I think we're still waiting on the full release.
I want them gone so I and people I know can do our job defending the country against some pretty fucking nasty people with a marginally smaller chance of getting shot or maimed, ta.
I apologise if this gets in the way of your desire to have masses of government documents published which you are never going to read.
Oh, and undocumented also means unaccountable. So, precisely what you would object to if the government were doing it. Well done.
Shocking. The establishment doesn't like someone rocking the boat and standing up to them.
I have read every single word ever written or chiseled in the history of the English language, including Modern, Post-Modern, Post-Post-Modern, Middle, Old, and even Ye Olde English. So, yes, I have read everything released by the Government except for a limerick George Washington wrote in Gaelic that has never been translated.
The one thing I learned from that exhausting exercise is that it is humanly impossible to read everything ever written and that I don't have a god damn clue what point you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that someone has to read everything relevant to a topic to make any kind of judgment about anything? Sure, sampling can be slanted in order to manipulate, but just as no single government official has ever read all 400 zillion pages being leaked, you can't expect any non-government official to either. That doesn't mean that we throw away information gleaned from the things we do read. Unless I'm misunderstanding you here, it sounds like you are suggesting that the full context of any information about the government is ALL information about the government, and that if you aren't aware of every single bit of it, then you have no right to judge any of it. Is that what you are saying? I hope not, because that is ridiculous.
Alternatively, certain beliefs or positions have consequences, the support of which allows those consequences to occur. Reasonable people can therefore question whether supporters of said belief or position have thought of the consequences of what they are supporting. If they have not, reasonable people can justifiably pillory said believers or demand that they take some responsibility for what they are supporting. This becomes infinitely more important when you are supporting an organisation taking action based on said belief or position, and that organisation primarily survives off public support. It may be comfy for you to disown all responsibility, but the unfortunte fact is that people like you are keeping Wikileaks alive.
I'm sure Mr Godwin, among others, can give many analogies which demonstrate why mindless support of an idea with little thought of the consequences can be a bad thing. In fact, I'm pretty sure I can look through 90% of the threads in this forum and find a similar argument on many different topics which - because the subject matter is different - you would agree with.
In short:
If you will support fucking idiot ideas, yes, you are honourbound to have some concept of what you are enabling, otherwise you fail to achieve even the slim criteria for being a fucking idiot.
I think your concept of "enabling" is pretty idiotic.
Shocking. You entirely managed to miss my point, which was that "the establishment" is a collection of individuals, and in this case, includes a significant proportion of "non-establishment" voices from the media and NGO world. "The establishment" is a tired assertion of mass-groupthink which allows people who disagree with the government to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with them without any actual engagement or discussion of the issue. Much as some people on this thread are doing, in fact.
Apparently you find it easier to believe that one person is right and hundreds of thousands of others are in some sort of government mind-meld which means they are all toeing "the establishment" line. It seems to have escaped you that there is a more likely option in that situation.
It's going to continue happening, Wikileaks, Assange, or no.
Er, no.
The statement that it's important to release this stuff assumes that someone will do something about it, correct? Unless it is the actual release which is important, in some kind of cathartic State bowel movement. I'm not entirely sure, it's not my argument, but I'll assume the latter isn't the reason.
Given that the only other people who want to use this information is people who want to gain advantage / damage the government or country, I can only assume that there is some legitimate body who desperately require access. So far, the answer that I've had from Loktar, Echo and the others, is that it's the citizen who requires access to this information. Fair enough. So therefore the citizen is going to read it, correct? Well, most people don't give a fuck, so clearly they aren't going to trawl through all of it. Actually, most of the media have thrown up their hands and admitted that the previous releases are too big for them to look through seriously, and have given up after a week or so as well.
So it's the citizens who are demanding it who are going to read through it all, right? I mean, they're the ones who say it's important, yes? So it's Echo, Loktar, and all the people who support Wikileaks who are going to read this stuff. But, wait a second, you seem to be saying that isn't the case? That there is too much information? To be honest, I see your point, and I haven't seen anyone here actually take responsibility for reading any of this stuff, they just seem to go off the media headlines, most of which say: we generally knew this shit already. So...who exactly is it massively important that we release this for? Because I can assure you that the one group of people who will read this stuff in it's entirety are the ones who stand to gain from using it against us. Seems like a pretty high price to pay for releasing stuff that no legitimate party actually wants to read.
I'm saying it's ridiculous to demand that it's vitally important that the government release a massive amount of information that - as you quite rightly point out - nobody who 'needs' it is ever going to read.
Cool, another blanket assertion used by people who aren't willing to engage with the actual issue.
Please provide an argument for whether the majority is or is not right in this case, and why. You know, like in a debate or a discussion.
Okay, I understand what you are suggesting, but for my money: I personally think the fear of information exposure to the public is enough to stop the government from doing various things they might otherwise do. Losing the trust of the public is a pretty bad thing with measurable effects.
So, no, I don't think it is important for me, personally, to ever read a single leaked paragraph as long as enough other people are to send the message that what the government does is potentially visible to public scrutiny.
The mere existence of Wikileaks has a potential chilling effect. And while it can certainly cut both ways, my opinion is that the effect is more in the public good than bad.
I agree with your second sentence entirely, and yes Wikileaks is just a conduit for an idea. That's why it is important to discuss the flaws & consequences of the basic idea that "information should be free", because the only thing that will stop people doing it is an understanding of how fucking stupid that is. Which is the only reason I bother spending my time typing this.
Only if that argument fails, will it inevitably continue to happen.
PS The basic flaw of "information should be free" can be succinctly demonstrated with the following question:
Can I have your name, address, date of birth, family details, bank account and PIN number please?
You were the one implying a majority does not support Assange or Wikileaks and that such support is somehow relevant to this discussion. How about you start off by proving the first and explaining your logic for the second and then we can have a debate on the legitimacy of said claims.
That isn't what "information wants to be free" means.
Given that the capability exists, information that is intended to be kept secret is only going to remain so as long as everyone with access to it considers that this should be the case. As such, organisations in the public eye are probaby going to have to come to terms with the idea that if they are doing something that is, or is widely considered to be, questionable, then information is going to leak.
If that check had existed prior to the commencement of operations in Afghanistan, it's worth considering if they would have commenced at all. Certainly it's going to be a consideration the next time military action is contemplated.
Well, I don't necessarily agree that any and all information should be free. But your "question" is ridiculous. If there was a culture of total transparency, then why would it matter if you had any of that information? In a world of full transparency, you would be unable to defraud me or do anything negative to me with that information anyway.
How would full transparency stop him from defrauding you?
Also, you could do a ton of negative shit to you. Stalking, for one.
If, hypothetically, society was organised in such a way that all records were public, people wouldn't base security on keeping certain information secret. Some other method of authentication would be used for, for example, accessing bank accounts.
What "other method" would this be then?
Well, in a full information-free world - which would be a total alien culture to the one we live in - Altalicious wouldn't have the privacy to stalk or defraud me, actions that require stealth and sneakiness and staying away from the millions of public webcams that we would all have access to, which would be impossible.
The entire world would be like Cheers, where everybody knows your name.
Verification is based on one of: something you know, something you have, or something you are.
Completely open information eliminates the first one, and some implementations of the second.
The ultimate point I am trying to make, though, is that the question he posed is stupid and irrelevant in this discussion. No, I don't want anyone in this culture to have my pin number. But yes, in this culture, I do want more government transparency. He seems to imply that this is a contradiction or something, but it isn't. "Information wants to be free" is nothing but a soundbyte, so if you want to argue against soundbytes, go for it. The rest of us will be over here discussing the actual topic.