You're right about Wikileaks being irresponsible in the past, the part of the 1st Amendment is your legally protected right to be an asshole. Assange is an asshole for sure, but part of what makes our country great is our enshrined right to be assholes. Should he have released some of these things? No, but he's got a right to release it as much as we have a right to read it. Curtailing things like the diplomatic wires because they're the wrong kind of information isn't something I'm comfortable with, because if those in power got to choose what was right or wrong, we wouldn't be reading anything. I would rather have too much information than not enough.
That's what my opinion basically comes down to.
Also, only releasing information "relevant to the public interest" strikes me as a pointlessly vague term. "Potentially damaging" also strikes me as needlessly vague. Obviously the Pentagon Papers were potentially damaging, but I think at this point in history the consensus agrees that its release was a good thing, even though it was obviously a mixed bag.
I guess I should also clear up one thing: I don't think that the US is anywhere near as bad as Russia or China or any other autocratic government regarding journalism or free speech. All I'm getting at is that it's interesting that the West complains about Russia's attempts to curb democracy/human rights/yadda yadda yadda and then, when something unpleasant happens to the West, they get up in arms and start looking for ways to stifle the same things they're criticizing Russia for. They aren't planning to try Assange for espionage (at least publically), but that doesn't mean that this whole thing isn't interesting. It isn't a Doomsday scenario, and I guess what I said before might be read about that, but it's something to consider.
Saying "We're not as bad," really doesn't hold muster in my opinion. Our transportation system isn't as bad as Russia's, but that doesn't mean it's good. And if I started reading about how 5% of American driver's licenses are obtained through bribery (as opposed to 50% in Moscow), I'd begin to worry. This entire thing is worrying and I don't see a significant reason not to be.
Also, I just realized there's an entirely superfluous comma in my original comment. What's that thing doing there? What was I thinking?
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
And we're all fuckers.
That's a good point.
Especially about the fucker bit.
Basically, I'm erring on the side of releasing too much than nothing at all. I think that pretty strongly in this case since the vast majority of the "juiciest" cables are all things I think we've already known.
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
And we're all fuckers.
That's a good point.
Especially about the fucker bit.
Basically, I'm erring on the side of releasing too much than nothing at all. I think that pretty strongly in this case since the vast majority of the "juiciest" cables are all things I think we've already known.
I understand that, and I wish that the forums hadn't eaten my post from last week comparing world diplomacy to a group of bitcy middle school girls. But basically, the fact that we've "known" a good deal of the information is in my opinion largely irrelevant.
Imagine if you had a friend who everyone knew to be untrustworthy, but still was part of the group. If someone finds your journal saying exactly that and then shows everyone, it's now a matter of public record. The friend is angry, because even though they knew that people knew, now it is out in the open. And your other friends now think that you aren't very trustworthy, even though they were also agreeing with you.
Even though people "knew" that saudi arabia sucked and was doing bad things, we still had to work with them. Now that information is public and public in a way where we definitively said it, it has damaged our ability to do that.
It's theoretically harder for us to throw money at them to get them to solve their issues.
Or attack/abduct citizens who are residing there.
I'm okay with that, even under the threat of terrorism.
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
And you have people that are questioning the validity of having an organization such as Wikileaks around, it's fucking laughable. You want to keep living in a country full of misinformed retards, that's your call.
I think you've crossed the line when it comes to being sloth like turds writhing in their own apathy and self interest.
"Naw maybe we shouldn't cuz I have to inhale more cheeze in a can and watch Jersey Shore".
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
And you have people that are questioning the validity of having an organization such as Wikileaks around, it's fucking laughable. You want to keep living in a country full of misinformed retards, that's your call.
I think you've crossed the line when it comes to being sloth like turds writhing in their own apathy and self interest.
"Naw maybe we shouldn't cuz I have to inhale more cheeze in a can and watch Jersey Shore".
You really need to chill dude,
you are making a silly goose of yourself
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited December 2010
I wish Woodward and Bernstein were still working in the mainstream media, they would probably be working for/with wikileaks instead of writing books.
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
I wish Woodward and Bernstein were still working in the mainstream media, they would probably be working for/with wikileaks instead of writing books.
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
the difference being they have an understanding of journalistic ethics and probably wouldn't publish most of this junk
the world absolutely needs wikileaks
but wikileaks desperately needs to learn what journalism is about
"Another army chief had apparently been described as "an egotist, self-obsessed, petulant and idiosyncratic general, a braggadocio and a show-off, who has been disliked (and barely tolerated) by all his subordinates"."
Virgil_Leads_You on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
gonna get a day job
tactical
murderista
Weaver on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
I wish Woodward and Bernstein were still working in the mainstream media, they would probably be working for/with wikileaks instead of writing books.
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
the difference being they have an understanding of journalistic ethics and probably wouldn't publish most of this junk
the world absolutely needs wikileaks
but wikileaks desperately needs to learn what journalism is about
Give them time, they are only 6 years or so old.
I would say that most major media companies right now need to re-learn what journalism is about. Because it is not about pundits spending 75% of their time bitching about other pundits opinions and name calling. Its about research and stories that actually matter.
I wish Woodward and Bernstein were still working in the mainstream media, they would probably be working for/with wikileaks instead of writing books.
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
the difference being they have an understanding of journalistic ethics and probably wouldn't publish most of this junk
the world absolutely needs wikileaks
but wikileaks desperately needs to learn what journalism is about
Give them time, they are only 6 years or so old.
I would say that most major media companies right now need to re-learn what journalism is about. Because it is not about pundits spending 75% of their time bitching about other pundits opinions and name calling. Its about research and stories that actually matter.
I briefly read a blurb or two about some offshoot of WikiLeaks being created by Assman's former right-hand man called OpenLeaks. Apparently their plan to avoid the whole 'condemnation by every major goverment' is to work with media outlets make their information available to them so they can vet the data and redact the especially sensitive info.
Abracadaniel on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
I'm not getting on webcam right now. I just chugged a cup of black coffee and I'm gonna take a shower.
Weaver on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
i just drank some hot coco and a shower sounds pretty good but it's so goddamn cold in my basement that i reaaaally don't wanna be wet.
I wish Woodward and Bernstein were still working in the mainstream media, they would probably be working for/with wikileaks instead of writing books.
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
the difference being they have an understanding of journalistic ethics and probably wouldn't publish most of this junk
the world absolutely needs wikileaks
but wikileaks desperately needs to learn what journalism is about
Give them time, they are only 6 years or so old.
I would say that most major media companies right now need to re-learn what journalism is about. Because it is not about pundits spending 75% of their time bitching about other pundits opinions and name calling. Its about research and stories that actually matter.
I briefly read a blurb or two about some offshoot of WikiLeaks being created by Assman's former right-hand man called OpenLeaks. Apparently their plan to avoid the whole 'condemnation by every major goverment' is to work with media outlets make their information available to them so they can vet the data and redact the especially sensitive info.
I can live with that.
Though, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the same people in power bitching about Wikileaks are going to bitch about that organization, as well.
Wikileaks mentions that it's planning to release a metric fuckton of documents, then surprisingly Assange is arrested, held in custody, Wikileaks is getting hit with DDoS attacks, their DNS provider pulled the plug, Mastercard/paypal as well as other financial backers pull out and his assets are frozen.
I find the whole thing rather fascinating.
See? Meiz gets it. Meiz gets intrigue.
I don't know, I'd suggest that if Meiz agrees with you it might be time to reconsider your position. 8-)
It's pretty unprecedented that financial institutions are backing away from Wikileaks when no official charges have been made or given to the company. By all means, put your head between your legs and sit down. At least that will lessen the chances that you might actually procreate one of these days after you figure out how to pry yourself from your keyboard and dust off your peen.
I briefly read a blurb or two about some offshoot of WikiLeaks being created by Assman's former right-hand man called OpenLeaks. Apparently their plan to avoid the whole 'condemnation by every major goverment' is to work with media outlets make their information available to them so they can vet the data and redact the especially sensitive info.
That's what WikiLeaks already did this time around and attempted to do previously. The major difference is that OpenLeaks won't have its own publishing apparatus, which completely neuters the effectiveness of the operation while still putting them at the same potential legal risks. They're just hoping to dodge attention by standing behind established publications.
Aneurhythmia on
0
Options
FandyienBut Otto, what about us? Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
i am down with wikileaks
yo
Fandyien on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
i just drank some hot coco and a shower sounds pretty good but it's so goddamn cold in my basement that i reaaaally don't wanna be wet.
I feel so much better. I'd write in detail but my publisher is threatening to yank my column if I don't get some op blurbs for the latest spidey sighting.
Weaver on
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
damnit weaver you're not peter parker.
Metzger Meister on
0
Options
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited December 2010
Yeah, I know. That jerk-off camwhore couldn't write his way out of a Monday edition lifestyle caption.
By the way, dunno if anyone saw but apparently a new leaker has sprung up. This goes by the less zingy name of "open leaks" and features amazingly an even less photogenic head honcho.
By the way, dunno if anyone saw but apparently a new leaker has sprung up. This goes by the less zingy name of "open leaks" and features amazingly an even less photogenic head honcho.
By the way, dunno if anyone saw but apparently a new leaker has sprung up. This goes by the less zingy name of "open leaks" and features amazingly an even less photogenic head honcho.
Posts
It's not about what the public has a right to know, it's about what other countries have a right to know. An integral part of diplomacy is secrecy, and the ability to keep secrets. Because we live in a real world, we can't have a completely transparent government. Diplomatic cables reveal what we are saying about other countries, and what they are saying about each other. Diplomacy works because these things do not reach a public arena, because when they do countries are forced to react to them. This has nothing to do with the freedom of information or some kind of first amendment rights. Diplomatic channels have to be secret for diplomacy to work. That is the nature of the actual world, with actual political ramifications. It would be nice if we could be completely transparent in everything our country does, but we can't. Because we're dealing with people like China and Russia and they are being forced to deal with us.
And we're all fuckers.
or maybe I just had a really bad time in middle school
Especially about the fucker bit.
Basically, I'm erring on the side of releasing too much than nothing at all. I think that pretty strongly in this case since the vast majority of the "juiciest" cables are all things I think we've already known.
I understand that, and I wish that the forums hadn't eaten my post from last week comparing world diplomacy to a group of bitcy middle school girls. But basically, the fact that we've "known" a good deal of the information is in my opinion largely irrelevant.
Imagine if you had a friend who everyone knew to be untrustworthy, but still was part of the group. If someone finds your journal saying exactly that and then shows everyone, it's now a matter of public record. The friend is angry, because even though they knew that people knew, now it is out in the open. And your other friends now think that you aren't very trustworthy, even though they were also agreeing with you.
Even though people "knew" that saudi arabia sucked and was doing bad things, we still had to work with them. Now that information is public and public in a way where we definitively said it, it has damaged our ability to do that.
In other words, those who don't agree with me suck cock by choice!
Or attack/abduct citizens who are residing there.
I'm okay with that, even under the threat of terrorism.
When you read shit like this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm
And you have people that are questioning the validity of having an organization such as Wikileaks around, it's fucking laughable. You want to keep living in a country full of misinformed retards, that's your call.
I think you've crossed the line when it comes to being sloth like turds writhing in their own apathy and self interest.
"Naw maybe we shouldn't cuz I have to inhale more cheeze in a can and watch Jersey Shore".
You really need to chill dude,
you are making a silly goose of yourself
The American way!
"Wikileaks: Pakistan hoaxed by bogus anti-India cables"
"Pakistani newspapers have admitted they were hoaxed after publishing reports based on fake Wikileaks cables containing anti-Indian propaganda.
The Guardian, a British newspaper which has all of the 250,000 leaked Wikileaks cables, said that an extensive search of the database had found nothing to match any of the claims in the Pakistani media."
Damn if journalists should be finding these leaks out for themselves instead of dicking around and reporting on how crazy fox news/some other news corp is.
the difference being they have an understanding of journalistic ethics and probably wouldn't publish most of this junk
the world absolutely needs wikileaks
but wikileaks desperately needs to learn what journalism is about
"Another army chief had apparently been described as "an egotist, self-obsessed, petulant and idiosyncratic general, a braggadocio and a show-off, who has been disliked (and barely tolerated) by all his subordinates"."
tactical
murderista
Give them time, they are only 6 years or so old.
I would say that most major media companies right now need to re-learn what journalism is about. Because it is not about pundits spending 75% of their time bitching about other pundits opinions and name calling. Its about research and stories that actually matter.
yes, I used quotation marks.
motherfucker
I briefly read a blurb or two about some offshoot of WikiLeaks being created by Assman's former right-hand man called OpenLeaks. Apparently their plan to avoid the whole 'condemnation by every major goverment' is to work with media outlets make their information available to them so they can vet the data and redact the especially sensitive info.
Though, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the same people in power bitching about Wikileaks are going to bitch about that organization, as well.
They have a pretty sweet track record.
comedy gold right here
That's what WikiLeaks already did this time around and attempted to do previously. The major difference is that OpenLeaks won't have its own publishing apparatus, which completely neuters the effectiveness of the operation while still putting them at the same potential legal risks. They're just hoping to dodge attention by standing behind established publications.
yo
I feel so much better. I'd write in detail but my publisher is threatening to yank my column if I don't get some op blurbs for the latest spidey sighting.
That's what my Embassy's been up to. Note how the "classified" ones are especially boring and uninteresting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/10/openleaks-wikileaks-rival_n_794939.html
Thoughts?
international community comic
that guy's commenting on the wrong article.
somewhere, TLB feels that something is profoundly wrong