Shit, I just wrote a post about how I visited Qatar this year, and by walking round and taking photos I could provide you with loads of that information first hand. Except I got mixed up with Oman. I have visited Qatar, but only the airport. I don't know anything about Qatar.
I haven't either, but I suspect more people will visit it in the coming years, what with the bid for the 2016 Olympics and hosting the World Cup in 2022.
But still, even if you can take pictures of a place, what does that tell you? That you can find buildings? The problem is that you don't know the specific things and how they are important just by looking at a photograph. That's the problem with this particular leak.
I don't care what measures it takes to secure anything. My point is that if I lived next to or near something that could be a possible or likely target, I'd like to know about it. Not just for my own good either, because if I knew it was there, I'd keep an eye out for any suspicious behaviour myself! And not just if I live next to something, but if I am visiting or passing nearby.
Y'know, I agree here. I like disclosing to the public. The problem is two-fold:
1. You're assuming that the sites in question were not informed of their risk status.
2. "Common" knowledge can be a very misleading thing. It's "common" knowledge that organic food is better for you, for example.
Like I said, I like disclosing to the public. The problem is that sometimes, disclosing does more harm than good. My issue here is not with disclosure of secret information, but rather the specific information that was disclosed. It doesn't do anyone any good, and it gives information to bad guys who might otherwise not have gotten it.
The problem is that you don't know the specific things and how they are important just by looking at a photograph. That's the problem with this particular leak.
My forum post would have talked about the security arrangements around the palace, the fortresses overlooking the old town, photographs of the details of the construction of the walls. For example:
From my blog post:
The castles on either side of the bay are still used by the military, so I wasn't allowed to take any photos. Then I checked out the city walls. They immediately stood out to me, not for their historical appearance, but for the way they look overly functional, even for use today.
And that's when I realized the entire "old city" is practically a military installation. When the oil runs out, the population of Oman will say "Where's all our money? Hey, it's all inside that palace!" They'll try to storm the city, but won't make it past the moat before the snipers in the castles take them out one by one.
1. You're assuming that the sites in question were not informed of their risk status.
I don't know what you mean by this. Can a "site" know anything? It is a bit of property. It can't know anything.
I'm talking about people. You know? Humans. If I live next to something important, why should I not know? Everyone knows banks are important, and contain money. And everyone knows banks are generally secure. If I lived next to a bank, I wouldn't mind, because I know everyone knows what it contains, and how likely it is to be broken into. As in, it's very unlikely it will ever be damaged.
I'm sure that if the extent of all "possible threats" was disclosed, everyone will just carry on as before. The terrorists won't learn anything new, but the general population will. This is NOT a bad thing.
Also, Qatar aren't not terrorist targets because they have massive secrecy, but because nobody gives a shit. You know why. America? America can't fart in bed without everyone else waking up.
If I live next to something important, why should I not know? Everyone knows banks are important, and contain money. And everyone knows banks are generally secure. If I lived next to a bank, I wouldn't mind, because I know everyone knows what it contains, and how likely it is to be broken into. As in, it's very unlikely it will ever be damaged.
Yes, banks are important. Ports are important. Bridges are important. But do you know if the bank that is right next to you is more important than the bank 10 minutes away? That the bank next door hasn't updated its security systems in 10 years, while the one 10 minutes away just finished renovations?
The problem is, once again, that these leaks have told the world which specific installations, out of many, are more important than others and why those installations are important. It's that processed information that is the commodity, not just the general knowing.
People in this country flip their shit when they learn about plans to irradiate food, or to build a nuclear plant anywhere near anything, or that they might be subjected to an amount of radiation so small that it won't actually do anything at all. They over-react to things that aren't even actual threats; how do you think people will react when they learn of real threats right next door? We deal with this all the time in food recalls - as I've mentioned countless times - because the public reaction goes far beyond the actual problem itself.
Dissemination of sensitive information is inherently a balancing act, one which requires a lot of discussion, reflection, and careful consideration. Before we release a recall, there are periods of high-level talks between numerous agencies on many sides of the issue. Unless anyone involved with Wikileaks is at least that thorough in their deliberations before releasing documents - and I've seen no evidence to say that they are - then they're being irresponsible.
But do you know if the bank that is right next to you is more important than the bank 10 minutes away?
Yes. My local Sparkasse doesn't accept cash deposits, except in self service machines in the outer part. The branch on Hermanstrasse does accept cash deposits, and the security is way higher. It quite obvious.
The problem is, once again, that these leaks have told the world which specific installations, out of many, are more important than others and why those installations are important. It's that processed information that is the commodity, not just the general knowing.
And I see no reason why this should be secret. Surely the people who work in those industries know exactly which things are more important. If everyone in an entire industry has to be kept in the dark about every installation, there is something seriously wrong with it.
I could look up, quite trivially, the websites of loads of Swiss banks. I could even visit their headquarters. This won't help me though, as I don't know the passwords, don't have an account, and probably wouldn't get anywhere near a secure area of the bank even if I tried.
You know why? Because when something is ACTUALLY important to people, and to other people, it already has pretty high security. Banks have great security. So do safe deposit boxes. So do army bases and installations. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Also, I'm not talking about "threats next door" like sources of radiation, I'm talking about "targets of terrorism next door" like a port, a power station, a fiber cable and the like.
Surely the people who work in those industries know exactly which things are more important. If everyone in an entire industry has to be kept in the dark about every installation, there is something seriously wrong with it.
Oh sure, the people at the targeted sites should be informed. I'm sure they already are, or at least have some kind of readiness training. That's definitely a "need to know" situation. The problem occurs when that information spreads way beyond its intended, useful audience. Sometimes that can be harmless, but sometimes it can do damage, and if the people who are most affected by that information already have it, what is there to gain by spreading it? Certainly not more than the potential harm caused by giving that sensitive information to people who are morons that want to kill people, and who probably don't have that information already.
You also have to account for information overload. 260,000 documents is a lot. We have people who didn't bother to read 2,000 pages of legislation about healthcare to figure out whether or not it was a good idea. People aren't going to sort through 260,000 documents unless they have a compelling reason to, and the general public view will be "eh, whatever" even if there's something that could directly affect them. You know who's likely to sort through 260,000 documents to find the one that's useful? Someone with an agenda, whether for good or for ill.
Oh sure, the people at the targeted sites should be informed.
And so, because people know, people know. And those around them know. And the people around those people know. And, with a small amount of googling, anyone can know.
In a world where anyone can know the importance of a site, and I'm not talking about every single security measure here, but that the site exists and how important it is, why should it only come out in a list that is recovered from a collection of leaked secret documents?
Can't you see what I'm getting at here? Nobody has revealed any details about how to get through security loopholes, have they? As far as I can tell, we have a list. A list that ANYONE could make.
So, if ANYONE can make a list, why not have someone make the list for public consumption, so those who are interested can see what is in their neighborhood? This is my point. Why should the first person to make the list public be called irresponsible, when the very same list could be seen as a public good?
And don't tell me listing important bridges is irresponsible. You haven't brought up a single good argument to my points about banks yet. I can tell you the most important bridges in New York, by pointing on a map. Some friends of mine in New York are on a mission to unicycle across every bridge in New York, and they got the list of all thousand plus bridges from some office somewhere. With very little effort they could publish that list, along with photos of every bridge, along with their thoughts on how important it is to the people of New York. And you know what? They probably will!
Should my unicycling friends be called irresponsible? No. They are just publishing a list.
And so, because people know, people know. And those around them know. And the people around those people know. And, with a small amount of googling, anyone can know.
Because people in charge of confidential information always leak it? Oh wait, no they don't. Just becomes some information gets out sometimes doesn't mean that anyone can find anything.
In a world where anyone can know the importance of a site
Did you know, for a fact, that the listed sites were of any particular importance to the US at all prior to the leak? Did you have even the faintest clue as to why? What would have lead you to pick those listed sites over other sites?
why should it only come out in a list that is recovered from a collection of leaked secret documents?
What makes you think that this is the first anyone has heard of this? I'm curious. Do you think that the people at the sites would be completely ignorant of their critical status?
A list that ANYONE could make.
First, there's more than just a list of site names; second, I flatly reject the notion that anyone with access to Google could make that list. Go ahead and try it, and cite your sources and reasoning.
And don't tell me listing important bridges is irresponsible.
Well then, it's a good thing I didn't. I listed examples of sites which could be considered important for any number of reasons. The question is, what information would you need in order to figure out which site is more important to a terrorist over any other site? I'm not questioning your ability to compile a list; I'm questioning the reliability of your interpretation of a site's importance to general well-being of the country at large.
EDIT:
I think this is the reason why they are only releasing a few (comparatively) at a time.
Or it's to give Assange more public presence, and thus make legal repercussions to him a bad idea.
Assange is far from a hero; he's an attention whore.
In this case, I would say they are. The "insurance file" crossed the line for me. If he was actually committed to responsible leaking, he'd have left the files and instructions for redaction. Releasing un-redacted documents is exactly the thing that I find worrisome. Never mind that he's drummed up the support of far less responsible users who will happily release this information willy-nilly. He's bullying nations into submission because he thinks he's above the law.
But you are right that this is all moot. Even if a miscarriage of justice sees him imprisoned or executed, thousands will take his place. So the problem becomes how we get people to a place where they can interpret information like this in a responsible and effective manner.
He's bullying nations into submission because he thinks he's above the law
He is not accused of any crime other than the unrelated sex case currently.
The "insurance file" crossed the line for me.
The insurance file isn't for him, but for the organization. If Wikileaks itself is taken down, I imagine a dead hand will activate it. It is highly unlikely that, if Assange himself is somehow deactivated, the file will be triggered.
He is not accused of any crime other than the unrelated sex case currently.
I'm basing this on his actions, and I'm not saying that he's committed a crime. I'm saying that he's an enormous self-centered douchebag who deserves no praise. I'm using "above the law" in a more colloquial sense.
The insurance file isn't for him, but for the organization.
I'm not so optimistic about his intentions.
It is highly unlikely that, if Assange himself is somehow deactivated, the file will be triggered.
Thousands and thousands of people have the file. It's doubtful that Assange is the only one who has the key. I'm quite confident that if any legal retribution falls on Assange or Wikileaks, that key will go out and that file will be disseminated. What's really in that file, who knows.
I'm saying that he's an enormous self-centered douchebag who deserves no praise.
All you know about him is what he's doing, and as far as I can tell the vast bulk of what he's doing is good for the world regardless of what you might speculate about his motives. I think you're just crapping on him to be contrarian and because you're tired of hearing about him, nitpicking personality flaws of a guy you've never met so that you have something to say that everyone else isn't already saying in the face of the 24-hour sensation machine that is modern journalism.
The insurance file. If Assange DIDN'T have some kind of backup like this, I would respect him less. This material might not be important, but the fact that such material exists is very important. Some things I do think should be kept secret, but I trust Wikileaks, with the help of all the newspapers it is currently working with, will sort that out.
Then again, I think I can tell we disagree on what things people should TRY to keep secret.
Did you know, for a fact, that the listed sites were of any particular importance to the US at all prior to the leak?
I know how the world works. I could probably make a looong list of sites that are important to the US, but I'm probably more of an expert about the UK and other European countries.
Do you think that the people at the sites would be completely ignorant of their critical status?
Why do you keep coming back to what people AT THE SITE think or know, when I have explicitly stated, over and over, that that is none of my concern, nor what I am talking about.
Go ahead and try it, and cite your sources and reasoning.
I don't need to. You know why? Because many other people have. I think Rym brought this up. They are called novelists and movie makers. All the time they show examples of important sites to international interests. A good way to make a list would be to pick every location from a Tom Clancy novel, or if the location is fictional, just ask him what the equivalent site is in the real world.
You may think I'm joking here. But I'm not. I read a LOT, and I travel a LOT, and I can't tell you how many times I visit somewhere, and know loads about it from it being a setting in a novel. Not everything is right and true, but the reason the place is important, and the history, is all there.
I don't want this to come off as an argument from authority, but I have seen a lot of the world. In my first international trip, aged 12, my family drove from England to a newly-non-Communist Romania, all the way to the Black Sea. In Romania I saw the first bridge over the Danube. For years after it was built, it was never marked on any map. There was never a photograph of it published. Even when I saw it, we weren't allowed to photograph it. You know what I did? I took a photo.
I was 12 years old. And the security of a bridge, for some reason which I still don't understand, was somehow relying on the fact that it was "secret". But, aged 12 years old, I could add it to a list of "important sites of national security".
The question is, what information would you need in order to figure out which site is more important to a terrorist over any other site?
See above. Insistence on "secrecy" is a good start!
Or it's to give Assange more public presence, and thus make legal repercussions to him a bad idea.
Assange is far from a hero; he's an attention whore.
I love a good attention whore. An attention whore who gets politicians to talk about death threats, etc, in western countries, for doing nothing more than reckless journalism? He's just the kind of attention whore the world needs right now.
And if one of the sites in this list is attacked? I still think we'll come out ahead.
A. The world wakes up and suddenly realises "Hey wait, Amazon, Ebay, PayPal, MasterCard, who we all thought were A-Okay, are suddenly bowing to the non-pressure from reactionary luddite and, frankly, scary forces inside the US government. This is NOT cool!" And then, in a perfect world, the population starts holding politicians accountable in ANY way at all.
But also: B. A factory that produces vaccines is blown up.
I'll pay with a factory. It isn't The Factory vs Not The Factory, it is The Factory vs. Continued Wars Around The World That The US and UK Governments Know Are Useless and Costly, and killing many people, But Takes Wikileaks To Tell Us All What The Governments Won't Admit.
"Is it right to tell the company that I have found an exploit in their software (thus putting myself at risk of litigation in the event someone else discovers it after the event) or is it better to anonymously report it and force the company to fix the issue".
Tough question and a gross underrepresentation of the gravity of this situation. The gunship attack on the Reuters journalists made for powerful viewing and heightened the worlds awareness of the atrocities being committed. So many thousands of non-combatants have been killed and a woefully small number of these have been officially reported. It took wikileaks to bring acknowledgement of tens of thousands of these unreported deaths to the forefront.
Pointing out failings in infrastructure is something to be glorified. Transparency now rather than a century later after declassification makes for more honest governance and improvements to be made in our lifetime.
Overall I am yet to hear an argument that adequately portrays these anonymous leaks as anything other than a force for good in the world.
Why do you keep coming back to what people AT THE SITE think or know, when I have explicitly stated, over and over, that that is none of my concern, nor what I am talking about.
Really? Because you said many times "If I lived next to something important, I'd want to know," and statements to exactly that effect. The implication is that people living on or near those sites right now do not or did not know about the status of that site, and that Wikileaks is the way they were informed. Here, read it yourself:
What Wikileaks is doing here is what the government should be doing themselves. if I am living next to a possible security threat, or a target for possible terrorist attack, isn't it the responsibility of the government to tell me that?
So sure, if you were living on such a site and weren't informed, I'd be all about Wikileaks telling you. The problem is that in order for this statement to be true or relevant, you'd need to know for sure that the government was keeping residents and/or workers at the site in the dark. I see no evidence that this was the case.
Did you mean something else by that? Because that's the only way in which I can see that statement being relevant to the discussion.
You then went on to make an unsupported assertion:
And so, because people know, people know. And those around them know. And the people around those people know. And, with a small amount of googling, anyone can know.
Which is to say that people in possession of secret knowledge will leak that knowledge to other people.
Taking these two points together, your argument seems to be that people had to know the listed sites were important because people would have talked about it, so there's no reason to keep it secret anyhow.
Is that about right? Because that's how I've interpreted your argument all along. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect. That assumption is also fundamental to your assertion that this information would have been available to anyone who looked hard enough, which I contend is wrong.
The reason I keep going back to my point is simple: if the people who are actually highly likely to be affected by the information are actually informed, then what does it matter who else knows? The fact that you might come into port in a place once in a great while may necessitate the odd warning, but certainly not the level of information that was distributed. To use your words, it should be none of your concern, and if there's cause to believe it may be your concern, you can be informed when it becomes relevant.
Do you believe there is absolutely no situation in which informing the public of some potential problem could do more harm than good? That's the basis of my argument: that sometimes, sometimes, the cost of informing the public is greater than the cost of keeping it quiet. A lot of effort goes into deciding when such a thing is the case, which brings me to this...
I know how the world works.
Takes a lot of balls to make that claim without qualification.
Lots of people know how the part of the world with which they interact works. I don't doubt for a second that you have far more experience meeting diverse people in diverse settings and getting their perspectives, but...
I don't want this to come off as an argument from authority,
Your globetrotting does not make you an authority on this subject. It gives you a perspective. If you want to talk about authority, I can list for you all the high-level functionaries in every national and international governmental organization with whom I've interacted and discussed higher-level public policy-making. I am routinely involved in gathering, interpreting, and disseminating information that the public desperately wants to be readily available, and I also know all the complexities that go into making such a decision. That's just for things that aren't even classified; these are just confidential matters.
But I'm not an authority on this subject either. I just have one perspective on it, one that routinely deals with many similar issues. I understand the frustration of not knowing something that you think you should know, but really, sometimes things are kept from you for a very good reason. I could give you many examples from my field of expertise if you'd like, but suffice to say, I am very sensitive to the public's reaction to even slightly alarming news. That needs to be considered before each and every release of information.
Is anyone involved with Wikileaks doing that? I highly doubt it. It's possible, but considering they haven't waited for the State Department to weigh in before releasing, I'm going to lean towards "no."
If we accept that terrorists are generally morons, then it doesn't make sense to believe they could also do the same sorts of research you or I could. You're a smart guy who's seen a lot; do you really think a moron could make a list as extensive as yours? I doubt it highly.
The information contained in the leak may seem obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it's obvious to the people who would use it for ill. If it doesn't gain you anything more than you could have gotten anyhow, but has the potential to lend a hand to those who would cause harm to others, why on earth would any rational person release a bit of information? To get attention and an international platform.
I love a good attention whore. An attention whore who gets politicians to talk about death threats, etc, in western countries, for doing nothing more than reckless journalism? He's just the kind of attention whore the world needs right now.
The world doesn't need this kind of attention whore right now. The world needs measured, sane, rational, responsible discourse to help cut through the immense amount of noise out there. All Wikileaks is doing is adding to the noise, and it's not helping to cut through it. "Reckless journalism" is not a thing to be admired.
And it can't be stopped precisely because we do not have sane, measured, rational, responsible discourse that cuts through the noise. We just have people who will go to great lengths to make more noise than the next guy, and all that does is overload the public at large. I've read enough research about food labeling response on the consumer side to understand that the average person is far too overloaded with information to actually make sense of any of it. That's why we get otherwise rational people making ridiculously irrational decisions. Smart people using the Internet come up with all sorts of whacked-out crap.
So no, we don't need Assange. He's not a hero. He's an asshole standing atop a mountain trying to scream his agenda louder than everyone else, and people are buying right into it. It's romantic to think of the white-hat freedom fighter trying his best to bring down the evil big governments, and that romance is precisely what Assange is appealing to with this business. He paints himself as a freedom fighter while engaging in behavior that, at best, doesn't do anyone any good, and at worst puts people in undue danger.
I'll pay with a factory. It isn't The Factory vs Not The Factory, it is The Factory vs. Continued Wars Around The World That The US and UK Governments Know Are Useless and Costly, and killing many people, But Takes Wikileaks To Tell Us All What The Governments Won't Admit.
And this is where you really lose me, because we already know this in the US and the UK. We have this dialogue, and the people who need to hear it the most are the ones who won't listen to it. You can't walk around without hearing people tell you what a terrible idea the endless war business is, and we're doing what we can to hold politicians accountable. But the noise machine drowns out the rational discussion, and nothing gets anywhere.
And Wikileaks, right now, is doing nothing to fix that. And it will only continue to add to the pile in the future. It's no better than the noise machine we have now, and it might result in a factory getting blown up needlessly. We already know that endless war is going to be the doom of us all, but until we can cut through the noise and make progress on the front of rationality, I'll take the vaccines. At least that way, we might be able to get people healthy enough to think again.
I could give you many examples from my field of expertise if you'd like, but suffice to say, I am very sensitive to the public's reaction to even slightly alarming news. That needs to be considered before each and every release of information.
In your experience, when should this have been released and when should the Coalition of the Willing officially release the information (now partially available through Wikileaks efforts) regarding unfortunate deaths of 70000 non-combatants? A few months after the trials, or after the cessation of military activities?
So no, we don't need Assange. He's not a hero. He's an asshole standing atop a mountain trying to scream his agenda louder than everyone else, and people are buying right into it. It's romantic to think of the white-hat freedom fighter trying his best to bring down the evil big governments, and that romance is precisely what Assange is appealing to with this business. He paints himself as a freedom fighter while engaging in behavior that, at best, doesn't do anyone any good, and at worst puts people in undue danger.
Assange is an inspiration for all those believing in freedom of information for founding Wikileaks. The TED presentation where he comments on the Kroll Report for example was a net gain for global democracy by, in your words, bringing down a big evil government a notch or two.
We already know that endless war is going to be the doom of us all, but until we can cut through the noise and make progress on the front of rationality, I'll take the vaccines. At least that way, we might be able to get people healthy enough to think again.
In your experience, when shouldthishave been released
When it was released, or pretty much whenever it was received. The video was pretty self-explanatory, and exposed problems in military conduct. It's a good attempt at exposing government malfeasance.
when should theCoalition of the Willingofficially release the information (now partially available through Wikileaks efforts) regarding unfortunate deaths of70000non-combatants?
Once the investigation is finished, irrespective of the results of that investigation.
The TED presentationwhere he comments on theKroll Reportfor example was a net gain for global democracy by
See, here's my problem. A gain for freedom of information? Perhaps. A blow to world governments? Sure, I'll buy it.
A net gain for global democracy? No. These documents aren't being released in any sort of democratic fashion. Did Wikileaks ask the government of Qatar if they'd terribly mind having some sensitive information about their country released? No. That's not exactly a democratic process; that's a small group enforcing its morality on the world. Julian talked about "legitimate secrets" in his TED lecture; tell me, why does Wikileaks get to decide what is and isn't a "legitimate" secret?
Wikileaks is revolutionary, with all the weight that word carries. It could be a net good in the world, but this most recent leak forces me to question the group's veracity.
These documents aren't being released in any sort of democratic fashion. Did Wikileaks ask the government of Qatar if they'd terribly mind having some sensitive information about their country released? No. That's not exactly a democratic process; that's a small group enforcing its morality on the world. Julian talked about "legitimate secrets" in his TED lecture; tell me, why does Wikileaks get to decide what is and isn't a "legitimate" secret?
I am not certain what you are trying to say there. Perhaps the wikileaks distribution of the Kroll Report in Kenya was not a boon to Global democracy (could you please define that; are you alluding to a Utopian UN-centric world view?) but at least 'an-entire-countries-democracy-in-general' with the corruption highlighted, and thus change in the political landscape achieved by shifting the vote.
As for releasing them in a democratic fashion, I wonder what that would involve. Wikileaks have repeated that they have either withheld documents that mention names of people perhaps at risk, or sought consultation with the pentagon on the issue (the details of which we do not have, perhaps Assange meant to say that he spoke with Lawyers within the Pentagon). The pentagon has declared that it will not negotiate regarding the redacting of documents, and with that view taken it is up to the people at Wikileaks to censor the works themselves. How can you be any more democratic when one party refuses all options bar the "Give it back" scenario...
As for the limited reports I have managed to peruse, alongside all those we are privy too via the mainstream media, no informers names have been mentioned. Of course I would not know an 'informers' name, but the pentagon would and no evidence has been brought forward to indicate any death resulting from these leaks.
Regarding Qatar, which release are you referring to? If you are making reference to the "Qatar uses Al Jazeera as propaganda arm of the Qatari government" release, I don't think the Qatar government will be anymore upset by this than the average Republican defending Fox. I heartily enjoy some of Al Jazeera's reporting. I also enjoy reading from China daily, the Australian ABC, Reuters and SBS world news. As we are all aware, the best way to 'mitigate' bias in ones news viewing is to view from a multitude of sources. I weep for the 'informed' few who believe in the doctrine of O'Reilly and are echoing his cries that Assange be killed (much akin to the cries for the head of Daniel Ellsberg ). I find the death penalty abhorrent and would hope that a majority of Americans also recognise it as barbaric.
As to your question, I would think that the onus of determining what is a 'secret' would fall onto all those involved, from the those leaking the material in the first place, right through to the public at large that demand answers. Whistle blowers like Ian Fishback should be role models for those that witness injustice, perhaps even rewarded.
Okay, I'm just in a lay out what I'm saying here, and the knowledge of some specific points in a bit.
If a site exists that happens to have significant importance to a country in terms of infrastructure, I see no reason why the people who work there shouldn't know about it. I also see no reason why the people who live nearby shouldn't know about it either. I also see no reason why people who live a small distance away shouldn't know about it too. I also see no reason why people who live a long distance away shouldn't know about it.
If the people who work at all live nearby to the site know about it, and about its importance, unless they are already sworn to secrecy in some way, there is no reason why they shouldn't tell people about. And, for the most part, this is exactly what happens.
Someone could compile a list of things are important in terms of infrastructure. When I say anyone, I mean any specific person, like an author, or someone who travels a lot, or someone who is an expert in a single area, or someone who's just generally interested. I'm not making a statement about people who are intelligent people who are not intelligent. I'm not even making a statement about groups of people versus individual people. I'm just saying it is possible for somebody to compile a list, or a group of people to compile a list.
You have not answered my comment about an author like Tom Clancy. Is it bad for him to, in the course of his novels, point out significant points of interest around the world? Is it therefore bad for someone to collate all of his settings into a single list?
Here is my main point: why is compiling a list any different than knowledge being public in the first place? You seem to think that bringing all this information together into a list is somehow bad and wrong and I disagree completely. I always think, if people want to collect knowledge in new and interesting ways, they should be allowed to. Also, if this knowledge already exist somewhere, I don't see why it should be held from people who are interested. Why should it be up to volunteers, or communities, or single interested people, for anyone like that to have to compile a list like this?
Why shouldn't the government, if they have information like this already compiled into lists, not release it to the public?
Like I said, some friends of mine want to cycle on one wheel across every bridge in New York. To get this information, with the exact location of every single bridge in New York, they went to an office and it was freely available. I don't see this as a bad thing. By the time they finish a project they will have probably more knowledge about the bridges in New York than most people, and will properly share that knowledge in some way. I don't see this as a bad thing
to be clear, I do think somethings should be kept secret. For example the contents and the exact purposes of some military bases. But I don't think that any kind of formatting, or any kind of explanation, or any kind of collation of any publicly available knowledge should be restricted.
Why do you keep coming back to what people AT THE SITE think or know, when I have explicitly stated, over and over, that that is none of my concern, nor what I am talking about.
Really? Because you said many times "If I lived next to something important, I'd want to know," and statements to exactly that effect. The implication is that people living on or near those sites right now do not or did not know about the status of that site, and that Wikileaks is the way they were informed. Here, read it yourself:
What Wikileaks is doing here is what the government should be doing themselves. if I am living next to a possible security threat, or a target for possible terrorist attack, isn't it the responsibility of the government to tell me that?
So sure, if you were living on such a site and weren't informed, I'd be all about Wikileaks telling you. The problem is that in order for this statement to be true or relevant, you'd need to know for sure that the government was keeping residents and/or workersat the sitein the dark. I see no evidence that this was the case.
Many of the sites have nobody working on them, and nobody living at them. Workers will come on workers will go, and many people don't know what they live next to. Maybe they don't care. Maybe they do. But if they don't know what they don't know, there's no way that they know they should care not.
A quick and trivial example is the site of Hitler's bunker in Berlin. All throughout the Communist era it was never mentioned, and even throughout the 90s there was no signs of saying this was the place that Hitler died. It wasn't kept secret that Hitler died there, because if you were really interested you could find the place in maps in history books, then overlay current maps, and go look at the place. However, to stop neo-Nazis treating the site is some kind of sign, the city never had any kind of sign or memorial. The upshot was that people living in apartments overlooking the site didn't know they lived on a site of particular historical importance. Now there is a sign there, and every body knows, and you know what? It hasn't become a shrine or gathering point for the neo-Nazis. Personally, I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been marked on maps before.
Why should this be any different for people who live above, next to, or in the area of an important fibre line? That is also buried underground and yet could be important in the future.
And so, because people know, people know. And those around them know. And the people around those people know. And, with a small amount of googling, anyone can know.
Which is to say that people in possession of secret knowledge will leak that knowledge to other people.
No. I'm not making any claims a secret knowledge. If people know something, they know something. If they have been sworn to secrecy, that is one thing. However, we're talking about publicly available information, and yet publicly available information being restricted from being compiled into lists. This is the biggest problem with your point of view. You were saying non-secret information shouldn't be compiled into lists and if it is compiled into lists those lists should now be secret. How are you saying anything else?
I know how the world works.
Takes a lot of balls to make that claim without qualification.
You're quoting me out of context here. I don't know how the entire world works, but I do know generally how communications work, and that we live in a global world which relies on delivery of goods. Some of those goods and raw materials. Some of those goods are oil. I know that the US relies on communication and the delivery of goods. This is how the world works. I'm not talking about any in-depth knowledge here about politics, or high-level trade agreements, the international diplomacy, I'm making of a broad statement about how the world works. Communications flow through fibre-optic cables, oil goes through pipes, raw materials are found in mind in the ground, and all these come together in factories and distribution points, and are delivered to the United States.
My qualification to knowing how the world works is simply by living in the world. Nothing more complex than.
For example, if I said to someone “hey, make a list of all the raw materials found on the continent of Africa which are important to United States manufacturing effort, but which are difficult to view outside of Africa," they might come up with a list which looks a bit like this:
"AFRICA Congo (Kinshasa): Cobalt (Mine and Plant) Gabon: Manganese - Battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade Guinea: Bauxite (Mine) South Africa: BAE Land System OMC, Benoni, South Africa Brown David Gear Industries LTD, Benoni, South Africa Bushveld Complex (chromite mine) Ferrochromium Manganese - Battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade Palladium Mine and Plant Platinum Mines Rhodium"
Of course, this list also contains two companies which supply the military with equipment or expertise. However one is owned by BAE, one of the largest weapons companies in the world, and the other one has a publicly available website talking about how it powers the defence industry. Really, it doesn't take any particularly deep understanding of how the world works to know that these kind of things are important. Really, it doesn't.
Let's see what the list says about Qatar. For some reason you seem to have a particular interest in this country.
"Qatar: Ras Laffan Industrial Center: By 2012 Qatar will be the largest source of imported LNG to U.S."
Now, I know that the United States relies on gas. When compiling a list of sites important to the United States in terms of international infrastructure, the supply of gas would be near the top of my list. I would see where the United States buys its gas, and then see where that gas is processed. Knowing that Qatar is a major supplier of gas to the United States, I would look at a website for Qatar and see where there main port and/or refineries are. I can do this with Google. In fact, I will try that now. I know refineries are always right next to ports, so I'll google for "qatar largest port" but no in quotes.
The third result is an interactive map, powered by Google, pointing out three ports along the coast of Qatar. Two our run or owned by Port authorities, so I know these public aren't quite so important to oil and gas, but one is owned by Qatar petroleum. At a place called Ras Laffan. Not only that, but the map also shows me the offshore ports that are also owned by Qatar petroleum. It even details the exact longitude and latitude of these offshore sites.
Don't you see? I can trivially find this information using common knowledge and Google! Picking out, in a country like Qatar, the most important sites and infrastructure for the United States is easy!
Let's try and experiment. I haven't looked at the list for all European countries, because there are very many of them. Germany will probably be very important to the United States in many ways, the country like Poland, where it didn't have many bases, properly has fewer sites. I'm going to see if I can make the list of the things and sites in Poland, and then check the list in the cable, and see if I can match it, or at least some of the answers.
Poland has oil lines, I know this living in Germany. It probably doesn't service the US military in any way, because I doubt they have military bases there, and also they probably don't supply any weapons. I know this, because Poland probably uses more of the old Soviet standard of weaponry, not like traditional NATO countries in the West of Europe. See my posts about the Russian tanks stolen by pirates on the way to Kenya for more on this topic. But Google anyway.
First tiny bit of research = "Poland is heavily dependent on oil imports, particularly from Russia." So no large exports or refineries.
I've seen Bond films though. I'll Google for pipelines. First hit = "The Druzhba pipeline (Russian: нефтепровод «Дружба»; also had been referred as the Friendship Pipeline and the Comecon Pipeline), according to foreignpolicy.com, is the world's longest oil pipeline in fact one of the biggest oil pipeline networks in the world."
I bet that makes the list!
A quick search in the article for "United states" = "There have been proposals to extend northern branch of the Druzhba pipeline to the German North Sea port of Wilhelmshaven, which would reduce oil tanker traffic in the Baltic Sea and make it easier to transport Russian oil to the United States."
From the map on the page, I see there are no other pipelines running through Poland. I'll try Mineral deposits. Thankfully there is a government website detailing its resources, but unfortunately for Poland, I can't find anything it is a net exporter of, and certainly not to the United states. Defense companies? I'd have to dig deeper, but I can't see anything that the United States would rely on, not in the list of the unified defense industry group of companies called Bumar. Nothing's coming up for pharmaceuticals either.
And now... what does wikileaks say?
"Poland: Druzhba Oil Pipeline"
That's it. Surprise, surprise. The only thing the United States cares about in Poland is an oil pipeline. My general view of "how the world works" has played out, and I have once again shown how trivial it is to compile lists like the one on Wikileaks.
My conclusion:
There is NO REASON a list like this should be kept secret. Nor is it irresponsible to publish a list if found. It shows the way the government thinks, and how it views the world! This is a good thing!
Comments
But still, even if you can take pictures of a place, what does that tell you? That you can find buildings? The problem is that you don't know the specific things and how they are important just by looking at a photograph. That's the problem with this particular leak. Y'know, I agree here. I like disclosing to the public. The problem is two-fold:
1. You're assuming that the sites in question were not informed of their risk status.
2. "Common" knowledge can be a very misleading thing. It's "common" knowledge that organic food is better for you, for example.
Like I said, I like disclosing to the public. The problem is that sometimes, disclosing does more harm than good. My issue here is not with disclosure of secret information, but rather the specific information that was disclosed. It doesn't do anyone any good, and it gives information to bad guys who might otherwise not have gotten it.
From my blog post:
The castles on either side of the bay are still used by the military, so I wasn't allowed to take any photos. Then I checked out the city walls. They immediately stood out to me, not for their historical appearance, but for the way they look overly functional, even for use today.
And that's when I realized the entire "old city" is practically a military installation. When the oil runs out, the population of Oman will say "Where's all our money? Hey, it's all inside that palace!" They'll try to storm the city, but won't make it past the moat before the snipers in the castles take them out one by one.
I'm talking about people. You know? Humans. If I live next to something important, why should I not know? Everyone knows banks are important, and contain money. And everyone knows banks are generally secure. If I lived next to a bank, I wouldn't mind, because I know everyone knows what it contains, and how likely it is to be broken into. As in, it's very unlikely it will ever be damaged.
I'm sure that if the extent of all "possible threats" was disclosed, everyone will just carry on as before. The terrorists won't learn anything new, but the general population will. This is NOT a bad thing.
Also, Qatar aren't not terrorist targets because they have massive secrecy, but because nobody gives a shit. You know why. America? America can't fart in bed without everyone else waking up.
The problem is, once again, that these leaks have told the world which specific installations, out of many, are more important than others and why those installations are important. It's that processed information that is the commodity, not just the general knowing.
People in this country flip their shit when they learn about plans to irradiate food, or to build a nuclear plant anywhere near anything, or that they might be subjected to an amount of radiation so small that it won't actually do anything at all. They over-react to things that aren't even actual threats; how do you think people will react when they learn of real threats right next door? We deal with this all the time in food recalls - as I've mentioned countless times - because the public reaction goes far beyond the actual problem itself.
Dissemination of sensitive information is inherently a balancing act, one which requires a lot of discussion, reflection, and careful consideration. Before we release a recall, there are periods of high-level talks between numerous agencies on many sides of the issue. Unless anyone involved with Wikileaks is at least that thorough in their deliberations before releasing documents - and I've seen no evidence to say that they are - then they're being irresponsible.
I could look up, quite trivially, the websites of loads of Swiss banks. I could even visit their headquarters. This won't help me though, as I don't know the passwords, don't have an account, and probably wouldn't get anywhere near a secure area of the bank even if I tried.
You know why? Because when something is ACTUALLY important to people, and to other people, it already has pretty high security. Banks have great security. So do safe deposit boxes. So do army bases and installations. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Also, I'm not talking about "threats next door" like sources of radiation, I'm talking about "targets of terrorism next door" like a port, a power station, a fiber cable and the like.
You also have to account for information overload. 260,000 documents is a lot. We have people who didn't bother to read 2,000 pages of legislation about healthcare to figure out whether or not it was a good idea. People aren't going to sort through 260,000 documents unless they have a compelling reason to, and the general public view will be "eh, whatever" even if there's something that could directly affect them. You know who's likely to sort through 260,000 documents to find the one that's useful? Someone with an agenda, whether for good or for ill.
In a world where anyone can know the importance of a site, and I'm not talking about every single security measure here, but that the site exists and how important it is, why should it only come out in a list that is recovered from a collection of leaked secret documents?
Can't you see what I'm getting at here? Nobody has revealed any details about how to get through security loopholes, have they? As far as I can tell, we have a list. A list that ANYONE could make.
So, if ANYONE can make a list, why not have someone make the list for public consumption, so those who are interested can see what is in their neighborhood? This is my point. Why should the first person to make the list public be called irresponsible, when the very same list could be seen as a public good?
And don't tell me listing important bridges is irresponsible. You haven't brought up a single good argument to my points about banks yet. I can tell you the most important bridges in New York, by pointing on a map. Some friends of mine in New York are on a mission to unicycle across every bridge in New York, and they got the list of all thousand plus bridges from some office somewhere. With very little effort they could publish that list, along with photos of every bridge, along with their thoughts on how important it is to the people of New York. And you know what? They probably will!
Should my unicycling friends be called irresponsible? No. They are just publishing a list.
Get over it.
EDIT: Or it's to give Assange more public presence, and thus make legal repercussions to him a bad idea.
Assange is far from a hero; he's an attention whore.
But you are right that this is all moot. Even if a miscarriage of justice sees him imprisoned or executed, thousands will take his place. So the problem becomes how we get people to a place where they can interpret information like this in a responsible and effective manner.
One text file reading "We did it for the lulz."
1.4GB of copies of an MP3 entitled "Nevergonngiveyouup.mp3"
Then again, I think I can tell we disagree on what things people should TRY to keep secret.
You may think I'm joking here. But I'm not. I read a LOT, and I travel a LOT, and I can't tell you how many times I visit somewhere, and know loads about it from it being a setting in a novel. Not everything is right and true, but the reason the place is important, and the history, is all there.
I don't want this to come off as an argument from authority, but I have seen a lot of the world. In my first international trip, aged 12, my family drove from England to a newly-non-Communist Romania, all the way to the Black Sea. In Romania I saw the first bridge over the Danube. For years after it was built, it was never marked on any map. There was never a photograph of it published. Even when I saw it, we weren't allowed to photograph it. You know what I did? I took a photo.
I was 12 years old. And the security of a bridge, for some reason which I still don't understand, was somehow relying on the fact that it was "secret". But, aged 12 years old, I could add it to a list of "important sites of national security". See above. Insistence on "secrecy" is a good start! I love a good attention whore. An attention whore who gets politicians to talk about death threats, etc, in western countries, for doing nothing more than reckless journalism? He's just the kind of attention whore the world needs right now.
And if one of the sites in this list is attacked? I still think we'll come out ahead.
A. The world wakes up and suddenly realises "Hey wait, Amazon, Ebay, PayPal, MasterCard, who we all thought were A-Okay, are suddenly bowing to the non-pressure from reactionary luddite and, frankly, scary forces inside the US government. This is NOT cool!" And then, in a perfect world, the population starts holding politicians accountable in ANY way at all.
But also: B. A factory that produces vaccines is blown up.
I'll pay with a factory. It isn't The Factory vs Not The Factory, it is The Factory vs. Continued Wars Around The World That The US and UK Governments Know Are Useless and Costly, and killing many people, But Takes Wikileaks To Tell Us All What The Governments Won't Admit.
Tough question and a gross underrepresentation of the gravity of this situation. The gunship attack on the Reuters journalists made for powerful viewing and heightened the worlds awareness of the atrocities being committed. So many thousands of non-combatants have been killed and a woefully small number of these have been officially reported. It took wikileaks to bring acknowledgement of tens of thousands of these unreported deaths to the forefront.
Pointing out failings in infrastructure is something to be glorified. Transparency now rather than a century later after declassification makes for more honest governance and improvements to be made in our lifetime.
Overall I am yet to hear an argument that adequately portrays these anonymous leaks as anything other than a force for good in the world.
Did you mean something else by that? Because that's the only way in which I can see that statement being relevant to the discussion.
You then went on to make an unsupported assertion: Which is to say that people in possession of secret knowledge will leak that knowledge to other people.
Taking these two points together, your argument seems to be that people had to know the listed sites were important because people would have talked about it, so there's no reason to keep it secret anyhow.
Is that about right? Because that's how I've interpreted your argument all along. Please correct me if my interpretation is incorrect. That assumption is also fundamental to your assertion that this information would have been available to anyone who looked hard enough, which I contend is wrong.
The reason I keep going back to my point is simple: if the people who are actually highly likely to be affected by the information are actually informed, then what does it matter who else knows? The fact that you might come into port in a place once in a great while may necessitate the odd warning, but certainly not the level of information that was distributed. To use your words, it should be none of your concern, and if there's cause to believe it may be your concern, you can be informed when it becomes relevant.
Do you believe there is absolutely no situation in which informing the public of some potential problem could do more harm than good? That's the basis of my argument: that sometimes, sometimes, the cost of informing the public is greater than the cost of keeping it quiet. A lot of effort goes into deciding when such a thing is the case, which brings me to this... Takes a lot of balls to make that claim without qualification.
Lots of people know how the part of the world with which they interact works. I don't doubt for a second that you have far more experience meeting diverse people in diverse settings and getting their perspectives, but... Your globetrotting does not make you an authority on this subject. It gives you a perspective. If you want to talk about authority, I can list for you all the high-level functionaries in every national and international governmental organization with whom I've interacted and discussed higher-level public policy-making. I am routinely involved in gathering, interpreting, and disseminating information that the public desperately wants to be readily available, and I also know all the complexities that go into making such a decision. That's just for things that aren't even classified; these are just confidential matters.
But I'm not an authority on this subject either. I just have one perspective on it, one that routinely deals with many similar issues. I understand the frustration of not knowing something that you think you should know, but really, sometimes things are kept from you for a very good reason. I could give you many examples from my field of expertise if you'd like, but suffice to say, I am very sensitive to the public's reaction to even slightly alarming news. That needs to be considered before each and every release of information.
Is anyone involved with Wikileaks doing that? I highly doubt it. It's possible, but considering they haven't waited for the State Department to weigh in before releasing, I'm going to lean towards "no."
If we accept that terrorists are generally morons, then it doesn't make sense to believe they could also do the same sorts of research you or I could. You're a smart guy who's seen a lot; do you really think a moron could make a list as extensive as yours? I doubt it highly.
The information contained in the leak may seem obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it's obvious to the people who would use it for ill. If it doesn't gain you anything more than you could have gotten anyhow, but has the potential to lend a hand to those who would cause harm to others, why on earth would any rational person release a bit of information? To get attention and an international platform. The world doesn't need this kind of attention whore right now. The world needs measured, sane, rational, responsible discourse to help cut through the immense amount of noise out there. All Wikileaks is doing is adding to the noise, and it's not helping to cut through it. "Reckless journalism" is not a thing to be admired.
And it can't be stopped precisely because we do not have sane, measured, rational, responsible discourse that cuts through the noise. We just have people who will go to great lengths to make more noise than the next guy, and all that does is overload the public at large. I've read enough research about food labeling response on the consumer side to understand that the average person is far too overloaded with information to actually make sense of any of it. That's why we get otherwise rational people making ridiculously irrational decisions. Smart people using the Internet come up with all sorts of whacked-out crap.
So no, we don't need Assange. He's not a hero. He's an asshole standing atop a mountain trying to scream his agenda louder than everyone else, and people are buying right into it. It's romantic to think of the white-hat freedom fighter trying his best to bring down the evil big governments, and that romance is precisely what Assange is appealing to with this business. He paints himself as a freedom fighter while engaging in behavior that, at best, doesn't do anyone any good, and at worst puts people in undue danger. And this is where you really lose me, because we already know this in the US and the UK. We have this dialogue, and the people who need to hear it the most are the ones who won't listen to it. You can't walk around without hearing people tell you what a terrible idea the endless war business is, and we're doing what we can to hold politicians accountable. But the noise machine drowns out the rational discussion, and nothing gets anywhere.
And Wikileaks, right now, is doing nothing to fix that. And it will only continue to add to the pile in the future. It's no better than the noise machine we have now, and it might result in a factory getting blown up needlessly. We already know that endless war is going to be the doom of us all, but until we can cut through the noise and make progress on the front of rationality, I'll take the vaccines. At least that way, we might be able to get people healthy enough to think again.
The TED presentation where he comments on the Kroll Report for example was a net gain for global democracy by, in your words, bringing down a big evil government a notch or two. A healthy mind is an informed mind.
A net gain for global democracy? No. These documents aren't being released in any sort of democratic fashion. Did Wikileaks ask the government of Qatar if they'd terribly mind having some sensitive information about their country released? No. That's not exactly a democratic process; that's a small group enforcing its morality on the world. Julian talked about "legitimate secrets" in his TED lecture; tell me, why does Wikileaks get to decide what is and isn't a "legitimate" secret?
Wikileaks is revolutionary, with all the weight that word carries. It could be a net good in the world, but this most recent leak forces me to question the group's veracity.
As for releasing them in a democratic fashion, I wonder what that would involve. Wikileaks have repeated that they have either withheld documents that mention names of people perhaps at risk, or sought consultation with the pentagon on the issue (the details of which we do not have, perhaps Assange meant to say that he spoke with Lawyers within the Pentagon). The pentagon has declared that it will not negotiate regarding the redacting of documents, and with that view taken it is up to the people at Wikileaks to censor the works themselves. How can you be any more democratic when one party refuses all options bar the "Give it back" scenario...
As for the limited reports I have managed to peruse, alongside all those we are privy too via the mainstream media, no informers names have been mentioned. Of course I would not know an 'informers' name, but the pentagon would and no evidence has been brought forward to indicate any death resulting from these leaks.
Regarding Qatar, which release are you referring to? If you are making reference to the "Qatar uses Al Jazeera as propaganda arm of the Qatari government" release, I don't think the Qatar government will be anymore upset by this than the average Republican defending Fox. I heartily enjoy some of Al Jazeera's reporting. I also enjoy reading from China daily, the Australian ABC, Reuters and SBS world news. As we are all aware, the best way to 'mitigate' bias in ones news viewing is to view from a multitude of sources. I weep for the 'informed' few who believe in the doctrine of O'Reilly and are echoing his cries that Assange be killed (much akin to the cries for the head of Daniel Ellsberg ). I find the death penalty abhorrent and would hope that a majority of Americans also recognise it as barbaric.
As to your question, I would think that the onus of determining what is a 'secret' would fall onto all those involved, from the those leaking the material in the first place, right through to the public at large that demand answers. Whistle blowers like Ian Fishback should be role models for those that witness injustice, perhaps even rewarded.
If a site exists that happens to have significant importance to a country in terms of infrastructure, I see no reason why the people who work there shouldn't know about it. I also see no reason why the people who live nearby shouldn't know about it either. I also see no reason why people who live a small distance away shouldn't know about it too. I also see no reason why people who live a long distance away shouldn't know about it.
If the people who work at all live nearby to the site know about it, and about its importance, unless they are already sworn to secrecy in some way, there is no reason why they shouldn't tell people about. And, for the most part, this is exactly what happens.
Someone could compile a list of things are important in terms of infrastructure. When I say anyone, I mean any specific person, like an author, or someone who travels a lot, or someone who is an expert in a single area, or someone who's just generally interested. I'm not making a statement about people who are intelligent people who are not intelligent. I'm not even making a statement about groups of people versus individual people. I'm just saying it is possible for somebody to compile a list, or a group of people to compile a list.
You have not answered my comment about an author like Tom Clancy. Is it bad for him to, in the course of his novels, point out significant points of interest around the world? Is it therefore bad for someone to collate all of his settings into a single list?
Here is my main point:
why is compiling a list any different than knowledge being public in the first place? You seem to think that bringing all this information together into a list is somehow bad and wrong and I disagree completely. I always think, if people want to collect knowledge in new and interesting ways, they should be allowed to. Also, if this knowledge already exist somewhere, I don't see why it should be held from people who are interested. Why should it be up to volunteers, or communities, or single interested people, for anyone like that to have to compile a list like this?
Why shouldn't the government, if they have information like this already compiled into lists, not release it to the public?
Like I said, some friends of mine want to cycle on one wheel across every bridge in New York. To get this information, with the exact location of every single bridge in New York, they went to an office and it was freely available. I don't see this as a bad thing. By the time they finish a project they will have probably more knowledge about the bridges in New York than most people, and will properly share that knowledge in some way. I don't see this as a bad thing
to be clear, I do think somethings should be kept secret. For example the contents and the exact purposes of some military bases. But I don't think that any kind of formatting, or any kind of explanation, or any kind of collation of any publicly available knowledge should be restricted.
A quick and trivial example is the site of Hitler's bunker in Berlin. All throughout the Communist era it was never mentioned, and even throughout the 90s there was no signs of saying this was the place that Hitler died. It wasn't kept secret that Hitler died there, because if you were really interested you could find the place in maps in history books, then overlay current maps, and go look at the place. However, to stop neo-Nazis treating the site is some kind of sign, the city never had any kind of sign or memorial. The upshot was that people living in apartments overlooking the site didn't know they lived on a site of particular historical importance. Now there is a sign there, and every body knows, and you know what? It hasn't become a shrine or gathering point for the neo-Nazis. Personally, I don't see any reason why it couldn't have been marked on maps before.
Why should this be any different for people who live above, next to, or in the area of an important fibre line? That is also buried underground and yet could be important in the future. No. I'm not making any claims a secret knowledge. If people know something, they know something. If they have been sworn to secrecy, that is one thing. However, we're talking about publicly available information, and yet publicly available information being restricted from being compiled into lists. This is the biggest problem with your point of view. You were saying non-secret information shouldn't be compiled into lists and if it is compiled into lists those lists should now be secret. How are you saying anything else? You're quoting me out of context here. I don't know how the entire world works, but I do know generally how communications work, and that we live in a global world which relies on delivery of goods. Some of those goods and raw materials. Some of those goods are oil. I know that the US relies on communication and the delivery of goods. This is how the world works. I'm not talking about any in-depth knowledge here about politics, or high-level trade agreements, the international diplomacy, I'm making of a broad statement about how the world works. Communications flow through fibre-optic cables, oil goes through pipes, raw materials are found in mind in the ground, and all these come together in factories and distribution points, and are delivered to the United States.
My qualification to knowing how the world works is simply by living in the world. Nothing more complex than.
But lets have a look at the list.
For example, if I said to someone “hey, make a list of all the raw materials found on the continent of Africa which are important to United States manufacturing effort, but which are difficult to view outside of Africa," they might come up with a list which looks a bit like this:
"AFRICA
Congo (Kinshasa): Cobalt (Mine and Plant)
Gabon: Manganese - Battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade
Guinea: Bauxite (Mine)
South Africa: BAE Land System OMC, Benoni, South Africa Brown David Gear Industries LTD, Benoni, South Africa Bushveld Complex (chromite mine) Ferrochromium Manganese - Battery grade, natural; battery grade, synthetic; chemical grade; ferro; metallurgical grade Palladium Mine and Plant Platinum Mines Rhodium"
Of course, this list also contains two companies which supply the military with equipment or expertise. However one is owned by BAE, one of the largest weapons companies in the world, and the other one has a publicly available website talking about how it powers the defence industry. Really, it doesn't take any particularly deep understanding of how the world works to know that these kind of things are important. Really, it doesn't.
"Qatar: Ras Laffan Industrial Center: By 2012 Qatar will be the largest source of imported LNG to U.S."
Now, I know that the United States relies on gas. When compiling a list of sites important to the United States in terms of international infrastructure, the supply of gas would be near the top of my list. I would see where the United States buys its gas, and then see where that gas is processed. Knowing that Qatar is a major supplier of gas to the United States, I would look at a website for Qatar and see where there main port and/or refineries are. I can do this with Google. In fact, I will try that now. I know refineries are always right next to ports, so I'll google for "qatar largest port" but no in quotes.
The third result is an interactive map, powered by Google, pointing out three ports along the coast of Qatar. Two our run or owned by Port authorities, so I know these public aren't quite so important to oil and gas, but one is owned by Qatar petroleum. At a place called Ras Laffan. Not only that, but the map also shows me the offshore ports that are also owned by Qatar petroleum. It even details the exact longitude and latitude of these offshore sites.
Don't you see? I can trivially find this information using common knowledge and Google! Picking out, in a country like Qatar, the most important sites and infrastructure for the United States is easy!
Let's try and experiment. I haven't looked at the list for all European countries, because there are very many of them. Germany will probably be very important to the United States in many ways, the country like Poland, where it didn't have many bases, properly has fewer sites. I'm going to see if I can make the list of the things and sites in Poland, and then check the list in the cable, and see if I can match it, or at least some of the answers.
Poland has oil lines, I know this living in Germany. It probably doesn't service the US military in any way, because I doubt they have military bases there, and also they probably don't supply any weapons. I know this, because Poland probably uses more of the old Soviet standard of weaponry, not like traditional NATO countries in the West of Europe. See my posts about the Russian tanks stolen by pirates on the way to Kenya for more on this topic. But Google anyway.
First tiny bit of research = "Poland is heavily dependent on oil imports, particularly from Russia." So no large exports or refineries.
I've seen Bond films though. I'll Google for pipelines. First hit = "The Druzhba pipeline (Russian: нефтепровод «Дружба»; also had been referred as the Friendship Pipeline and the Comecon Pipeline), according to foreignpolicy.com, is the world's longest oil pipeline in fact one of the biggest oil pipeline networks in the world."
I bet that makes the list!
A quick search in the article for "United states" = "There have been proposals to extend northern branch of the Druzhba pipeline to the German North Sea port of Wilhelmshaven, which would reduce oil tanker traffic in the Baltic Sea and make it easier to transport Russian oil to the United States."
From the map on the page, I see there are no other pipelines running through Poland. I'll try Mineral deposits. Thankfully there is a government website detailing its resources, but unfortunately for Poland, I can't find anything it is a net exporter of, and certainly not to the United states. Defense companies? I'd have to dig deeper, but I can't see anything that the United States would rely on, not in the list of the unified defense industry group of companies called Bumar. Nothing's coming up for pharmaceuticals either.
And now... what does wikileaks say?
"Poland: Druzhba Oil Pipeline"
That's it. Surprise, surprise. The only thing the United States cares about in Poland is an oil pipeline. My general view of "how the world works" has played out, and I have once again shown how trivial it is to compile lists like the one on Wikileaks.
My conclusion:
There is NO REASON a list like this should be kept secret. Nor is it irresponsible to publish a list if found. It shows the way the government thinks, and how it views the world! This is a good thing!