Regarding Qatar, which release are you referring to?
Let's see what the list says about Qatar. For some reason you seem to have a particular interest in this country.
OK, read over this document. As I said, there was more than just a list leaked.
(could you please define that; are you alluding to a Utopian UN-centric world view?)
It was your phrase. If you said a boon to Kenyan democracy, I'd have bought that. Though, it wasn't the TED talk that was the boon, but the release of documents.
How can you be any more democratic when one party refuses all options bar the "Give it back" scenario...
The leaders in the pentagon are in place as a result of a democratic process. To hear "no," and go ahead and release the documents anyway, is to fly in the face of the democracy that established those leaders.
It'd be one thing to, as was the case with Kenya, expose malfeasance and change the outcome of an election. This most recent leak is not that.
As for releasing them in a democratic fashion, I wonder what that would involve.
How about talking to the foreign countries other than the US which may be affected by the release?
Unless you consult all the people involved in a particular document, releasing it of your own accord is you saying that your views on the importance of this document are more important than everyone else's. Sometimes, you may be right, but sometimes, you will not be right; my concern is in the ability of the Wikileaks crowd to figure out which is which. This is Assange and his crew saying, "This is how the world should work, and we're going to do it whether or not you want us to." How is that at all in the spirit of democracy?
You have not answered my comment about an author like Tom Clancy
I answered a similar thing a while back, but I'll answer it again. There is a gulf between an author writing a fictional novel which says "what if," and a list from known authorities saying "yes, this is definitely the case." The fictional novel, even if it is well-researched, is still fiction, and makes a lot of leaps and assumptions to get there. The real-world document deals with actual information from the actual places; there is no fanciful imagining.
It's the same as the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion. We can write hypotheses all day long - this is what Tom Clancy does - but until we actually put one to the test with real-world information and experimentation, we're just faffing around. Once you run an experiment and have some data, some numbers based on actual occurrences, you have something useful from which you can proceed.
It makes a world of difference. The fictional book may or may not work in real-life, but the real-life document definitely works, and thus has far more utility. It is the relative utility that makes the secret information so much more important than the novel.
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.
That's what I meant by "qualifying" your statement. Your first statement was just a claim to broad knowledge without specifying that knowledge or its origin.
My qualification to knowing how the world works is simply by living in the world. Nothing more complex than.
See above. That's not what I meant by "qualify," but this is also a good statement. This is everyone's qualification.
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?
Because I'm saying that the information being compiled isn't publicly available. It is available to some people in the know, who may or may not be bound by NDA's. You can find aspects of that information on Google, as you've demonstrated, but you can't find all of it. Try finding the information available in the document I linked above using only Google. I don't think it's possible.
You seem to think that bringing all this information together into a list is somehow bad and wrong and I disagree completely.
The list is not bad or wrong. Compiling publicly available information into a list is not bad or wrong. Compiling secret information into a secret list is not bad or wrong.
Releasing a secret list of secret information to the public, circumventing the protections of secrecy in place, may be wrong and bad depending on the information released. In this specific case, I lean towards "bad."
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.
The Australian foreign minister agrees with me. The US government and the leakers are the ones responsible, if you want to point fingers. WikiLeaks has done no wrong.
The Australian foreign minister agrees with me. The US government and the leakers are the ones responsible, if you want to point fingers. WikiLeaks has done no wrong.
LOL I wonder what they would be saying it was Austrailian documents.
Let's see what the list says about Qatar. For some reason you seem to have a particular interest in this country.
OK, read overthis document.As I said, there was more than just a list leaked.
Okay, I read through that. To me there is very little of importance in regards to security. All I see is US military involvement to secure the supply of LNG. Then again, during my initial googling on Qatar it listed the country as the largest supplier of LNG. Saying in public that America depends on Qatar for oil products is a "well, duh!" moment, and then this extrapolates the facilities involved.
What I find interesting is this:
"In 2005, the GOQ contracted with a U.S. security and safety company to perform a top-down, zero-based review of critical infrastructure protection; the study encompassed organizational lines of command and control for the security services and industrial facility security at the three facilities identified previously. The resultant report finished by the U.S. company in 2007, which has not been shared with the USG and remains highly classified by the GOQ, reportedly identified and prioritized deficient areas and provided recommendations in each. Subsequent to the report, Qatar Petroleum Security Directorate placed a tender for a detailed security infrastructure assessment in March 2009. The assessment will identify needed technical and security equipment and related facilities (security control buildings, barricades, etc). "
See that? There was a security review, that found real deficits in security. This has been kept secret. That is probably a good thing, until those problems are sorted. In fact, given the time span (2005 to 2009) they probably HAVE been sorted.
What I don't understand is how this can be helpful or harmful to terrorists! They know where oil comes from and too. Like I said, just knowing how the world works lets you know these things.
The value in this document is that it reveals US military involvement in Qatar, and maybe at a greater level than commonly understood or known. Maybe. I don't know how much non-military citizens know about US Airforce coverage of oil refineries. I think showing the interests and priorities of the government is important. That all this has been secret until now means that we didn't have first hand knowledge. and now we do. I don't see anything wrong with this, and only good stuff.
The fictional novel, even if it is well-researched, is stillfiction, and makes a lot of leaps and assumptions to get there. The real-world document deals with actual information from the actual places; there is no fanciful imagining.
Actual information provided in this list from Poland? The NAME of a pipeline. The name. Nothing more! Just a name. You know where I got the idea to look up pipelines in Poland? A Bond movie where one country bombs a pipeline in another country, to make sure all oil flowed through their border, and so they could then control it.
Fiction, yes. Hypothetical, yes. However, a list of infrastructure and companies is LESS information than you get in novels. And I said we didn't need to take the info from the novels, but just do the same kind of research Tom Clancy does himself.
Releasing a secret list of secret information to the public, circumventing the protections of secrecy in place, may be wrong and bad depending on the information released. In this specific case, I lean towards "bad."
I lean towards "whatever" in terms of security, because I demonstrated similar results using google. You challenged me to do so, and I trivially proved myself right.
In terms of openness in governments, so we can see what the REALLY think and what they REALLY care about, is far more important that trifling or non-existant security concerns.
To me there is very little of importance in regards to security.
I disagree completely. A person with enough ill will could use this information to more efficiently direct their efforts.
What I don't understand is how this can be helpful or harmful to terrorists!
Knowing exactly why the US cares about a given installation beyond just "oil?" I'd call that pretty significant, and it's far more than just "a list of publicly available information." How about this little item:
As an example, in September-October 2007, strategic fuel reserves at Al Udeid Airbase were depleted because unscheduled, uncoordinated road construction caused increased transit time for fuel tankers. The situation continued for 30 days until resolved. Had the situation not been resolved, there would have been an impact on theater-wide combat and airlift operations.
Did you know that? Could you find that on Google? No. I'd say that's strategically valuable information. It reveals the relatively trivial amount of effort it would take to significantly impact operations in that theater.
I don't see anything wrong with this, and only good stuff.
Seriously? That document just said "here are the places where you could attack Qatar and do the most harm to the US." That's "good?" For whom? Sure, showing government priorities can be important, but is that worth the potential harm this could cause? I don't think so.
See that? There was a security review, that found real deficits in security. This has been kept secret. That is probably a good thing, until those problems are sorted. In fact, given the time span (2005 to 2009) they probably HAVE been sorted.
Really? The initial review took 2 years. You think a detailed assessment will finish faster than that? I doubt it. But more to the point, much of the information in this document wasn't publicly available to start with, and frankly, I see no benefit from releasing this, and only possible harm.
I don't know how much non-military citizens know about US Airforce coverage of oil refineries.
That's right, you don't. I don't either. We're both equally qualified to make assessments as to the strategic value of this information, which is to say that we are not. Yet you see no problem in letting the information out anyhow, despite the fact that it has potential to be damaging. The fact that Wikileaks personnel are not qualified to make that judgment either, and still make it, is what concerns me.
If you know that what you're releasing is publicly available, then release. But if you're releasing sensitive information that isn't publicly available, you need to be damn sure that it's not going to cause more harm than good, and I see no evidence of that in this pile of releases. If you lack the expertise to make a solid judgment about whether or not to release that information, the right and responsible thing to do is to reserve the information until you are in a better position to assess it.
I lean towards "whatever" in terms of security, because I demonstrated similar results using google. You challenged me to do so, and I trivially proved myself right.
You did do that, and I commend you. The list might not be the worst thing ever, and while I still think it's ill-advised, it does seem to contain things that you could find anyhow.
Still, I'm concerned about the other things that they're leaking, like that Qatar document. You obviously didn't read it until I linked to it, and I read it the day it was leaked - the same day as that list. I've been arguing this entire time with that document in mind. I've yet to read every single document that's been leaked, but I'm working on it. Unless everyone is doing the same thing, nobody can really say with certainty whether or not Wikileaks is being responsible.
I'm moving back to the fence about Wikileaks. I'll need to watch closely for a while and make a determination later. I remain skeptical about their true value to the world and to the pursuit of truth, but for now, I will pick my judgment back up and reserve it. The list doesn't seem to be as bad as I initially thought, but the other things being leaked in conjunction with that list may be a different thing altogether.
Seriously? That document just said "here are the places where you could attack Qatar and do the most harm to the US." That's "good?" For whom? Sure, showing government priorities can be important, but is that worth the potential harm this could cause? I don't think so.
And here is the main disagreement. I don't think we should rely on secrecy of interests for security. I would rather the government be open about what is important to them, to explain their reasons, and be held accountable.
I don't know how many people knew the Qatar government and army was being helped by the US air force. I don't mind if either way if the US is involved or not, or how much they want to help Qatar secure their oil infrastructure.
My point is that if it was publicly stated, somewhere, that the US was involved, we wouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks to tell us this kind of thing. If they did that, they wouldn't need to list specific problems with security at the sites. Why should they? The details of that kind of thing are probably left secret until sorted.
However, Wikileaks thinks there is something important in this document, and it has nothing to do with the level of security. Instead it has to do with the US involvement in that security. They release complete documents, and I think its good that they do, so I see why they didn't edit this out. I think the freedom of the information of the goals of the US government and military is way more important than specific examples of (hypothetical) security problems.
Unless everyone is doing the same thing, nobody can really say with certainty whether or not Wikileaks is being responsible.
They are working closely with traditional news outlets like the Guardian.
Also, they did ask the US government and military to help review and redact the documents. They were told to give the documents back, and not release them. This is quite important, I think, as it shows that the secrecy of the US government is now working against the very idea of secrecy.
The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 - May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.
The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.
I would rather the government be open about what is important to them, to explain their reasons, and be held accountable.
But as you've said, some things should remain secret. The question I ask is who gets to decide that. The problem here...
I think the freedom of the information of the goals of the US government and military is way more important than specific examples of (hypothetical) security problems.
...is that this is an argument of clashing ideologies. There really is no purely rational argument you can make that says that releasing secret information about strategic military sites is actually good for the US. If there are people who are looking to do bad things to you, you don't tell them anything. You don't show your opponent your hand when you're playing a card game, and even if they can count cards, you still force them to do it, because they might make a mistake. No, the argument here is one of passion and rightness.
You convinced me back here:
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 cold, ruthless logic in me tells me that the first bridge over the Danube (Trajan's bridge) was built during the Roman empire, and was destroyed long before the camera was invented. So, there never could be a photograph of it published. I also know that there are countless valid reasons to restrict the photographing of historic sites, and that the site of the bridge was hardly a secret; according to Wikipedia, it was added to a list of important archeological sites long before you were 12. There was no magic here, no great secret that you uncovered. You took a picture of some rocks that had been ruined for a very, very long time, and nobody stopped you because it didn't really matter at all. It was not a Secret site, it was just an old ruin.
This is the same cold, ruthless logic that I have to use when I sit in a conference with the FDA, USDA, CDC, DHS, and other public health agencies, and discuss whether or not to release some information. "We just received a report that we have 8 more cases of grade school children who have contracted HUS. Last night, one of the previous 4 cases died." Then we sit there and weigh the pros and cons: 3 different establishments and 2 different food types that are suspect. It'll take 3 days before we can get any more information than that. What do we do? When do we tell people? What do we tell people? Recall the right thing and you prevent more deaths, and maybe get some early treatment for people who need it. Recall the wrong thing, and you throw off the investigation for months, wasting valuable time and resources, while more and more people continue to get sick and possibly die. Recall everything and you ruin companies and livelihoods while driving up food costs for the entire nation, because once people hear about any food recall, they stop buying anything even close to that food type. None of this accounts for the fact that you could be just plain wrong, and any recall is the wrong one.
So we make the decision to wait, and we get lucky: no more children die, and no new cases of HUS crop up. We identify the correct food type and establishment, and a recall notice goes out.
You don't make this decision lightly. You think, "Is this the right thing" before, during, and after the decision-making. I sometimes lie awake at night, wondering if I could have done something differently, to perhaps save one more life. "Fuck the industry," I think. "One child is worth it." Then I realize that fucking an industry like that puts countless thousands in a hard place. Should they suffer needlessly if I'm wrong and make the call? No, I think. So I am wracked with guilt. Every single time.
Then, sometimes, despite your best and most proactive efforts, nothing changes at all. You recall a bunch of raw milk because 30 people got campylobacterosis from it, and then one of the patients - who is a pregnant woman with two toddlers - goes right back to buying the milk. From the same farm. The farm who just made her and her family ill.
So to answer the question:
I'm curious where everyone would draw the line between something that needed to be kept secret and something that should be released to the public?
I have no one guiding principle, because every situation is different. I consider all of the information I have before me, weigh the pros and cons of different scenarios, and consult the perspectives of multiple other experts. I make well-informed decisions every time, and I lie awake at night, constantly and relentlessly questioning the rightness of what I've done and how I ought to proceed. I relentlessly question my own motives, the motives of others, and their reasoning, for the entire decision-making process.
And I don't even work with tremendously sensitive information. I don't direct troop movements or other massive public policy items; I just test food. That's it. And yet the complexity and intensity of the decisions made with regards to that testing far outstrip the depth of consideration given to a simple overarching statement.
If you're not thinking to that level every time you decide to release secret information, you're doing it wrong. Every document released, every secret told, needs that level of consideration. Sometimes you luck out and the decision is a relatively simple one. Sometimes, not so much.
And I would not be so arrogant as to believe that one simple perspective could possibly be more valid or more true than a group of very smart people putting their heads together in the manner I have described. It's possible, but I would not be ready to believe it without very extensive evidence. To think that you can come along and magically know better than everyone else is massively self-centered and misguided, and that sort of thinking has repeatedly led to great ruin in the past.
But then I think to Luke's story again:
I took a photo.
That's beautiful. I can imagine Luke standing in front of a podium, addressing a sea of thousands of political supporters, rallied behind him. "I took a photo" becomes the crowd's mantra.
It's a very attractive image, one that tugs at heartstrings. It makes me think that, despite the infinite power of my cold and ruthless logic, and against all better judgment, there might still be a chance that doing the right thing can still make good in the world. I think of that 12-year-old boy, with all the youthful inquisitiveness, and I think, "Why not? It could be a good thing."
Maybe. Just maybe.
There's no reason to believe that releasing secrets will be harmless. History has shown otherwise very consistently. And I know that there are plenty of times when the harm outweighs the good; I've effectively condemned enough people to death to have a sense of that balancing act, and the balancing act I play isn't really that dangerous, objectively speaking.
But then I think that maybe, just maybe, we should go against our better judgment and try the ballsy and stupid thing once in a while. That maybe the Wikileaks group, despite all better judgment, might wind up actually doing something good.
So where do we draw the line? I don't know, but I do know it is not an easy question, not by any stretch, and if you find yourself thinking it a simple matter, you're doing it wrong.
Wait a second, how would this play out if Assange worked for a major newspaper?
The publisher would hold up a big copy of the First Amendment and laugh and laugh and laugh at any attempts to prosecute said paper. Once information has been placed in the hands of the public, whether legally or illegally, there are no bars to using it. It's not like receiving stolen goods. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that journalists can't be forced to reveal their sources.
The cold, ruthless logic in me tells me that the first bridge over the Danube (Trajan's bridge) was built during the Roman empire, and was destroyed long before the camera was invented. So, there never could be a photograph of it published. I also know that there are countless valid reasons to restrict the photographing of historic sites, and that the site of the bridge was hardly a secret; according toWikipedia, it was added to a list of important archeological sites long before you were 12. There was no magic here, no great secret that you uncovered. You took a picture of some rocks that had been ruined for a very, very long time, and nobody stopped you because it didn't really matter at all. It was not a Secret site, it was just an old ruin.
Wow! You completely missed my point here!
I'm not talking about Trajan's bridge. I'm talking about a bridge which is closest to the mouth of the Danube. It was built during Soviet times, and is a major piece of infrastructure in Romania. Come on, give me more credit than mixing up a tourist site and meaningful infrastructure.
Reconsider my story in regards to that, and get back to me.
Also, to be clear, we are talking at cross-purposes here. You are talking about real and important secrets that may or may not effect peoples lives and health. That kind of stuff IS important.
I am talking about secrets THAT ARE NOT SECRET! In the same way that the security around a bridge in Romania was not secret at all, because everyone who lived or visited knew it existed. The same with the headquarters of MI6 in London. For years there were no photos allowed... and then it was featured at the start of a Bond movie. EVERYONE who lived or visited London knew it existed, and where it was. Right next to the Thames!
And so, this futile sense of keeping secrets for secrecy's sake leads to stupid situations like Wikileaks. The very fact that the US government refused to work with Wikileaks in helping to sort the REAL secrets, those that COULD be harmful, means that harmful information MAY be released, even though the traditional press is working closely with Wikileaks to reduce that as much as possible.
Seen the latest leak where Visa and Mastercard asked for US government help to make sure laws in Russia passed in their favour? And who has stopped payments to Wikileaks? To me this is one of the most important leaks yet, because I use credit cards quite often! It fucks me off that the US government is now using them to shut down free speech.
Secrecy breeds more secrecy. More secrecy leads to accountability deficits.
The publisher would hold up a big copy of the First Amendment and laugh and laugh and laugh at any attempts to prosecute said paper. Once information has been placed in the hands of the public, whether legally or illegally, there are no bars to using it. It's not like receiving stolen goods. And the Supreme Court has long ruled that journalists can't be forced to reveal their sources.
Are you sure the first amendment extends to classified information, because information isn't automatically declassified because it's been leaked.
Are you sure the first amendment extends to classified information, because information isn't automatically declassified because it's been leaked.
Yes. The leaker may have committed a crime, but the reporter has not.
If I break into your house and take pictures of your junk, I have committed several crimes. If you give me pictures of your junk, and I share them, no crime. If someone else, who has broken into your house and taken pictures of your junk, gives me copies of said pictures, I can still share them, though he has still committed crimes.
You should really be more specific with your language use. "The first bridge across the Danube" is very different than "the bridge closest to the mouth of the Danube."
Come on, give me more credit than mixing up a tourist site and meaningful infrastructure.
Well what I thought you meant was a beautiful piece of writing containing the soulful passion of some of our greatest ideals. I think that's some pretty good credit right there. I mean, you did read the rest of that post, right? Where I said that the image of a defiant 12-year-old taking a photo stirred a little bit of that idealism in me?
Next time, just name the goddamn bridge. :P
I am talking about secrets THAT ARE NOT SECRET!
Sure, and I agreed with you, ultimately, about the list. I disagree about the Qatar document. That's why I am back on the fence, but still on the fence; I'm still unsure as to the quality of judgment being exercised by Wikileaks.
And so, this futile sense of keeping secrets for secrecy's sake leads to stupid situations like Wikileaks.
I agree about secrecy for secrecy's sake. But again, how do you judge when something is secret for secrecy's sake, and when it's a legitimate secret? That's a hard goddamn distinction to make sometimes.
Seen the latest leak where Visa and Mastercard asked for US government help to make sure laws in Russia passed in their favour? And who has stopped payments to Wikileaks? To me this is one of the most important leaks yet, because I use credit cards quite often! It fucks me off that the US government is now using them to shut down free speech.
I'll have to read those, but that doesn't sound like the US is using the credit cards to shut down free speech. Sounds to me like Visa and Mastercard are trying to protect their business interests. In other words, it's nefarious dealings on the part of the credit cards, not the US government. But I'll reserve judgment until I get to read it. I don't like visiting Wikileaks while at work. Better safe than sorry.
Yes. The leaker may have committed a crime, but the reporter has not.
Classified documents retain their classification until they are specifically declassified by the proper authority. Merely existing within the public domain is not an automatic declassification. A reporter holding classified information can be prosecuted the same way someone possessing stolen goods can, even if they didn't steal it themselves.
,,,I can still share them, though he has still committed crimes.
I'm not 100% sure on this. Photos of property is one thing, but what about photos of blue prints for new super engine? The Wikileaks are close to intellectual property. They're not the formula for a new cancer drug, but I can see them being on the same level. This is more like someone being in possession of stole good to me. Some guys broke into my house and stole my iPod. Then sold it to my neighbor. While my neighbor didn't break into my house or steal my stuff, that iPod isn't his.
Had Assange been an undercover Russian Spy, I imagine he'd be in jail. Though the last Russian spy we caught managed to get a modeling contract. I imagine if the Wikileaks where being sold to a foreign government. Assagne would be guilty of espionage. Intellectual or not Assange is giving away "stolen property."
Ha, haha, hahaha... am I the only one finding the DDoS attacks hilarious? This is what happens when you piss of the internets. If you're gonna go after someone, at least be honest about your motives, or the internets will get you.
Ha, haha, hahaha... am I the only one finding the DDoS attacks hilarious? This is what happens when you piss of the internets. If you're gonna go after someone, at least be honest about your motives, or the internets will get you.
Ha, haha, hahaha... am I the only one finding the DDoS attacks hilarious? This is what happens when you piss of the internets. If you're gonna go after someone, at least be honest about your motives, or the internets will get you.
Hi-larious. ^_^
LAWL, we are totally fucking up legitimate transactions and businesses because we have a sense of self entitlement and justice. MOB RULE FTW.
/sarcasmtothemax How many people will have to pay late fees because they couldn't pay their bills on time?
Does the DDoS of mastercard do anything other than remove their web presence? Does it disrupt their payment gateways? To me if they, anonymous or whomever, really wanted to hurt mastercard and paypal for their actions wouldn't it make sense to paralyze their ability to receive and send payments? Could that even be done with an attack like DDoS?
Hm. Interesting. I thought there was nothing with which he could be charged.
Let me make this very clear. Possession or even reading documents which have any sort of government classification, without the proper authorization, is against the law.
Comments
It'd be one thing to, as was the case with Kenya, expose malfeasance and change the outcome of an election. This most recent leak is not that. How about talking to the foreign countries other than the US which may be affected by the release?
Unless you consult all the people involved in a particular document, releasing it of your own accord is you saying that your views on the importance of this document are more important than everyone else's. Sometimes, you may be right, but sometimes, you will not be right; my concern is in the ability of the Wikileaks crowd to figure out which is which. This is Assange and his crew saying, "This is how the world should work, and we're going to do it whether or not you want us to." How is that at all in the spirit of democracy? I answered a similar thing a while back, but I'll answer it again. There is a gulf between an author writing a fictional novel which says "what if," and a list from known authorities saying "yes, this is definitely the case." The fictional novel, even if it is well-researched, is still fiction, and makes a lot of leaps and assumptions to get there. The real-world document deals with actual information from the actual places; there is no fanciful imagining.
It's the same as the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion. We can write hypotheses all day long - this is what Tom Clancy does - but until we actually put one to the test with real-world information and experimentation, we're just faffing around. Once you run an experiment and have some data, some numbers based on actual occurrences, you have something useful from which you can proceed.
It makes a world of difference. The fictional book may or may not work in real-life, but the real-life document definitely works, and thus has far more utility. It is the relative utility that makes the secret information so much more important than the novel. That's what I meant by "qualifying" your statement. Your first statement was just a claim to broad knowledge without specifying that knowledge or its origin. See above. That's not what I meant by "qualify," but this is also a good statement. This is everyone's qualification. Because I'm saying that the information being compiled isn't publicly available. It is available to some people in the know, who may or may not be bound by NDA's. You can find aspects of that information on Google, as you've demonstrated, but you can't find all of it. Try finding the information available in the document I linked above using only Google. I don't think it's possible. The list is not bad or wrong. Compiling publicly available information into a list is not bad or wrong. Compiling secret information into a secret list is not bad or wrong.
Releasing a secret list of secret information to the public, circumventing the protections of secrecy in place, may be wrong and bad depending on the information released. In this specific case, I lean towards "bad." I concur. That's not what I'm talking about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/08/assange-security-breaches-kevin-rudd
But I also agree that Assange should not be suffering legal repercussions for his involvement with Wikileaks.
What I find interesting is this:
"In 2005, the GOQ contracted with a U.S. security and safety company to perform a top-down, zero-based review of critical infrastructure protection; the study encompassed organizational lines of command and control for the security services and industrial facility security at the three facilities identified previously. The resultant report finished by the U.S. company in 2007, which has not been shared with the USG and remains highly classified by the GOQ, reportedly identified and prioritized deficient areas and provided recommendations in each. Subsequent to the report, Qatar Petroleum Security Directorate placed a tender for a detailed security infrastructure assessment in March 2009. The assessment will identify needed technical and security equipment and related facilities (security control buildings, barricades, etc). "
See that? There was a security review, that found real deficits in security. This has been kept secret. That is probably a good thing, until those problems are sorted. In fact, given the time span (2005 to 2009) they probably HAVE been sorted.
What I don't understand is how this can be helpful or harmful to terrorists! They know where oil comes from and too. Like I said, just knowing how the world works lets you know these things.
The value in this document is that it reveals US military involvement in Qatar, and maybe at a greater level than commonly understood or known. Maybe. I don't know how much non-military citizens know about US Airforce coverage of oil refineries. I think showing the interests and priorities of the government is important. That all this has been secret until now means that we didn't have first hand knowledge. and now we do. I don't see anything wrong with this, and only good stuff. Actual information provided in this list from Poland? The NAME of a pipeline. The name. Nothing more! Just a name. You know where I got the idea to look up pipelines in Poland? A Bond movie where one country bombs a pipeline in another country, to make sure all oil flowed through their border, and so they could then control it.
Fiction, yes. Hypothetical, yes. However, a list of infrastructure and companies is LESS information than you get in novels. And I said we didn't need to take the info from the novels, but just do the same kind of research Tom Clancy does himself. I lean towards "whatever" in terms of security, because I demonstrated similar results using google. You challenged me to do so, and I trivially proved myself right.
In terms of openness in governments, so we can see what the REALLY think and what they REALLY care about, is far more important that trifling or non-existant security concerns.
If you know that what you're releasing is publicly available, then release. But if you're releasing sensitive information that isn't publicly available, you need to be damn sure that it's not going to cause more harm than good, and I see no evidence of that in this pile of releases. If you lack the expertise to make a solid judgment about whether or not to release that information, the right and responsible thing to do is to reserve the information until you are in a better position to assess it. You did do that, and I commend you. The list might not be the worst thing ever, and while I still think it's ill-advised, it does seem to contain things that you could find anyhow.
Still, I'm concerned about the other things that they're leaking, like that Qatar document. You obviously didn't read it until I linked to it, and I read it the day it was leaked - the same day as that list. I've been arguing this entire time with that document in mind. I've yet to read every single document that's been leaked, but I'm working on it. Unless everyone is doing the same thing, nobody can really say with certainty whether or not Wikileaks is being responsible.
I'm moving back to the fence about Wikileaks. I'll need to watch closely for a while and make a determination later. I remain skeptical about their true value to the world and to the pursuit of truth, but for now, I will pick my judgment back up and reserve it. The list doesn't seem to be as bad as I initially thought, but the other things being leaked in conjunction with that list may be a different thing altogether.
I don't know how many people knew the Qatar government and army was being helped by the US air force. I don't mind if either way if the US is involved or not, or how much they want to help Qatar secure their oil infrastructure.
My point is that if it was publicly stated, somewhere, that the US was involved, we wouldn't have to rely on Wikileaks to tell us this kind of thing. If they did that, they wouldn't need to list specific problems with security at the sites. Why should they? The details of that kind of thing are probably left secret until sorted.
However, Wikileaks thinks there is something important in this document, and it has nothing to do with the level of security. Instead it has to do with the US involvement in that security. They release complete documents, and I think its good that they do, so I see why they didn't edit this out. I think the freedom of the information of the goals of the US government and military is way more important than specific examples of (hypothetical) security problems. They are working closely with traditional news outlets like the Guardian.
Also, they did ask the US government and military to help review and redact the documents. They were told to give the documents back, and not release them. This is quite important, I think, as it shows that the secrecy of the US government is now working against the very idea of secrecy.
You convinced me back here: The cold, ruthless logic in me tells me that the first bridge over the Danube (Trajan's bridge) was built during the Roman empire, and was destroyed long before the camera was invented. So, there never could be a photograph of it published. I also know that there are countless valid reasons to restrict the photographing of historic sites, and that the site of the bridge was hardly a secret; according to Wikipedia, it was added to a list of important archeological sites long before you were 12. There was no magic here, no great secret that you uncovered. You took a picture of some rocks that had been ruined for a very, very long time, and nobody stopped you because it didn't really matter at all. It was not a Secret site, it was just an old ruin.
This is the same cold, ruthless logic that I have to use when I sit in a conference with the FDA, USDA, CDC, DHS, and other public health agencies, and discuss whether or not to release some information. "We just received a report that we have 8 more cases of grade school children who have contracted HUS. Last night, one of the previous 4 cases died." Then we sit there and weigh the pros and cons: 3 different establishments and 2 different food types that are suspect. It'll take 3 days before we can get any more information than that. What do we do? When do we tell people? What do we tell people? Recall the right thing and you prevent more deaths, and maybe get some early treatment for people who need it. Recall the wrong thing, and you throw off the investigation for months, wasting valuable time and resources, while more and more people continue to get sick and possibly die. Recall everything and you ruin companies and livelihoods while driving up food costs for the entire nation, because once people hear about any food recall, they stop buying anything even close to that food type. None of this accounts for the fact that you could be just plain wrong, and any recall is the wrong one.
So we make the decision to wait, and we get lucky: no more children die, and no new cases of HUS crop up. We identify the correct food type and establishment, and a recall notice goes out.
You don't make this decision lightly. You think, "Is this the right thing" before, during, and after the decision-making. I sometimes lie awake at night, wondering if I could have done something differently, to perhaps save one more life. "Fuck the industry," I think. "One child is worth it." Then I realize that fucking an industry like that puts countless thousands in a hard place. Should they suffer needlessly if I'm wrong and make the call? No, I think. So I am wracked with guilt. Every single time.
Then, sometimes, despite your best and most proactive efforts, nothing changes at all. You recall a bunch of raw milk because 30 people got campylobacterosis from it, and then one of the patients - who is a pregnant woman with two toddlers - goes right back to buying the milk. From the same farm. The farm who just made her and her family ill.
So to answer the question: I have no one guiding principle, because every situation is different. I consider all of the information I have before me, weigh the pros and cons of different scenarios, and consult the perspectives of multiple other experts. I make well-informed decisions every time, and I lie awake at night, constantly and relentlessly questioning the rightness of what I've done and how I ought to proceed. I relentlessly question my own motives, the motives of others, and their reasoning, for the entire decision-making process.
And I don't even work with tremendously sensitive information. I don't direct troop movements or other massive public policy items; I just test food. That's it. And yet the complexity and intensity of the decisions made with regards to that testing far outstrip the depth of consideration given to a simple overarching statement.
If you're not thinking to that level every time you decide to release secret information, you're doing it wrong. Every document released, every secret told, needs that level of consideration. Sometimes you luck out and the decision is a relatively simple one. Sometimes, not so much.
And I would not be so arrogant as to believe that one simple perspective could possibly be more valid or more true than a group of very smart people putting their heads together in the manner I have described. It's possible, but I would not be ready to believe it without very extensive evidence. To think that you can come along and magically know better than everyone else is massively self-centered and misguided, and that sort of thinking has repeatedly led to great ruin in the past.
But then I think to Luke's story again: That's beautiful. I can imagine Luke standing in front of a podium, addressing a sea of thousands of political supporters, rallied behind him. "I took a photo" becomes the crowd's mantra.
It's a very attractive image, one that tugs at heartstrings. It makes me think that, despite the infinite power of my cold and ruthless logic, and against all better judgment, there might still be a chance that doing the right thing can still make good in the world. I think of that 12-year-old boy, with all the youthful inquisitiveness, and I think, "Why not? It could be a good thing."
Maybe. Just maybe.
There's no reason to believe that releasing secrets will be harmless. History has shown otherwise very consistently. And I know that there are plenty of times when the harm outweighs the good; I've effectively condemned enough people to death to have a sense of that balancing act, and the balancing act I play isn't really that dangerous, objectively speaking.
But then I think that maybe, just maybe, we should go against our better judgment and try the ballsy and stupid thing once in a while. That maybe the Wikileaks group, despite all better judgment, might wind up actually doing something good.
So where do we draw the line? I don't know, but I do know it is not an easy question, not by any stretch, and if you find yourself thinking it a simple matter, you're doing it wrong.
I'm not talking about Trajan's bridge. I'm talking about a bridge which is closest to the mouth of the Danube. It was built during Soviet times, and is a major piece of infrastructure in Romania. Come on, give me more credit than mixing up a tourist site and meaningful infrastructure.
Reconsider my story in regards to that, and get back to me.
I am talking about secrets THAT ARE NOT SECRET! In the same way that the security around a bridge in Romania was not secret at all, because everyone who lived or visited knew it existed. The same with the headquarters of MI6 in London. For years there were no photos allowed... and then it was featured at the start of a Bond movie. EVERYONE who lived or visited London knew it existed, and where it was. Right next to the Thames!
And so, this futile sense of keeping secrets for secrecy's sake leads to stupid situations like Wikileaks. The very fact that the US government refused to work with Wikileaks in helping to sort the REAL secrets, those that COULD be harmful, means that harmful information MAY be released, even though the traditional press is working closely with Wikileaks to reduce that as much as possible.
Seen the latest leak where Visa and Mastercard asked for US government help to make sure laws in Russia passed in their favour? And who has stopped payments to Wikileaks? To me this is one of the most important leaks yet, because I use credit cards quite often! It fucks me off that the US government is now using them to shut down free speech.
Secrecy breeds more secrecy. More secrecy leads to accountability deficits.
If I break into your house and take pictures of your junk, I have committed several crimes. If you give me pictures of your junk, and I share them, no crime. If someone else, who has broken into your house and taken pictures of your junk, gives me copies of said pictures, I can still share them, though he has still committed crimes.
You should really be more specific with your language use. "The first bridge across the Danube" is very different than "the bridge closest to the mouth of the Danube." Well what I thought you meant was a beautiful piece of writing containing the soulful passion of some of our greatest ideals. I think that's some pretty good credit right there. I mean, you did read the rest of that post, right? Where I said that the image of a defiant 12-year-old taking a photo stirred a little bit of that idealism in me?
Next time, just name the goddamn bridge. :P Sure, and I agreed with you, ultimately, about the list. I disagree about the Qatar document. That's why I am back on the fence, but still on the fence; I'm still unsure as to the quality of judgment being exercised by Wikileaks. I agree about secrecy for secrecy's sake. But again, how do you judge when something is secret for secrecy's sake, and when it's a legitimate secret? That's a hard goddamn distinction to make sometimes. I'll have to read those, but that doesn't sound like the US is using the credit cards to shut down free speech. Sounds to me like Visa and Mastercard are trying to protect their business interests. In other words, it's nefarious dealings on the part of the credit cards, not the US government. But I'll reserve judgment until I get to read it. I don't like visiting Wikileaks while at work. Better safe than sorry.
Had Assange been an undercover Russian Spy, I imagine he'd be in jail. Though the last Russian spy we caught managed to get a modeling contract. I imagine if the Wikileaks where being sold to a foreign government. Assagne would be guilty of espionage. Intellectual or not Assange is giving away "stolen property."
/sarcasmtothemax How many people will have to pay late fees because they couldn't pay their bills on time?