›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

WikiLeaks:China

«13

Comments

  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    That's actually a really good article. Well, not an article, an opinion piece.
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    I would love to be a leaker in the Chinese Embassy but I'd have to learn simplified and Mandarin. I can't be assed.
  • RymRym
    I'm convinced that Wikileaks is a net good for society at this point and, barring the premeditated release of emergently dangerous information which does cause actual harm (note, not the release of the same information post-emergence), I give my unqualified support.

    That aside, this is an interesting perspective. Sadly, calloused hands...
  • dsfdsf
    edited December 2010
    I honestly think that Assange is basically an attention seeker. I don't think that the leak in anyway undermined the US's image. It may have actually done some good for the US because by laying bare all those secrets, you really just get to see the reality that the US is not this monolithic behemoth hell bent on global hegemony. Yeah, the US puts it's interests first, and has considerable power to push it's agenda but you just don't see the sinister plots that conspiracy theorists said we would see. I always said that you would be surprised at some of the mundane shit that gets classified, and those of you who know me personally, you know where I've been. But meh, The State department probably isn't sweating this too much. I think they are all just going through the motions of going after Assange to prevent people from thinking they can get away with espionage and the US government will ignore it.

    My opinion is that this leak was kind of funny. However, there was another leak earlier that Wikileaks published, that named people involved in deep covert operations, and whom had been selling out their fellow terrorists. That kind of information leaking is completely irresponsible. This one however was not that big a deal.
    Post edited by dsf on
  • dsfdsf
    I think it's funny how calling Putin "Batman" and "Alpha Dog" only made him take his shirt off, smile, flex and say, "HELL YEAH I AM!"
  • RymRym
    It may have actually done some good for the US because by laying bare all those secrets, you really just get to see the reality that the US is not this monolithic behemoth hell bent on global hegemony.
    It also effectively let us "tell off" several terrible world leaders and cause them some embarrassment that we otherwise could not have gotten away with.
  • dsfdsf
    tru dat
  • ChurbaChurba
    It also effectively let us "tell off" several terrible world leaders and cause them some embarrassment that we otherwise could not have gotten away with.
    There are multiple conspiracy theories which play on the basic theme of "The US government Did it/Assange is a US government Agent doing it for them, So that they can Embarrass X/Hurt X's chances of Achieving Y/Throw us off the trail of the REAL secrets!"
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    So, how long before they start feeding Wikileaks false info?
  • ChurbaChurba
    So, how long before they start feeding Wikileaks false info?
    I'd be surprised if it hasn't already been happening.
  • dsfdsf
    It also effectively let us "tell off" several terrible world leaders and cause them some embarrassment that we otherwise could not have gotten away with.
    There are multiple conspiracy theories which play on the basic theme of "The US government Did it/Assange is a US government Agent doing it for them, So that they can Embarrass X/Hurt X's chances of Achieving Y/Throw us off the trail of the REAL secrets!"
    ha! man, the world would be so much more interesting if this kind of crap was true, but alas, we live in a boring world where Occam's Razor mercilessly slices through stuff.
  • ChurbaChurba
    ha! man, the world would be so much more interesting if this kind of crap was true, but alas, we live in a boring world where Occam's Razor mercilessly slices through stuff.
    I'm thankful for that, because shit's already complex enough as it is, without this sort of bollocks being true.
  • theknoxinatortheknoxinator
    There are multiple conspiracy theories which play on the basic theme of "The US government Did it/Assange is a US government Agent doing it for them, So that they can Embarrass X/Hurt X's chances of Achieving Y/Throw us off the trail of the REAL secrets!"
    So wait... WikiLeaks isn't just a front for the CIA???
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange turns up at the Oxford TED conference.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited December 2010
    What exactly is in the public interest by releasing this information?
    Additionally, blackmailing countries is not exactly the best way to go about things.

    The irresponsibility of Wikileaks (and Assange in general) makes it hard to back them in any significant way.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • RymRym
    What exactly is in the public interest by releasingthis information?
    That information is obvious and easily gathered by any competent intelligence organization.
    While there is a valid place for whistleblowers, the irresponsibility of Wikileaks (and Assange in general) makes it hard to back them in any significant way.
    Wikileaks has generally gone out of its way to verify and redact the information it publishes. More to the point, if Wikileaks is destroyed, more radical organizations will emerge overnight which will be far less discriminating.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited December 2010
    That information is obvious and easily gathered by any competent intelligence organization.
    That doesn't answer the question though. If Wikileaks wishes to out corruption or Government malfeasance, why publish such information? It seems a bit of a non-sequitor to their overall narrative not to mention it hurts their public image.

    EDIT: Furthermore, I doubt that uneducated Islamic extremists have access to the type of intelligence organizations as the major nations.
    Wikileaks has generally gone out of its way to verify and redact the information it publishes.
    Until it threatens to release the majority of the documents unedited just so it's founder doesn't face any alleged crimes.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • RymRym
    If Wikileaks wishes to out corruption or Government malfeasance, why publish such information? It seems a bit of a non-sequitor to their overall narrative not to mention it hurts their public image.
    But, at the same time, why not? The US has been threatening him fairly directly, and I can understand why he would respond in kind. It's not so much irresponsible as self-interested. What if I, a US citizen, had found intelligence on China, and were then threatened by China for the release of some of this? Should I not proactively defend myself?
    Until it threatens to release the majority of the documents unedited just so it's founder doesn't face any alleged crimes.
    Other than this unrelated sexual malfeasance charge, he is not accused of any actual crimes. Despite this, Wikileaks is under assault by many of the governments of the world. He is in very real danger, and this is an effective countermeasure to that danger.

    Were I engaged in similar activities, I would most definitely have a dead hand system ready to activate should I disappear.


    Wikileaks is by no means a purely righteous organization. But it is the first of many to come, which can not be stopped. Better to have a relatively responsible organization like Wikileaks than the inevitable radicalization that will arise once Wikileaks is gone. I would argue straight up that Wikileaks has engaged in nothing but journalism.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited December 2010
    But, at the same time, why not? The US has been threatening him fairly directly, and I can understand why he would respond in kind. It's not so much irresponsible as self-interested. What if I, a US citizen, had found intelligence on China, and were then threatened by China for the release of some of this? Should I not proactively defend myself?
    Releasing documents which identify threats to American infrastructure neither defends his own safety nor the safety of the public in general. This release does nothing to expose any posturing or deception of the government and is actively aggressive by nature. This seems more of a fuck you to the officials rather than professional journalism.
    Other than this unrelated sexual malfeasance charge, he is not accused of any actual crimes. Despite this, Wikileaks is under assault by many of the governments of the world. He is in very real danger, and this is an effective countermeasure to that danger.
    Effective? Yes. Ethical? No. Where are the ethical standards by which he governs himself? Does he actually view himself as a journalist who works for the public interest or only for his own gain? Why not go to prison rather than threaten the lives of countless people? Woodward and Bernstein he is not. I cannot ethically support someone who would save his own life rather than protect countless number of innocents.
    Better to have a relatively responsible organization like Wikileaks than the inevitable radicalization that will arise once Wikileaks is gone. I would argue straight up that Wikileaks has engaged in nothing but journalism.
    This sort of rationalization is the whole reason why we are in the mess our of Government in general.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    edited December 2010
    I would argue straight up that Wikileaks has engaged in nothing but journalism.
    Not all journalism is responsible or respectable.
    But, at the same time, why not?
    We were talking about this over the weekend. If Assange reviews everything and reasonably determines the likely harm that would result from releasing a document, and exercises good judgment in doing so, fine. The last leak seemed reasonable.

    This one, however, is nothing short of reckless. Your arguments against airport security often revolve around terrorists being pretty dumb overall. I would concur. So then, it is highly unlikely that these "dumb" terrorists could gather the same intel that Wikileaks could gather. By releasing information about our vital strategic targets to dangerous organizations who otherwise would not get that information, Wikileaks is creating a very dangerous situation that didn't exist before.

    Secret intel needs to be secret for a reason, and unless Assange is involved in the high-level discussions that go into deciding what needs to be classified and why, he's in no position to make that judgment himself.

    But you're right, we can't stop it. This is going to keep happening. Even if Wikileaks is silenced, others will rise to take his place. So what we need to do is educate people as to how they should responsibly handle sensitive information.

    EDIT:
    This sort of rationalization is the whole reason why we are in the mess our of Government in general.
    I'll take it one step further. That sort of rationalization works directly against efforts to educate the public about responsible dissemination of information. You're painting the issue in a subtle emotional light, and by getting people's emotions riled up in this argument, you're making it that much harder to engage in rational discourse.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • RymRym
    Effective? Yes. Ethical? No. Where are the ethical standards by which he governs himself? Does he actually view himself as a journalist who works for the public interest or only for his own gain?
    Who cares? A good deed done for evil reasons is still a good deed, and an evil deed done for good reasons is still an evil deed. I couldn't care less why he does it, only that he does it.
    Why not go to prison rather than threaten the lives of countless people?
    Well, there's the fact that he hasn't committed any crimes related to Wikileaks. There's also the problem that one person quietly disappearing to jail doesn't help any movement. Civil disobedience only works if people are with you.
    This sort of rationalization is the whole reason why we are in the mess our of Government in general.
    What has he done that isn't journalism? He didn't steal any state secrets, hack into anything, or commit any crimes along the way. He asked for people to send him interesting information, and then publishes what is sent at his own discretion.
  • RymRym
    edited December 2010
    So then, it is highly unlikely that these "dumb" terrorists could gather the same intel that Wikileaks could gather.
    Wikileaks can't "gather" any information that isn't sent to them. The people gathering it could sent it to any other news organization and receive the same protections they do sending it to Wikileaks.
    By releasing information about our vital strategic targets to dangerous organizations who otherwise would not get that information, Wikileaks is creating a very dangerous situation that didn't exist before.
    So I can't take pictures of bridges in Manhattan? Or chemical plants? And put them in my Flickr? I can't muse on the many strategic targets I identify every day on my own?

    Also, notice how everything leaked has been either not classified in the first place, or else has at most the "secret" clearance (which is fairly common)? "Real" secrets haven't been compromised at any stage, and most of this stuff was barely if at all protected in the first place.

    Wikileaks is doing what other news organizations have done for many years. The only difference is that it's doing it faster and more efficiently.

    What if Wikileaks had never existed, and the same person who leaked these cables had just sent them to the newspapers? How is the situation any different then?
    Post edited by Rym on
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited December 2010
    Who cares? A good deed done for evil reasons is still a good deed, and an evil deed done for good reasons is still an evil deed. I couldn't care lesswhyhe does it, only that he does it.
    What is the good deed in releasing unredacted documents which would effectively put thousands of government workers in direct threat of their lives from the countries they are operating in? How is releasing documents which discuss details of threats to various weakpoints in infrastructure a good deed?
    Also, notice how everything leaked has been either not classified in the first place, or else has at most the "secret" clearance (which is fairly common)? "Real" secrets haven't been compromised at any stage, and most of this stuff was barely if at all protected in the first place.
    This argument is akin to saying "No one really cares if I steal one or two dollars from the cash register while no one is looking. It's not like they are going to be able to tell anyways and it doesn't hurt anyone in the long run. Besides, if they really cared about their money they would put it in a super secure safe."
    Wikileaks is doing what other news organizations have done for many years. The only difference is that it's doing it faster and more efficiently.
    No, the only difference is that they are releasing the sources themselves.
    What if Wikileaks had never existed, and the same person who leaked these cables had just sent them to the newspapers? How is the situation any different then?
    Much of the information leaked has been discussed by several news sources such as the New York Times in the past. Assange just knows how to drum up pomp and flair to his releases.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • RymRym
    Assange just knows how to drum up pomp and flair to his releases.
    That's my point. The only thing that Assange and Wikileaks have provided are a greater desire by possible leakers to leak information.

    What if Assange didn't provide Wikileaks, but simply publicly urged people with sensitive information to leak it?
  • zehaevazehaeva
    How is releasing documents which discuss details of threats to various weakpoints in infrastructure a good deed?
    So Security through Obscurity works? If no one brings up the issue then nothing will be done about it. Keeping the public in the dark about how vulnerable we are does not fix the issues at hand. It only serves to keep the populous ignorant.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited December 2010
    So Security through Obscurity works?
    This is not security though obscurity. Diplomats were asked about targets in their area which could harm U.S. infrastructure/security. Ostensibly these reports would then be used to take real action. The reason these documents were created was so someone WOULD bring up the issue, but in a responsible manner.
    Keeping the public in the dark about how vulnerable we are does not fix the issues at hand. It only serves to keep the populous ignorant.
    How exactly is letting the public know how many ways shit can blow up and people die allow them to fix the issues?
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Also, notice how everything leaked has been either not classified in the first place, or else has at most the "secret" clearance (which is fairly common)
    What is it, like 3 million people? Less than 1% of the population? That's not "fairly common" by any means. Further, the people who have said clearance are known quantities, which is pretty vital when dealing with control of information.
    So I can't take pictures of bridges in Manhattan? Or chemical plants? And put them in my Flickr? I can't muse on the many strategic targets I identify every day on my own?
    We're not just talking about the location of various installations - that's easy enough - but rather intelligence scenarios looking at the amount of disruption that could be caused by attacking them.

    It's one thing to have a weak spot. It's a different thing to tell someone what happens if you hit that weak spot. Get the difference?
  • RymRym
    It's one thing to have a weak spot. It's a different thing to tell someone what happens if you hit that weak spot. Get the difference?
    I can, as a citizen, go to a site in my home town and document the specific disruption I think could be caused by certain actions, and go on to describe in detail how to make it come about. This isn't a crime.
  • RymRym
    edited December 2010
    Let's go one step further.

    What if someone made Wikiterror? Just a site for engineers to discuss possible terrorist scenarios, how they could come about, and their effects? In specific detail? No classified information whatsoever, nevermind a call to action.

    There's nothing illegal about doing such a thing.

    If you disagree, how about this?

    What if someone made Wikinovels? Just a site for authors to discuss possible stories? What if someone, an author writing a book on fictional terrorists who happens to be a skilled engineer, discusses possible terrorist scenarios (real ones, though for his fictional book), how they could come about, and their effects?

    Is that wrong? It's certainly not illegal.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    What if someone made Wikinovels?
    I need to get on that.
Sign In or Register to comment.