Wikileaks

[scythe]

I've actually submitted documents to Wikileaks before. Granted, it wasn't me that found them: some members of a certain infamous little messageboard broke into the archives of a certain organization related to the government of a certain country, hoisted it onto whatever little server we were using at the time, and I submitted them to Wikileaks. Fun stuff.

I'm a firm supporter of everything they do, needless to say. They're consistent, for one: they had no problem publishing their own donor list, which is to me quite a statement of integrity. Sometimes, though, their sensationalization of what they do gets to me: the hype they raised when they released the footage of the reporters being shot from the airplane and the recent hype seemed to deviate a little from their previous neutral stance, but overall I think they've done more good than bad.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

So far as I've seen it, WikiLeaks serves as a shining example of a very beneficial and necessary use of anonymity. This is balanced by an overwhelming majority of terrible and nefarious uses of the same. At this point, I believe that tolerating the latter bullshit is worth the service that sites like WikiLeaks provide.

[T3chno]

So far as I've seen it, WikiLeaks serves as a shining example of a very beneficial and necessary use of anonymity. This is balanced by an overwhelming majority of terrible and nefarious uses of the same. At this point, I believe that tolerating the latter bullshit is worth the service that sites like WikiLeaks provide.

QFE.

While I don't like how they do step aside from their neutral perspective sometimes, as scythe pointed out, I believe what the site stands for and does is worth supporting.

[otters~1]

I have never liked things like this.

[blackson]

It has recently gained notoriety because of the some 90,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan leaked from the Pentagon.

While I like the concept, I thought this particular use of the site was ridiculous. Whoever posted that should be killed.

[otters~1]

It has recently gained notoriety because of the some 90,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan leaked from the Pentagon.

While I like the concept, I thought this particular use of the site was ridiculous. Whoever posted that should be killed.

See, that's my problem with this site, and the press in general. There's a time and place for whistleblowing, but without control, it's worse than ineffective, it's dangerous.

[Tanner]

Who should control it and how then, flagmyidol?

[otters~1]

Who should control it and how then, flagmyidol?

Controlling a site like this is probably impossible (while still allowing it to fulfill some measure of its function). We can't go the China-Google route because that's, frankly, fucking retarded, but rumors and (possibly even) state secrets also can't just be let loose on the internet. Which is why I'm against stuff like this in general, as I said in another thread which was either about this site or something very similar.

[Tanner]

So you're against political, corporate and social transparency on every level? You say you're against "stuff like this" "in general" but that's about as vague a statement as you could possibly make.

[Rose]

It has recently gained notoriety because of the some 90,000 documents relating to the war in Afghanistan leaked from the Pentagon.

While I like the concept, I thought this particular use of the site was ridiculous. Whoever posted that should be killed.

See, that's my problem with this site, and the press in general. There's a time and place for whistleblowing, but without control, it's worse than ineffective, it's dangerous.

I agree, but unless you have a better solution in mind, this isn't a big enough flaw to justify shutting it down imo.

[SlappyMcGee]

I think this is bad, because it's like solving the fact that cars are too expensive by stealing cars, when really cars should be less expensive.


Elaboration, in case the metaphor was not completely clear: People should be able to leak whatever documents they want under their names. Or better yet, there should not be crazy secret documents. Or better than that, genuinely sensitive documents should not have a forum for anonymously delivering them to terrorists. This is a sidestep of a myriad of problems.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think this is bad, because it's like solving the fact that cars are too expensive by stealing cars, when really cars should be less expensive.


Elaboration, in case the metaphor was not completely clear: People should be able to leak whatever documents they want under their names. Or better yet, there should not be crazy secret documents. Or better than that, genuinely sensitive documents should not have a forum for anonymously delivering them to terrorists. This is a sidestep of a myriad of problems.

When it's impossible to treat the cause, what's wrong with treating the symptoms? We do this for terminally ill patients all the time.

[otters~1]

So you're against political, corporate and social transparency on every level? You say you're against "stuff like this" "in general" but that's about as vague a statement as you could possibly make.

I know. We've only so far mentioned political, though. Social transparency (good word for the concept) is a good thing, right? Just in the last century, we've seen an (incomplete) end in the States to segregation, child labor, the worst of the slum conditions, etc., thanks mostly to do-gooders who wouldn't be silenced. The corporate aspect I don't know much about, but the Enron scandal is an example of a good effect. It's political snooping, specifically anti-government, that gets to me. I've just never liked it when the press or a similar entity meddles in and probably ruins state secrets.

[Tanner]

It's political snooping, specifically anti-government, that gets to me. I've just never liked it when the press or a similar entity meddles in and probably ruins state secrets.

Which takes us back to my original question: Who should be controlling the government oversight and how should they be doing it? Or do you not think that we need any government oversight?

[otters~1]

It's political snooping, specifically anti-government, that gets to me. I've just never liked it when the press or a similar entity meddles in and probably ruins state secrets.

Which takes us back to my original question: Who should be controlling the government oversight and how should they be doing it? Or do you not think that we need any government oversight?

Well, it's not like I think that without checks and balances beyond the governmental system itself we'll slip into Orwellian, Patriot Act uber-socialism. At least not any time soon. So I'm not sure what watching-over the government needs, if any, but I am sure that it doesn't need to be in the form of an anonymous, unchecked and potentially malicious website.

Also, the question of government oversight is moot in this day and age; the internet acts as an incidental catch-all expose of a lot more than just political corruption.

[Tanner]

So I'm not sure what watching-over the government needs, if any, but I am sure that it doesn't need to be in the form of an anonymous, unchecked and potentially malicious website.

Also, the question of government oversight is moot in this day and age; the internet acts as an incidental catch-all expose of a lot more than just political corruption.

Wait, what? If the internet is a satisfactory solution to government oversight to you then why do you have a problem with Wikileaks?

[SlappyMcGee]

I think this is bad, because it's like solving the fact that cars are too expensive by stealing cars, when really cars should be less expensive.


Elaboration, in case the metaphor was not completely clear: People should be able to leak whatever documents they want under their names. Or better yet, there should not be crazy secret documents. Or better than that, genuinely sensitive documents should not have a forum for anonymously delivering them to terrorists. This is a sidestep of a myriad of problems.

When it's impossible to treat the cause, what's wrong with treating the symptoms? We do this for terminally ill patients all the time.

Yeah, but all I'm saying is that Medical Marijuana ain't going to cure Cancer.

Fuck elaborating on my metaphors. More starcraft.

[otters~1]

I had a better answer to this but NRY is logging me out every three minutes today. <_<

Basically, I don't think it's satisfactory -- I don't like the fact that the internet drags up things better left alone and perpetuates scandals that shouldn't have left the local papers. But the key word in my last post is "incidental." Wikileaks strikes me as unnecessary, and of course imo harmful.

[Tanner]

Fine but I think it's bad form to have a problem with what is at least the most popular solution without at least positing another solution.

[otters~1]

Fine but I think it's bad form to have a problem with what is at least the most popular solution without at least positing another solution.

I think that /right now/ we don't need anything like Wikileaks. Thus, I don't posit a solution.

Depending on what sort of leaders we have in future, we may feel the need for some sort of public government watchdog, but it's not necessary now. (Especially when we are at war.)

[otters~1]

I think that /right now/ we don't need anything like Wikileaks. Thus, I don't posit a solution.

Depending on what sort of leaders we have in future, we may feel the need for some sort of public government watchdog, but it's not necessary now. (Especially when we are at war.)

Oh, please. America is at war all the time. If anything, wars create an even stronger need for something like Wikileaks to exist. Government cannot be trusted to wield the power of the American military without transparency and accountability to the people they are supposed to be defending. People are going to get killed when we're at war, and I'm unconvinced that Wikileaks will make it happen faster. If you think the 90,000 documents leaked are going to get people killed, then you're probably right. On the other hand, the knowledge that they've given to the public - y'know, stuff like the fact that we've been giving away some $11 billion to the Pakistani government, whose military actively supports the Taliban in Afghanistan through strategic assistance and safe havens - that's the kind of knowledge that could end up saving lives and some money for the American taxpayer.

Government should not be allowed to govern arbitrarily, and wars are no exception. Without Wikileaks, this information would never have been released to the public while it had any political relevance.

I disagree with /every single thing you just said/.

Take it from the top. Governments not only can, they have to be trusted to wield our military's power. The point is that Wikileaks can do no good, and has some potential for harm. To that Pakistani thing: okay, we gave money to Pakistan, a country with at best questionable loyalties. But how can the public knowing that really help, when weighed against lives or strategies lost or wasted because we got greedy for knowledge? I choose to assume that we had a good reason for giving Pakistan cash at the time that we did. If we still are paying them, covertly, then we still have a good reason. I do not at all see how the average American knowing this could "save lives." I see how it could save tax payments, but in return for safety and etc., we deal with that.

If you think our government is governing arbitrarily (and wars certainly can be an exception!), we are at such polar opposites on this issue that there's no point talking about it.

[squibbles]

I think that /right now/ we don't need anything like Wikileaks. Thus, I don't posit a solution.

Depending on what sort of leaders we have in future, we may feel the need for some sort of public government watchdog, but it's not necessary now. (Especially when we are at war.)

Oh, please. America is at war all the time. If anything, wars create an even stronger need for something like Wikileaks to exist. Government cannot be trusted to wield the power of the American military without transparency and accountability to the people they are supposed to be defending. People are going to get killed when we're at war, and I'm unconvinced that Wikileaks will make it happen faster. If you think the 90,000 documents leaked are going to get people killed, then you're probably right. On the other hand, the knowledge that they've given to the public - y'know, stuff like the fact that we've been giving away some $11 billion to the Pakistani government, whose military actively supports the Taliban in Afghanistan through strategic assistance and safe havens - that's the kind of knowledge that could end up saving lives and some money for the American taxpayer.

Government should not be allowed to govern arbitrarily, and wars are no exception. Without Wikileaks, this information would never have been released to the public while it had any political relevance.

I disagree with /every single thing you just said/.

Take it from the top. Governments not only can, they have to be trusted to wield our military's power. The point is that Wikileaks can do no good, and has some potential for harm. To that Pakistani thing: okay, we gave money to Pakistan, a country with at best questionable loyalties. But how can the public knowing that really help, when weighed against lives or strategies lost or wasted because we got greedy for knowledge? I choose to assume that we had a good reason for giving Pakistan cash at the time that we did. If we still are paying them, covertly, then we still have a good reason. I do not at all see how the average American knowing this could "save lives." I see how it could save tax payments, but in return for safety and etc., we deal with that.

If you think our government is governing arbitrarily (and wars certainly can be an exception!), we are at such polar opposites on this issue that there's no point talking about it.

I think the point was not that they are doing it, but that they one day may. Also, on what do you base your claim that the government can be trusted with arbitrary use of it's militarised forces, especially given the overwhelming evidence supporting the opinion that the Iraq War was unjustified, or at least, unjustified for it to escalate to the degree that it has?

Also, I think you greatly underestimate the power of public opinion. The view of the public is instrumental in the delivery of power to a political party, and transparency of information would give those in power no choice but to act in a manner that is responsible and respectful of other nations. Failure to do so would ultimately lead to public disfavour, and removal from office.

[otters~1]

I disagree with /every single thing you just said/.

Take it from the top. Governments not only can, they have to be trusted to wield our military's power. The point is that Wikileaks can do no good, and has some potential for harm. To that Pakistani thing: okay, we gave money to Pakistan, a country with at best questionable loyalties. But how can the public knowing that really help, when weighed against lives or strategies lost or wasted because we got greedy for knowledge? I choose to assume that we had a good reason for giving Pakistan cash at the time that we did. If we still are paying them, covertly, then we still have a good reason. I do not at all see how the average American knowing this could "save lives." I see how it could save tax payments, but in return for safety and etc., we deal with that.

If you think our government is governing arbitrarily (and wars certainly can be an exception!), we are at such polar opposites on this issue that there's no point talking about it.

I think the point was not that they are doing it, but that they one day may. Also, on what do you base your claim that the government can be trusted with arbitrary use of it's militarised forces, especially given the overwhelming evidence supporting the opinion that the Iraq War was unjustified, or at least, unjustified for it to escalate to the degree that it has?

Also, I think you greatly underestimate the power of public opinion. The view of the public is instrumental in the delivery of power to a political party, and transparency of information would give those in power no choice but to act in a manner that is responsible and respectful of other nations. Failure to do so would ultimately lead to public disfavour, and removal from office.

Sure they one day may. I addressed that. And I think none of you know what 'arbitrary' means. The President (in conjunction with Congress) can do whatever he wants with the army, no matter what public approval ratings are. The Iraq War is a terrible example: despite eight years of so-called public disapproval, we're still over there, and we have our reasons. This, however, has very little to do with my point, or the gist of this thread.

Now, the power of public opinion. If everything you said in your second paragraph is true (which it's not; public opinion has no bearing directly on removal from higher office), then its (current) power should be all that is needed to restrain governments and presidents. We haven't crossed this line yet, nor are we near doing so. No need for Wikileaks. And before you argue that public opinion is being vented by Wikileaks: we don't need another outlet for it. We have papers, blogs, meetings, etc. etc. until our ears bleed from hearing about public opinion (why it matters so much is beyond me; I wouldn't trust most Americans intellectually so far as to leave my pet with them for a week while out-of-town).

In short, when we all have TV screens in our walls, under our beds and implanted in out wrists, and the government makes us exercise and sing the anthem every two hours, /then/ you can actively work to destabilize it, with my blessing.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

We haven't crossed this line yet, nor are we near doing so. No need for Wikileaks. And before you argue that public opinion is being vented by Wikileaks: we don't need another outlet for it. We have papers, blogs, meetings, etc. etc. until our ears bleed from hearing about public opinion (why it matters so much is beyond me; I wouldn't trust most Americans intellectually so far as to leave my pet with them for a week while out-of-town).

Wikileaks isn't about public opinion, it's about the truth. You say we haven't crossed the line yet, but without leaks, how could you know? If you wait until the telescreens are in our walls to destabilise--which is hardly what Wikileaks is about in any case--the government, it'll be too late.

[squibbles]

In short, when we all have TV screens in our walls, under our beds and implanted in out wrists, and the government makes us exercise and sing the anthem every two hours, /then/ you can actively work to destabilize it, with my blessing.

You'd really rather it got to that point before we did anything about it? I personally will strive to prevent such a future from ever occurring, not wait for it to get here, slap me in the face, force me to eat my own testicles and then attempt to fix something.