The Wikileaks debate continues

[Nepenthe]

LOL POlanski's another case in point. It's OK to be a rapist as long as you are a hip liberal rapist.

Just like lynching is ok as long as you're a political conservative?

[obyknven]

lol! Kremlin suggests WikiLeaks founder for Nobel Prize.

 

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101208/161685835.html

[Rostere]

Well... Sweden has been reluctant to hand over prisoners to the US in the past, because of fears of torture (Guantanamo) or capital punishment. If that appears to be a serious risk, I don't think and I don't want Sweden to hand him over. On the other hand, if it appears very unlikely he'll recieve any of those punishments, I don't see how we could NOT hand him over.

[Nepenthe]

Well... Sweden has been reluctant to hand over prisoners to the US in the past, because of fears of torture (Guantanamo) or capital punishment. If that appears to be a serious risk, I don't think and I don't want Sweden to hand him over. On the other hand, if it appears very unlikely he'll recieve any of those punishments, I don't see how we could NOT hand him over.

Because he wasn't extradited to Sweden to face espionage charges.

[Gorgon]

The charge he is wanted on is 'being a grabass'. That is to say other types of lude and unwanted behavior than rape. Obviously he should return and face the music, but this is just not like drugging and then raping a minor.

 

I have no doubt Polanski is guilty, but I think it's possible that some of the many enemies Assange has made set him up. It doesn't seem so fantastical a notion to me.

 

Also, why are we still talking about an extradition to the US. There has been no request, and there isn't going to be one, or am I missing something.

[Zoraptor]

- I believe the technical vulnerability leak puts the nail in Assange. His is not a crusade for information the People need, but a power play. Zoraptor's analysis that the targets aren't serious is interesting, but defunct. Mass casualty attacks on tourists may make the opposition feel good, but they don't pose an immediate threat to national well being. Whereas these are presented as vital. I see no reason why I should instantly dismiss their validity because I make an idle guess that they aren't.

Shrug.

 

The biggest hint that it really isn't that important (apart from the information almost all being publically available, and generally much more specific too) is that the US itself didn't classify the information particularly highly. Manning didn't have access to the really juicy stuff at all.

 

It's still a mistake for WL to publish it. There's only a marginal need to know (after all, it is almost all information available already) and its primary effect has been to give ammunition to anti WL people.

 

Collusion between the US, Ukraine and Kenya to subvert arms regulations wrt to South Sudan is a far more relevant and better use for the leaks, even if it too was strongly suspected prior.

[Rosbjerg]

Putin apparently finds it ironic that the West talks of democracy and criticizes Russia, while going ballistic themselves over Assange.. I kinda agree.. It seems a little stupid to criticize China and Russia for arresting people who speak out against coverups, when we do it ourselves (also hilarious proverb in the article).

[Meshugger]

You seem to want hold him accountable for the leaks in the US. But what about Russia, Saudi-Arabia and China? Should he stand trial for civil disobiedience there as well? Should he face the consequences and retribution from their part?

 

However, if one takes a realistic approach to this, he is what Napster was to the recording industry. It doesn't matter whether you try to hang him or shut wikileaks down, pandora's box has been opened and nothing will be the same. The days of old-style realpolitik and backroom deals has come to an end.

If realpolitik and backroom deals have come to an end, then diplomacy itself is pretty much over. The whole idea of having little enclaves of sovereign ground in the capitals of other nations-- the violation of which is considered by the community of nations as something greater than a simple act of war-- is still a very good and useful innovation. And it absolutely requires a great deal of privacy and confidentiality to function. Public disclosure of leaked communications between these enclaves and the mother country is an attack on one of the core principles of diplomacy in our civilization. I don't know about legal liability to any one state, but the ideology that puts unaccountable, unreviewable, and sometimes anonymous private parties in the position of deciding what secrets should be publicized is misguided and regrettable.

 

(Of course, exceptions are justified for truly important disclosures. The world became a better place when the Pentagon Papers hit the street. But I add that the parties involved with leaking and publicizing those documents all went through extensive legal battles in dealing with the consequences of their actions. (The NYTimes won; the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, turned himself in and faced trial, but the charges were tossed due to gross misconduct by the FBI.))

 

 

As to putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak, the best solution is to better police the people who have access, and stop them from leaking stuff. That's a far more credible approach here than it was in the Napster analogy you pose.

 

There's one slight problem here, how will you be able to tighten the ability to leak without creating a more close and less transparent society? (maybe that should be for another thread)

Edited December 9, 2010 by Meshugger

[mkreku]

Putin apparently finds it ironic that the West talks of democracy and criticizes Russia, while going ballistic themselves over Assange.. I kinda agree.. It seems a little stupid to criticize China and Russia for arresting people who speak out against coverups, when we do it ourselves (also hilarious proverb in the article).

 

THE ONLY REAL MAN LEFT IN THE WORLD

[Humodour]

It's worth keeping in mind that Julian Assange is still innocent. Nobody has proven him guilty and it's as likely that intelligence organisations are trying to frame him as it is that he is actually guilty of continuing with sex once consent was withdrawn.

[Malcador]

Putin needs to star in an action movie.

[ShadySands]

The FBI executed 40 search warrants around the US to gather evidence on the Anonymous distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in defense of WikiLeaks last year

 

EDIT: In the UK too

 

The five people arrested in the UK in connection with a spate of online attacks in support of WikiLeaks were today released on police bail, while in the US the FBI has issued search warrants as part of its investigation into online group Anonymous.

Edited January 28, 2011 by ShadySands

[Hurlshort]

The FBI executed 40 search warrants around the US to gather evidence on the Anonymous distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in defense of WikiLeaks last year

 

They fought the law and the law won, big surprise.

 

"Yet, we know exactly who was responsible for that attack. Anonymous believes it is unfair and hypocritical to attempt to put these 5 arrested anons to trial without even attempting to find those who DDoS'ed a website which you oppose."

 

This is a stupid quote.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Hurlshot

[ShadySands]

The FBI executed 40 search warrants around the US to gather evidence on the Anonymous distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in defense of WikiLeaks last year

 

They fought the law and the law won, big surprise.

 

"Yet, we know exactly who was responsible for that attack. Anonymous believes it is unfair and hypocritical to attempt to put these 5 arrested anons to trial without even attempting to find those who DDoS'ed a website which you oppose."

 

This is a stupid quote.

 

Yes, but the internet is not supposed to have consequences.

[Walsingham]

I was going to post this in its own thread, but since this thread is re activated:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...d-uprising.html

 

Wikileaks leak news of how the Egyptian embassy helped pro democracy activists in secret. Nice to see wikileaks helping democracy so enthusiastically.

 

On top of the recent revelations (by Al Jazeera) which embarassed negotiators in the arab israeli peace process, can we PLEASE finally abandon this insane notion that leaking everything is brilliant?

[Zoraptor]

1) One basic tenet of democracy is freedom of information (theoretically at least, practically most 'democratic' politicians loathe freedom of information since it can act against their own political self propagation).

2) One of the major causes of the 'Jasmine Revolution' (dumb name) was the Wikileaks revelation of exactly how corrupt Ben Ali's wife is.

 

Thus WL = supporters of democracy, forcing leaders to be responsible for their actions, partly responsible for liberating Tunisia from tyranny etc etc. Really though, that sort of editorial control is not in WL's brief as their aegis is, basically, freedom of information with the absolute minimum of subjective editing. Plus, they would be withholding something which shows the US in an essentially positive light which would therefore be more ammo for the WL hates the US crowd. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

 

Palestinian negotiators = two faced is far less of a revelation- it's not really a revelation at all, except for the extent to which they are willing to abrogate their responsibilities to their own people. That it basically confirms the extent to which the Israeli narrative of Palestinian intransigence is a smokescreen to enable establishment of 'facts on the ground' as the PA was willing to accept just about every single demand Israel made (except, to their credit, the transfer of Israeli Arabs to a new 'Palestine') is certainly worth knowing.

[Orogun01]

1) One basic tenet of democracy is freedom of information (theoretically at least, practically most 'democratic' politicians loathe freedom of information since it can act against their own political self propagation).

2) One of the major causes of the 'Jasmine Revolution' (dumb name) was the Wikileaks revelation of exactly how corrupt Ben Ali's wife is.

 

Thus WL = supporters of democracy, forcing leaders to be responsible for their actions, partly responsible for liberating Tunisia from tyranny etc etc. Really though, that sort of editorial control is not in WL's brief as their aegis is, basically, freedom of information with the absolute minimum of subjective editing. Plus, they would be withholding something which shows the US in an essentially positive light which would therefore be more ammo for the WL hates the US crowd. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

 

Palestinian negotiators = two faced is far less of a revelation- it's not really a revelation at all, except for the extent to which they are willing to abrogate their responsibilities to their own people. That it basically confirms the extent to which the Israeli narrative of Palestinian intransigence is a smokescreen to enable establishment of 'facts on the ground' as the PA was willing to accept just about every single demand Israel made (except, to their credit, the transfer of Israeli Arabs to a new 'Palestine') is certainly worth knowing.

One of the tenets of the Bill of Rights was the right to privacy, it seems at odds with absolute freedom of information. Executive oversight should really care over matters of what information is allowed to the public. I don't believe that Asange with his anti-american agenda cares one bit about democracy, I may be wrong but the guy seems a little on the extreme. We are talking about a guy who didn't have second thoughts about this leak and what damage it could do and the least that they could do is be objective about it; which they are not.

[Zoraptor]

It ain't absolute freedom of information. As was intimated the freedom of information is that required in order to make an informed decision. In a democracy you need to have access to accurate information about what candidates and the government are and have been doing. There's no public good or need in knowing what Joe Bloggs down the street has been doing but there is in knowing what Joseph Bloggs, MP/ Representative/ Senator/ President/ Prime Minister has been doing especially if what he has been doing doesn't match what he says he has been doing.

[Orogun01]

It ain't absolute freedom of information. As was intimated the freedom of information is that required in order to make an informed decision. In a democracy you need to have access to accurate information about what candidates and the government are and have been doing. There's no public good or need in knowing what Joe Bloggs down the street has been doing but there is in knowing what Joseph Bloggs, MP/ Representative/ Senator/ President/ Prime Minister has been doing especially if what he has been doing doesn't match what he says he has been doing.

 

Even with freedom of information the public needs to be actively seeking the sources; specially since media outlets are also biased towards a political position or just in search of ratings. Which in modern age is not viable means for many people, so it's through the filters of the media outlets that information is massively distributed and how public perception is dictated. So in a place where people relinquish their freedom to choose thought for themselves, what good will do; to democracy, freedom of information?

 

But I digress from the point; Joseph Bloggs MP/ Representative/ Senator/ President/ Prime Minister is also a person with a right to privacy. What concerns us is strictly in regards to the government position he runs, not the personal details of their lives. Which has been the main focus of the WikiLeaks debate on the media, and has been the only information we have scrutinized in the last 20 years from our public servants.

You make all information available and its bound to be abused by people with the means to propagate it.

[Calax]

It ain't absolute freedom of information. As was intimated the freedom of information is that required in order to make an informed decision. In a democracy you need to have access to accurate information about what candidates and the government are and have been doing. There's no public good or need in knowing what Joe Bloggs down the street has been doing but there is in knowing what Joseph Bloggs, MP/ Representative/ Senator/ President/ Prime Minister has been doing especially if what he has been doing doesn't match what he says he has been doing.

 

Even with freedom of information the public needs to be actively seeking the sources; specially since media outlets are also biased towards a political position or just in search of ratings. Which in modern age is not viable means for many people, so it's through the filters of the media outlets that information is massively distributed and how public perception is dictated. So in a place where people relinquish their freedom to choose thought for themselves, what good will do; to democracy, freedom of information?

 

But I digress from the point; Joseph Bloggs MP/ Representative/ Senator/ President/ Prime Minister is also a person with a right to privacy. What concerns us is strictly in regards to the government position he runs, not the personal details of their lives. Which has been the main focus of the WikiLeaks debate on the media, and has been the only information we have scrutinized in the last 20 years from our public servants.

You make all information available and its bound to be abused by people with the means to propagate it.

This one things that to a degree the public servant looses parts of it's right to privacy when it takes up office. Not to the point where I can go in and look at their mortgage statement, but I should certainly know how much they're receiving in "donations" and where it's going. And part of this is available in standard reports but it's the "where it's going" that should be more available... but that's a topic for another time.

 

Wikileaks is something needed but it seems to try to do to much. After all, the government and it's branches are representatives of the citizens, we do have an entitlement to know exactly wtf the bosses are doing in our name. I mean I am not asking to know how many spies are in Russia etc, but I'd expect that something that is OSTENSIBLY an overt and open part of our government to not be running around cloak and dagger style because they think that we're to stupid to promote democracy and know what's best.

[213374U]

Even with freedom of information the public needs to be actively seeking the sources; specially since media outlets are also biased towards a political position or just in search of ratings. Which in modern age is not viable means for many people, so it's through the filters of the media outlets that information is massively distributed and how public perception is dictated. So in a place where people relinquish their freedom to choose thought for themselves, what good will do; to democracy, freedom of information?

That's the grand deception in universal suffrage - it's implicit that every citizen with a right to vote is also capable of independent, critical thinking. In any case, the state cannot use a real or perceived mass manipulation of opinion orchestrated by media outlets as an excuse to control the flow of information; while being a complete tool isn't illegal, lying in a Congress hearing most definitely is. Interesting how both are deeply subversive of the principles of democracy, yet only the one that applies to public servants is generally perceived as harmful.

 

However, the sort of paternalist mindset that concedes that it's fine to subreptitiously override the law of the land whenever whoever's in charge feels "it's for the best" is not only deeply at odds with the idea of universal human rights, but also unfortunately closer to the establishment of authoritarianisms both abroad and at home, than it is to a true democratic spirit.

 

So it seems that ivory tower dissertations, at least as far as moral and political philosophy goes, have once again fallen short in the face of crude facts.

[Nepenthe]

So it seems that ivory tower dissertations, at least as far as moral and political philosophy goes, have once again fallen short in the face of crude facts.

Not at all, just that the inconvenient ivory tower dissertations are left there within, while the ones that are amenable to the "ruling view" (in more ways than one) are the ones that get pushed forward, and get any kind of visibility.

[Walsingham]

The essential problem which you chaps seem to be missing (with the exception of Numbers) is that democracy the event/system is a very different beast from democracy the written theory. Democracies are born through, sustained by, and end in non-democratic behaviour. Just as they are born in, sustained by, and end in democratic behaviour. By which I mean compare the actions of sceurity agencies like the XXX committee, and the free election of repressive regimes.

 

Personally I don't see this as a contradiction peculiar to democracy. I can cool myself down by having a hot glass of tea, for example. Or I can warm myself up, but will at some point need to cool down when I reach my preferred temperature.

 

I'm going to take the hit here to my argumentative standing by drawing the example of the enigma machine. Possessing the ability to decode the enigma communications of Germany in WW2 was essential to winning the war. One could therefore very simply argue that the public had a right to know about our possessing that capability in deciding whether to support the continuation of the war. But had they known then the Germans would have known too, and the advantage would have been lost. Democracy as we know it would almost certainly not exist.

 

This is an important point, because to return to my point, real democracy is a system that is vulnerable to more than academic debate. The notion that it is a manifest destiny of Man is - to my mind - born of the 19th and 20th century notions of colonial supremacy and nothing more.

[Nepenthe]

And, as usual, the counter-argument is that the classification system is obviously constantly abused in such a manner that it's not used for the protection of the citizens, but (also) for the protection of the people who make the classification decisions.

 

I, for one, am not argumenting for total disclosure.

 

If you are going to reply that I'm spouting consipiracy theories, like last time, is it enough if I refer to the examples I pointed out last time already in advance?

[Orogun01]

The essential problem which you chaps seem to be missing (with the exception of Numbers) is that democracy the event/system is a very different beast from democracy the written theory. Democracies are born through, sustained by, and end in non-democratic behaviour. Just as they are born in, sustained by, and end in democratic behaviour. By which I mean compare the actions of sceurity agencies like the XXX committee, and the free election of repressive regimes.

 

Personally I don't see this as a contradiction peculiar to democracy. I can cool myself down by having a hot glass of tea, for example. Or I can warm myself up, but will at some point need to cool down when I reach my preferred temperature.

 

I'm going to take the hit here to my argumentative standing by drawing the example of the enigma machine. Possessing the ability to decode the enigma communications of Germany in WW2 was essential to winning the war. One could therefore very simply argue that the public had a right to know about our possessing that capability in deciding whether to support the continuation of the war. But had they known then the Germans would have known too, and the advantage would have been lost. Democracy as we know it would almost certainly not exist.

 

This is an important point, because to return to my point, real democracy is a system that is vulnerable to more than academic debate. The notion that it is a manifest destiny of Man is - to my mind - born of the 19th and 20th century notions of colonial supremacy and nothing more.

The problem that its permeating is that; to follow your analogy, your cup of tea it's being pushed over by your cup of coffee.

It's not just about democratic behavior, is mostly about self interest, one of the great faults of representative democracy. The organizations, the senators and even the president have all their own goals that are sometimes at odds with each other or the public well being. With this vie for power and constant struggle the system cannot rightly operate, so the question remains of how do you make sure that your representatives are fair?