Wikileaks

[quarky]

Having just finished an article in the "NewYorker" magazine about Assange and his website, I'm curious about how folks here feel about it.
I'm in favor.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

 

[Beerina]

I think they go overboard sometimes on the nudge, nudge, wink, wink aspect of revealed Pentagon documents, some of which are legitimately classified for real security reasons rather than to conceal embarrassment or illegality, but overall very good. And it's hardly US-oriented, much to the consternation of many other governments.

 

[theprestige]

It's vigilantism, pure and simple.

I already have a system for deciding when and how to release government information in the national interest. It's called Government. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of including elected and appointed officials, judicial review, and the consent of the governed.

Maybe Assange thinks he has a better system, but I don't recall electing him. I don't recall any of my elected representatives appointing him. I don't believe he's answerable to the intelligence oversight committee, or the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces, or any other organization I have established and empowered to oversee national security and state secrets.

That said, if he believes that it's worth becoming an outlaw--with all the consequences of that decision--to reveal this information, then I wholeheartedly encourage him to step up and do the right thing. Reveal the information, and accept the consequences. And I sincerely hope he's right.

But I don't assume he's right just because he's donned the sacred ZOMGWHISTLEBLOWER mantle. And I don't see why my hand shouldn't be against him, if he insists on unilaterally crowning himself World Czar of State Secrets.

 

[Cactus]

Whilst I agree theprestige in terms of vigilantism, the fact is that as long as I pay taxes, I am putting money towards this system to keep information from me, as long as whatever it is isn't going to get someone killed, I want to see it.

I'd never want anyone to die as a result of my trying to read something, but so long as there is no direct danger I see no problem.

But then you have to take it as you get it, it's presumably hard to receive many leaks but then have to give up some for whatever reason.

 

[quarky]

I haven't actually scoped out the site; just read the "NewYorker" article.
Sounded like an interesting guy.
Agreed, that magazine has a liberal bent...but I'm pretty dang liberally bent my own self.

In the microcosm of daily life, I appreciate full disclosure and honesty, though I don't endorse invasion of privacy in the least.

For conservatives that think government has too heavy a hand, I should think this guy's efforts would appeal.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't actually scoped out the site; just read the "NewYorker" article.
Sounded like an interesting guy.
Agreed, that magazine has a liberal bent...but I'm pretty dang liberally bent my own self.

In the microcosm of daily life, I appreciate full disclosure and honesty, though I don't endorse invasion of privacy in the least.

For conservatives that think government has too heavy a hand, I should think this guy's efforts would appeal.

As a conservative who thinks government has too heavy a hand, I'm very interested in any feedback you're willing to give on Post #3.

 

[Moss]

Actually wikileaks seems to be driven by the idea of supporting the Fourth Estate by providing a central infrastructure for disclosing documents that should be accessible to the press and the public. And given such things like ACTA that only involved the media industry and governments while affecting citizens of many nations the idea seems reasonable.
What I'm not exactly thrilled over is that the twitter messages by wikileaks have become both ideological and paranoid. Not sure if that bodes well.

 

[godofpie]

Steven Colbert had him on a while back.
http://www.geekosystem.com/stephen-colbert-wikileaks/

 

[quarky]

It's vigilantism, pure and simple.

I already have a system for deciding when and how to release government information in the national interest. It's called Government. It's not a perfect system, but it does have the advantage of including elected and appointed officials, judicial review, and the consent of the governed.

Maybe Assange thinks he has a better system, but I don't recall electing him. I don't recall any of my elected representatives appointing him. I don't believe he's answerable to the intelligence oversight committee, or the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff of the armed forces, or any other organization I have established and empowered to oversee national security and state secrets.

That said, if he believes that it's worth becoming an outlaw--with all the consequences of that decision--to reveal this information, then I wholeheartedly encourage him to step up and do the right thing. Reveal the information, and accept the consequences. And I sincerely hope he's right.

But I don't assume he's right just because he's donned the sacred ZOMGWHISTLEBLOWER mantle. And I don't see why my hand shouldn't be against him, if he insists on unilaterally crowning himself World Czar of State Secrets.

How would I address this?
Probably about like the founding fathers, I guess.
When Government becomes too corrupt, which is an obvious historical tendency of governments, we need a means of revolution.

 

[theprestige]

Actually wikileaks seems to be driven by the idea of supporting the Fourth Estate by providing a central infrastructure for disclosing documents that should be accessible to the press and the public.

All very pretty and noble, but who empowered Assange to decide what should and should not be revealed? I didn't elect him. Did you? Are you advocating that your government simply transmit all of your state secrets to him, for him to unilaterally and independently decide what should be published? Because as far as I can tell, that's exactly what he does, with as much information as he possibly can.

 

[theprestige]

How would I address this?
Probably about like the founding fathers, I guess.
When Government becomes too corrupt, which is an obvious historical tendency of governments, we need a means of revolution.

We do have a means of revolution: It's called rebellion, and it usually requires a lot of hard work and sacrifice, and more often than not ends in tears for a lot of people--not least the rebels.

You could address my point that Assange is managing your state secrets on your behalf, without being accountable to you or anybody else.

Or you could address the double standard which holds that outlaws and vigilantes whose acts you disapprove of should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whereas those you do approve of should get a free pass.

You could explain in greater detail how Assange's system, which is totalitarian in nature, is any better than the current democratic system in my country, or why posing as a freedom fighter in open rebellion against my government means I should automatically hail him as my hero, rather than as an enemy of my state.

You could address my point that even if his rebellion is morally justified, as long as that point remains contested, and as long as I remain unconvinced of his righteousness, he is not entitled to anything other than persecution from my government, on my behalf, and that is entirely as it should be.

 

[quarky]

Gee, I guess so.

Still, there's something heroic about him.
I see some good coming from it.

I also thought he did pretty well on Colbert's show.
Maybe he should be in jail.
I don't think he represents any particular state, though.

Is this terrorism?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

All very pretty and noble, but who empowered Assange to decide what should and should not be revealed?

The people who sent him documents to leak empowered him. Take it up with them if it chaps your backside.

Assange is just doing what good journalists do when they are privy to a story.

 

[quarky]

The people who sent him documents to leak empowered him. Take it up with them if it chaps your backside.

Assange is just doing what good journalists do when they are privy to a story.

good point.
makes me feel a bit less stupid about my feelings.

 

[drkitten]

Or you could address the double standard which holds that outlaws and vigilantes whose acts you disapprove of should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whereas those you do approve of should get a free pass.

My understanding is that he is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The law where Wikileaks is set up can't touch him (which may be why he set up there, hmmmm?)

You could explain in greater detail how Assange's system, which is totalitarian in nature, is any better than the current democratic system in my country, or why posing as a freedom fighter in open rebellion against my government means I should automatically hail him as my hero, rather than as an enemy of my state.

His system isn't any more totalitarian than the New York Post or Penguin Books. He's a journalist; he is presented with material, and he chooses what he wants to publish.

If you don't like that he publishes factual material brought to him that makes your country look bad, I have two suggestions for you.

* Prevent people from bringing material to him
* Stop doing things that will make your country look bad when people who disapprove of those things bring them to him

 

[drkitten]

You could address my point that Assange is managing your state secrets on your behalf, without being accountable to you or anybody else.

Not much there to address. Basically, that's entirely wrong.

Nothing that Assange is managing is a state secret, by definition. As soon as it was given to him, it was no longer secret. If it was supposed to be a state secret, then someone else mismanaged it rather badly.

... which isn't his problem.

 

[theprestige]

Not much there to address. Basically, that's entirely wrong.

Nothing that Assange is managing is a state secret, by definition. As soon as it was given to him, it was no longer secret. If it was supposed to be a state secret, then someone else mismanaged it rather badly.

... which isn't his problem.

What makes receiving state secrets different from receiving stolen goods?

What makes actively soliciting state secrets, explicitly for the purpose of publishing them, different from actively soliciting stolen goods, explicitly for the purpose of selling them?

Do you really think that once Wikileaks comes into possession of a secret, they are totally free of any responsibility regarding its publication? Does responsibility for espionage, unlike responsibility for every other crime in the history of crime, stop at exactly one degree of separation from the act itself? Conspiracy, accessory... meaningless?

Or do you support Kevin Lowe's implication above, that once one claims to be a journalist, one is automatically above all laws?

 

[Yalius]

Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't. You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.

 

[geni]

Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't.

We are yet to find much that most people wouldn't do.

You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

If thats the case there should be no problem with the govement admiting it does such things.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.

I understand the USSR thought like that. It didn't work. I would also tend to regard any goverment using such tactics as ripe for removal.

 

[Rat]

Call me authoritarian, but Wikileaks does a hell of a lot more harm than good.

Governments are supposed to do the dirty little deeds that most people wouldn't. You can't have a functioning, effective government or society without taking some morally or ethically dubious actions. Any government that plays completely by the rules and doesn't get its hands dirty at all, is not long for this earth.

Were it up to me, I'd have Assange whacked, and the next guy that creates a site like Wikileaks, and so on and so forth. Eventually, people will learn that certain things should remain secret.

Well trolled. Applause.