wikileaks

[DaveP]

To my recollection almost all information that has been kept secret by governments which was subsequently either released decades later or made public by whistle-blowers falls in the category of being either entirely insignificant and not warranting the secrecy it was given or being predominantly embarrassing more than anything. By the latter I mean that it's not like the leaks contain launch codes to nuclear weapons or anything but instead tend to show how politicians lie and deceive not just each other but also the people that elected them.

So while I agree that some things need to be kept secret I'm of the opinion that the vast majority likely doesn't. Because as I said, the sensitive things that come out only seem to highlight politicians doing things we say we don't want them to do. So aren't we better off knowing this so that we actually can vote for those that do what we want?

Yes, it's better to know what Clinton or Trump really think before you vote, but if ambassadors write confidential appraisals of situations in the countries they are responsible for, then these should be kept secret for obvious reasons.  What I object to is an un-elected body like wikileaks taking it upon themselves to be the moral arbiter of what gets out and what stays in.  They might be harming your or my interests but we don't get a say in it.  It is not like a journalist's expose/research where he is responsible to his editor and readership, I am not convinced of Assange's integrity.
DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

http://www.advocate.com/media/2016/8/23/wikileaks-outs-saudi-gay-man-rape-victims-and-more

If I remember correctly there was someone in the organization who made a master-key for unlocking all documents available on a for-sale basis, as opposed to the organization 'officially' releasing documents. So Assange tried to warn governments that all of the information would eventually be released and that they'd better take care of what they need to before that happened. I can try to find the article again if you want (and it was years old, so yeah, Assange is right that it's bringing up an old issue).

And of course, that brings us back to what was my point, which was regarding Wikileaks' relationship with government data specifically.

PS: That article is a bit careless. If that gay man was shown to be gay because he was arrested for it, then he won't suffer further legal punishment for being gay... because he was already arrested for it. For the authorities the Wikileaks provided no more information. For the public and family it was obviously different.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Yes, it's better to know what Clinton or Trump really think before you vote, but if ambassadors write confidential appraisals of situations in the countries they are responsible for, then these should be kept secret for obvious reasons. 

I get that argument. On the other hand the US has been spying on other heads of state and foreign officials for years, and so any official representing any state would essentially be a bit of a dummy divulging sensitive information in any written form without having complete control over it. So, if this leads to them working harder to retain secrets from the standpoint of your argument that's a good thing.

On the other hand I don't think we can get one without the other. If Hillary is shown to have lied by making conversations public then that's apparently what it takes, regardless of whether that's a private email conversation or a cable between embassies.

What I object to is an un-elected body like wikileaks taking it upon themselves to be the moral arbiter of what gets out and what stays in.  They might be harming your or my interests but we don't get a say in it.  It is not like a journalist's expose/research where he is responsible to his editor and readership, I am not convinced of Assange's integrity.
DaveP

Currently the media is owned by for-profit entities who are pretty tight with governments, not in the sense that they'll never out or criticize politicians, but in the sense that large corporations are a big blob that sponsor politicians and thus become constituents. So they can't be trusted. Their integrity extends as far as it's profitable for them.

Now, why would Wikileaks or Anonymous or Snowden be any less trustworthy than the media? I honestly don't know. And as far as being able to elect who makes these decisions; isn't it a bit ironic though that the Wikileaks (and other) documents shows us that we can't trust those we voted for, meaning that it makes somewhat less of a difference who we vote for.

I think the primary interests these organizations risk harming are business and government interests, interests with a stake in maximizing profits and enforcing control and surveillance over both domestic residents and foreigners.

I have little problem with these leaks to be honest.

 

[pucho812]

Assange just started releasing Obama e-mails

Hmmm how far down the rabbit hole does it go?

 

[Banzai]

What I object to is an un-elected body like wikileaks taking it upon themselves to be the moral arbiter of what gets out and what stays in.  They might be harming your or my interests but we don't get a say in it.  It is not like a journalist's expose/research where he is responsible to his editor and readership, I am not convinced of Assange's integrity.
DaveP

There is no arbitration in free-speech. Either it's total, or it isn't free.

 

[DaveP]

There is no arbitration in free-speech. Either it's total, or it isn't free

That sounds good until you look at the detail.
If someone decided to ruin your life by calling you a paedophile you might not be so keen.

Similarly, if someone gave military codes to the enemy, that could harm your country.

There is no such thing as total free speech, or total freedom of action come to that, the law places limits on it when it comes to harming others.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

That sounds good until you look at the detail.
If someone decided to ruin your life by calling you a paedophile you might not be so keen.

Similarly, if someone gave military codes to the enemy, that could harm your country.

There is no such thing as total free speech, or total freedom of action come to that, the law places limits on it when it comes to harming others.

DaveP

From both a practical and legal standpoint then this is sort of a non-issue. If Wikileaks publications are against the law then someone can be taken to court for it. The fact that it hasn't happened tells us at least something about the content.

Also, we shouldn't forget that most of us know about all of this not because we regularly visit some Wikileaks.com url, but because "mainstream media" is reporting on what Wikileaks has provided them. Not that those who would capitalize the most dangerously wouldn't still possibly get access to the data, but a huge amount of people wouldn't if none of the regular media outlets reported the cables/emails.

 

[madswitcher]

There is no arbitration in free-speech. Either it's total, or it isn't free.

I think that is going a bit too far for so called 'free-speech' on the Internet.

Remember that:-

The Internet has no policeman: anyone can say anything to anyone else on the Internet, often without redress- once its stated you cannot withdraw it.
The Internet has no filters
The Internet always remembers good and bad
The Internet has an almost unimaginable  capacity to store - practically for ever
Many people hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and dismiss the normal behaviour patterns of social intercourse

Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

From both a practical and legal standpoint then this is sort of a non-issue. If Wikileaks publications are against the law then someone can be taken to court for it. The fact that it hasn't happened tells us at least something about the content.

It is and they have (ask Private Manning, albeit a court martial). Many are conflicted by lack of international policing power. Snowden would surely be arrested and face charges if he wasn't hiding out in Russia. Assange is hiding in an embassy in London.

Also, we shouldn't forget that most of us know about all of this not because we regularly visit some Wikileaks.com url, but because "mainstream media" is reporting on what Wikileaks has provided them. Not that those who would capitalize the most dangerously wouldn't still possibly get access to the data, but a huge amount of people wouldn't if none of the regular media outlets reported the cables/emails.

In fact the reportage of this seems pretty subdued considering the content, as if (heaven forbid) the mass media was supporting one candidate.  Oddly it also looks like foreign powers are involved. Ecuador shutting down Assange's internet, and Russia (reportedly) hacking democrats. Strange election indeed.

One of my favorite lies revealed by these hacks was how POTUS always claims to find out about the crisis du jour by reading the news, while in fact he personally communicated with Hillary's private server email acct ( using a pseudonym.).

These politicians think the public are idiots and they are mostly correct. 

JR

PS: By the way hacking emails confidential or not is very wrong.

 

[mattiasNYC]

It is and they have (ask Private Manning, albeit a court martial). Many are conflicted by lack of international policing power. Snowden would surely be arrested and face charges if he wasn't hiding out in Russia. Assange is hiding in an embassy in London.

You are conflating two distinctly different types of entities however: Those who have worked for a government and taken data and then spread it, and those who work in the media receiving that data and then spreading it further.

From a legal standpoint Manning/Snowden would be sources, and Assange/BBC/Wikileaks etc would be media/journalists. The latter are protected and in a lot of jurisdictions law enforcement can't even try to get the source through media/journalists. The former obviously aren't.

And that was my point: The leaks being spread seems to not be a legal issue, because if it was then Wikileaks AND every publication and news agency that also reported it would have been sued by now. Snowden and Manning are different issues.

PS: By the way hacking emails confidential or not is very wrong.

Depends on who hacks what account for what purpose. Would you be on board with the NSA hacking accounts of ISIS or Al Qaeda members?

 

[JohnRoberts]

You are conflating two distinctly different types of entities however: Those who have worked for a government and taken data and then spread it, and those who work in the media receiving that data and then spreading it further.

The bad internet ate my first answer so I'll see how much a remember.

There is a third category, those who steal data then trade it for some benefit.

From a legal standpoint Manning/Snowden would be sources, and Assange/BBC/Wikileaks etc would be media/journalists. The latter are protected and in a lot of jurisdictions law enforcement can't even try to get the source through media/journalists. The former obviously aren't.

Of those 3 I agree that BBC is a news organization. Assange and wikileaks are crooks/creeps/cretans.

In the US reporters often spend time in jail for not revealing their sources. More like contempt of court than breaking laws.

And that was my point: The leaks being spread seems to not be a legal issue, because if it was then Wikileaks AND every publication and news agency that also reported it would have been sued by now. Snowden and Manning are different issues.

It may be more than sexual assault charges keeping Assange in that embassy to avoid extradition to the US on espionage charges from Sweden after there.  While it is unlikely that Sweden would allow him to be extradited to face a possible death penalty in the US.

Depends on who hacks what account for what purpose. Would you be on board with the NSA hacking accounts of ISIS or Al Qaeda members?

Academic at this point since many bad actors have moved to using more secure communications.

Security agency hacking generally requires a judge's warrant in the US but hacking intl communications is less constrained.

A lot of NSA intercept policy is covered by executive orders (Bush and Obama).  Obama recently wrote an executive order (this year) to share more intercepts with foreign governments but this is not covered much by US media.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Of those 3 I agree that BBC is a news organization. Assange and wikileaks are crooks/creeps/cretans.

So how do you determine what constitutes a news organization or equivalent? That they're for profit? That they're neutral? That they're partisan? That they're established? It's a very tricky path to go down John because society as a whole has changed and what used to constitute pure journalism isn't any longer. Large parts of contemporary for-profit media outlets pose as news organizations employing journalistic principles but are far from it. Do we disqualify them as well or do they get a pass because they're shielded under the umbrella of whatever organization they're in?

In the US reporters often spend time in jail for not revealing their sources. More like contempt of court than breaking laws.

A terrible situation if you ask me.

Academic at this point since many bad actors have moved to using more secure communications.

Security agency hacking generally requires a judge's warrant in the US but hacking intl communications is less constrained.

A lot of NSA intercept policy is covered by executive orders (Bush and Obama).  Obama recently wrote an executive order (this year) to share more intercepts with foreign governments but this is not covered much by US media.

JR

It's more rhetorical than academic. You sort of avoided to comment on what my actual point was. The actual point was that you're likely to be ok with hacking into some email and not other email. In my opinion this is a very common stance. People are ok with measures directed at others because they aren't expecting to be on the receiving end of it themselves. I don't think I'm an exception myself. But so the extension of what I'm talking about is that it's far more interesting to discuss just what the principles should be for determining when hacking should be allowed rather than just make a blanket statement.

 

[JohnRoberts]

So how do you determine what constitutes a news organization or equivalent? That they're for profit? That they're neutral? That they're partisan? That they're established? It's a very tricky path to go down John because society as a whole has changed and what used to constitute pure journalism isn't any longer. Large parts of contemporary for-profit media outlets pose as news organizations employing journalistic principles but are far from it. Do we disqualify them as well or do they get a pass because they're shielded under the umbrella of whatever organization they're in?

A terrible situation if you ask me.

It's more rhetorical than academic. You sort of avoided to comment on what my actual point was. The actual point was that you're likely to be ok with hacking into some email and not other email. In my opinion this is a very common stance. People are ok with measures directed at others because they aren't expecting to be on the receiving end of it themselves. I don't think I'm an exception myself. But so the extension of what I'm talking about is that it's far more interesting to discuss just what the principles should be for determining when hacking should be allowed rather than just make a blanket statement.

you appear to enjoy arguing more than I do.


JR

 

[micaddict]

Sorry, but that I don't believe.

 

[madswitcher]

From a legal standpoint Manning/Snowden would be sources, and Assange/BBC/Wikileaks etc would be media/journalists. The latter are protected and in a lot of jurisdictions law enforcement can't even try to get the source through media/journalists. The former obviously aren't.

And that was my point: The leaks being spread seems to not be a legal issue, because if it was then Wikileaks AND every publication and news agency that also reported it would have been sued by now. Snowden and Manning are different issues.

From a 'legal' standpoint, both Manning and Snowden are traitors if found guilty - that word sounds a bit emotive, but they were party to privileged information and pledged to abide by their country's laws in keeping that information secret: it appears that they broke that pledge.

regards

Mike

 

[Banzai]

I think that is going a bit too far for so called 'free-speech' on the Internet.

Remember that:-

The Internet has no policeman: anyone can say anything to anyone else on the Internet, often without redress- once its stated you cannot withdraw it.
The Internet has no filters
The Internet always remembers good and bad
The Internet has an almost unimaginable  capacity to store - practically for ever
Many people hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and dismiss the normal behaviour patterns of social intercourse

Mike

It's not about going too far; it either exists, or it doesn't.

And why is it ok for governments to spy on us, but it's not ok for us to return the favour? Governments are public institutions, not private entities benefiting from the same protections we do. Except they can seemingly pass laws to make anything they do 'legal', whilst simultaneously limiting the private citizens rights to do the same. All under the banner of a neverending 'external' threat.

More importantly, as individuals we are not meant to be accountable to governments. They are meant to be accountable to us. Many people seem convinced it's the other way around...

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's not about going too far; it either exists, or it doesn't.

And why is it ok for governments to spy on us, but it's not ok for us to return the favour? Governments are public institutions, not private entities benefiting from the same protections we do. Except they can seemingly pass laws to make anything they do 'legal', whilst simultaneously limiting the private citizens rights to do the same. All under the banner of a neverending 'external' threat.

Agreed it is perverse how legislators exempt themselves from so many laws.

More importantly, as individuals we are not meant to be accountable to governments. They are meant to be accountable to us. Many people seem convinced it's the other way around...

The US constitution grants limited powers to the federal government. States get some, and everything else not specifically enumerated by the constitution reverts to we the people. 

Modern government continues to expand into areas not anticipated or allowed by our founders.

JR

 

[madswitcher]

It's not about going too far; it either exists, or it doesn't.

And why is it ok for governments to spy on us, but it's not ok for us to return the favour? Governments are public institutions, not private entities benefiting from the same protections we do. Except they can seemingly pass laws to make anything they do 'legal', whilst simultaneously limiting the private citizens rights to do the same. All under the banner of a neverending 'external' threat.

More importantly, as individuals we are not meant to be accountable to governments. They are meant to be accountable to us. Many people seem convinced it's the other way around...

In my view, governments are the least of the threats here, it is the like of Google and Facebook that are hovering up as much of the Internet as they can for profiling people for financial gain.  They are not accountable to anyone: if concerns are raised they simply shift the data to another part of the world and carry on.

Regards

Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

People who embrace "voice activated devices" and computer devices with cameras must know that they are leaving themselves open to being surveilled when they don't expect it.

For quality assurance your life may be recorded.

JR 

 

[pucho812]

As dumb as it sounds., the camera in my laptop has gaffer tape over it. Sure it's not a full proof thing by any means but dammit it's better then nothing.