Wikileaks

GrayMouser · 12-12-2010, 12:47 PM

What's your opinion?

For the Afghan leaks, it appeared there were a lot of informants exposed to harm.

The Iraq leaks, they did better on that.

The third set- at first I was against it, on the grounds that government foreign officers need to be able to express their opinions freely, in order to supply the home government with info they need.

However, given the ferocity and dubious legality of the attempts of (specifically, but not only) US governments to block this, my civil liberty hackles are rising...

inked · 12-12-2010, 02:34 PM

To keep things REALLY secure, perhaps they should place the said materials with Barack Obaba's birth certificate and college papers? Takes a Supreme Court ruling to get those, it does.

***Earniel*** · 12-12-2010, 03:49 PM

I'm a bit in two minds about the benefits or negatives of Wikileaks. On one hand I think that whistleblowers ought to be able bring out certain scandales that governments tried to keep under wraps. Exposing abuses of power, conficts of interests, overstepping of authority, etc... of officials or politicians is of public interest.

On the other hand I'm not sure if everything Wikileaks posts is something the public ought to know. For instance, one of the Belgian files that went up on Wikileaks was of one of ours worst paedophile and murder cases. But the investigation was still open, so the premature publication of the papers may have negative consequences on the investigation itself or even lead to a retrial.

The published file also contained police interviews with people where the police had received an anynomous call that they were involved in child abuse. The thing that people will remember is that so and so were questioned about child abuse in relation to a very heavy case, the thing people will forget is that particularly with this case, a lot of people abused the anonymity to make false accusations and that a fair deal of the people suspected and questioned were innocent and falsely accused.

The Gaffer · 12-13-2010, 05:22 AM

Very good point, Earniel. I tend to agree that blanket disclosure of everything is not a good idea.

One can talk about harm to sources, and harm to innocent parties from unverified slanderous leaks, but one can also talk about potential harm to future sources. Who is going to give true insights in confidence when they might be posted on the internet?

Gwaimir Windgem · 12-13-2010, 09:59 AM

The release that worries me the most is the one about King Abdullah pressuring the US to attack Iran. There's no way it's not going to have very negative repercussions, and I worry that it might even start a path that will lead towards war.

***Valandil*** · 12-13-2010, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The release that worries me the most is the one about King Abdullah pressuring the US to attack Iran. There's no way it's not going to have very negative repercussions, and I worry that it might even start a path that will lead towards war.

I'm hopeful for the opposite (though in general - I don't think all these leaks are a good idea). I wonder if Iran (I almost typoed and reversed the first two letters... which would spell 'Rian' - watch what you say, folks!!

) will suddenly feel it's more in their best interests to negotiate, now that they see that none of their allies are standing with them.

Though I don't count on it. Not with the irrational behavior we've seen from Iran's leadership in the past.

Andúril · 12-13-2010, 10:27 AM

http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt

Some of the stuff is just barbaric.

The Gaffer · 12-13-2010, 01:15 PM

Did anyone think that the Saudis and the Iranians were allies?

***Valandil*** · 12-13-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Did anyone think that the Saudis and the Iranians were allies?

I haven't read any of the Wikileaks stuff myself (except at the link Anduril just provided), but my impression of the Iran issue was that it wasn't just Saudi Arabia - it was about everyone in the region. Is that not so?

The Gaffer · 12-13-2010, 05:36 PM

Don't know to be honest. All I know is that pretty much every tin pot dictatorship in the region is terrified of Islamic Revolution and loathes Iran with a vengeance.

Which is of course why Western posturing against Iran just plays into Ahmedinejad's hands because he can play the lone voice standing up against Western imperialism.

So yes, I agree with you, having all that stuff out in the open is probably not a bad thing, but more from the point of view of general public information.

***Jonathan*** · 12-17-2010, 02:05 PM

We live in the age of internet, something like Wikileaks was bound to happen sooner or later.

Such efforts to promote transparency might have an opposite effect, however.

Swedish example from a couple of years ago: A child murder case. As with most judiciary cases, the evidence was open to the public. Some clever person thought that since it all was public, by principle the material should be spread to as many people as possible.
Result #1: Pics from the autopsy were spread far and wide on the web.
Result #2: Due to this incident, the judicial system is now more reluctant to letting evidence be publicly available.

In short, Mr clever person, who wanted more transparency in the judicial system, abused the trust that the public had once enjoyed, resulting in less transparency.

Another example:
Pre- 9/11, CIA, FBI and other organisations had waterproof plugs and very little information leaked. In fact, too little information leaked, as the CIA and FBI failed to share information to one another that could have helped preventing the 9/11 attacks.
As a result of 9/11, the CIA and FBI opened up a bit and became more transparent.
Now, post-Wikileaks, the organisations might go back to their waterproof information plugs. Less transparency.

12-12-2010, 03:49 PM	#3
*Earniel* The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium) Posts: 14,363	I'm a bit in two minds about the benefits or negatives of Wikileaks. On one hand I think that whistleblowers ought to be able bring out certain scandales that governments tried to keep under wraps. Exposing abuses of power, conficts of interests, overstepping of authority, etc... of officials or politicians is of public interest. On the other hand I'm not sure if everything Wikileaks posts is something the public ought to know. For instance, one of the Belgian files that went up on Wikileaks was of one of ours worst paedophile and murder cases. But the investigation was still open, so the premature publication of the papers may have negative consequences on the investigation itself or even lead to a retrial. The published file also contained police interviews with people where the police had received an anynomous call that they were involved in child abuse. The thing that people will remember is that so and so were questioned about child abuse in relation to a very heavy case, the thing people will forget is that particularly with this case, a lot of people abused the anonymity to make false accusations and that a fair deal of the people suspected and questioned were innocent and falsely accused. __________________ We are not things.

12-13-2010, 09:59 AM	#5
Gwaimir Windgem Dread Mothy Lord and Halfwitted Apprentice Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Thomas Aquinas College, Santa Paula, CA Posts: 10,820	The release that worries me the most is the one about King Abdullah pressuring the US to attack Iran. There's no way it's not going to have very negative repercussions, and I worry that it might even start a path that will lead towards war. __________________ Crux fidelis, inter omnes arbor una nobilis. Nulla talem silva profert, fronde, flore, germine. Dulce lignum, dulce clavo, dulce pondus sustinens. 'With a melon?' - Eric Idle

12-17-2010, 02:05 PM	#11
*Jonathan* Entmoot Attorney-General, Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 3,891	We live in the age of internet, something like Wikileaks was bound to happen sooner or later. Such efforts to promote transparency might have an opposite effect, however. Swedish example from a couple of years ago: A child murder case. As with most judiciary cases, the evidence was open to the public. Some clever person thought that since it all was public, by principle the material should be spread to as many people as possible. Result #1: Pics from the autopsy were spread far and wide on the web. Result #2: Due to this incident, the judicial system is now more reluctant to letting evidence be publicly available. In short, Mr clever person, who wanted more transparency in the judicial system, abused the trust that the public had once enjoyed, resulting in less transparency. Another example: Pre- 9/11, CIA, FBI and other organisations had waterproof plugs and very little information leaked. In fact, too little information leaked, as the CIA and FBI failed to share information to one another that could have helped preventing the 9/11 attacks. As a result of 9/11, the CIA and FBI opened up a bit and became more transparent. Now, post-Wikileaks, the organisations might go back to their waterproof information plugs. Less transparency. __________________ An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ Last edited by Jonathan : 12-17-2010 at 02:10 PM.

12-12-2010, 12:47 PM	#1
GrayMouser Elf Lord Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Ilha Formosa Posts: 2,068	Wikileaks What's your opinion? For the Afghan leaks, it appeared there were a lot of informants exposed to harm. The Iraq leaks, they did better on that. The third set- at first I was against it, on the grounds that government foreign officers need to be able to express their opinions freely, in order to supply the home government with info they need. However, given the ferocity and dubious legality of the attempts of (specifically, but not only) US governments to block this, my civil liberty hackles are rising... __________________ Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill Last edited by GrayMouser : 12-12-2010 at 12:49 PM.

12-12-2010, 02:34 PM	#2
inked Elf Lord Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: sikeston, MO, usa, earth, sol Posts: 3,114	To keep things REALLY secure, perhaps they should place the said materials with Barack Obaba's birth certificate and college papers? Takes a Supreme Court ruling to get those, it does. __________________ Inked "Aslan is not a tame lion." CSL/LWW "The new school [acts] as if it required...courage to say a blasphemy. There is only one thing that requires real courage to say, and that is a truism." GK Chesterton "And there is always the danger of allowing people to suppose that our modern times are so wholly unlike any other times that the fundamental facts about man's nature have wholly changed with changing circumstances." Dorothy L. Sayers, 1 Sept. 1941

12-13-2010, 05:22 AM	#4
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Very good point, Earniel. I tend to agree that blanket disclosure of everything is not a good idea. One can talk about harm to sources, and harm to innocent parties from unverified slanderous leaks, but one can also talk about potential harm to future sources. Who is going to give true insights in confidence when they might be posted on the internet?

12-13-2010, 10:27 AM	#7
Andúril The Original Corruptor Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,881	http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt Some of the stuff is just barbaric.

12-13-2010, 01:15 PM	#8
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Did anyone think that the Saudis and the Iranians were allies?

12-13-2010, 05:36 PM	#10
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Don't know to be honest. All I know is that pretty much every tin pot dictatorship in the region is terrified of Islamic Revolution and loathes Iran with a vengeance. Which is of course why Western posturing against Iran just plays into Ahmedinejad's hands because he can play the lone voice standing up against Western imperialism. So yes, I agree with you, having all that stuff out in the open is probably not a bad thing, but more from the point of view of general public information.