Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Something is up

morgue.isprettyawesome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 122 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#111

Post by arethuza »

yters wrote: post #56
rdtsc wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those loyal to truth are often the enemy of all. And lately especially of the US govt. Our govt. holds secrecy of classified information above morality. I am sure CIA and other such agencies have blood on their hands, and they have done many morally questionable things in the name of 'national interest'. For them morality is only manifested as legal limits -- the amount of stuff they can get away before being found…

Should all kinds of truth always be released? I think a bit more sophistication is necessary here. For instance, should the launch codes for our nuclear weapons be made public?

Well, the fact that they were once set to 00000000 has been made public:

http://www.damninteresting.com/ive-got-the-same-combination-...

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#112

Post by dsplittgerber »

Wikileaks has gained over 5000 new followers on twitter in the last 24 hours, that's close to +25%. There is an interesting moral question to be argued, whether it would be morally right to withhold information in order to gain funding and/or publicity and/or exposure to more followers, if they were creating drama deliberately (which there is not any indication of, I think, but theoretically possible).

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#113

Post by crosvenir »

jodrellblank wrote: post #108
crosvenir wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that IS what I believe. But regardless to what I believe, it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information. The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself (provided it showed something ACTUALLY classified, not this cover up stuff). The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively tr…

> which is direct disregard for the law The law which they didn't agree to abide by in the first place. Born into a country with a law you don't agree on enforced upon you, why should you stick to it if you both disagree with it and agree to take the consequences? You seem to be arguing that it's bad simply because it's illegal, which is both circular (it's bad because it's bad), and annoyingly naive (respect authori…

In a reply above I admit that I did not think about/realize that I was not talking about US citizens. That changes the equation entirely. I never made a moral judgment against these guys. I simply that if they are knowingly doing something that is illegal then they just might wind up in jail.

Disregard human rights? Are you serious? Wow. I read and re-read what I've written and I still don't see that. I guessing you have misunderstood something I've said, but rather point out that I was vague in some way you use diagnosis bias to infer things that I've never said. I'm betting that were interpreting "go away" differently.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#114

Post by dsplittgerber »

jackowayed wrote: post #61
imajes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i have a second source who validates that they're ok, just busy looking for bandwidth in a politically neutral state/jurisdiction. If anyone knows anyone who has that, pls let me know & i'll pass it on....

If this is really proof of some Giant Conspiracy that's super-newsworthy, couldn't they just send it to the NYT or the like and let them publish it? The 1st amendment is pretty close to absolute, and this sounds more like a military conspiracy than national security.

The Story the NYT won't touch: http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/sausage/2010/02/20/story-ne...

I think your belief that big, supposedly trust-worthy newspapers like the NYT are independent and publish such things, is not warranted anymore. They only publish what suits their interests, i.e. in some specific cases they may refrain from publishing, but that is exactly what counts, sadly.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#115

Post by dsplittgerber »

ErrantX wrote: post #27
dsplittgerber wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, their PR methods are edgy. But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of w…

They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them down. Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.

Please point to any news article that actually says that.

Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical.

“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.” "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&s...

If I may say, you do seem to be quick with your assumptions, in this case.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#116

Post by ErrantX »

dsplittgerber wrote: post #115
ErrantX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They said that the US Army had attacked them and were planning to shut them down. Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.

Please point to any news article that actually says that. Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical. “It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm be…

Im not sure why a news article is needed... Wikileaks themselves said:

U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks

I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated; but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack" type.

Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document deserving of such breathless excitement :D

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#117

Post by jodrellblank »

crosvenir wrote: post #113
jodrellblank wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is direct disregard for the law The law which they didn't agree to abide by in the first place. Born into a country with a law you don't agree on enforced upon you, why should you stick to it if you both disagree with it and agree to take the consequences? You seem to be arguing that it's bad simply because it's illegal, which is both circular (it's bad because it's bad), and annoyingly naive (respect authori…

In a reply above I admit that I did not think about/realize that I was not talking about US citizens. That changes the equation entirely. I never made a moral judgment against these guys. I simply that if they are knowingly doing something that is illegal then they just might wind up in jail. Disregard human rights? Are you serious? Wow. I read and re-read what I've written and I still don't see that. I guessing you…

I interpret "go away" as meaning security agencies, guantanamo, water boarding, detained without trial, rendition to countries where a bit of the old ultra violence can happen with plausible deniability, that kind of thing.

Not "arested, tried and sentenced". If that's what you meant then that's different - but it doesn't address whether it's right and fair for that to happen, only that you think it should happen because the current legal system says it should.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#119

Post by Tuna-Fish »

crosvenir wrote: post #98
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information It is illegal to who? If I came upon classified DoD information, I would publish it with my own name, and let them have fun trying to figure out how to stick their laws to someone who is not their citizen. Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws. > What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to bre…

Well said! > Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws. A more than valid point. I had not considered the community nature of the site, nor the state in which it's owners are based. > You know, the one where the last time the government got too uppity you decided to kill/exile the lot? I assume you're speaking of the war in Iraq. Hmmm... I see a significant difference bet…

> I assume you're speaking of the war in Iraq. Hmmm... I see a significant difference between a citizen breaking the laws of his own country (as this is what I was referring to) and a country breaking no laws to stop a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people. Wow I'm sure this will be a popular opinion here.

No, I mean the American Revolution.

Re: Wikileaks: Something is up

#120

Post by Tuna-Fish »

Confusion wrote: post #110
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information It is illegal to who? If I came upon classified DoD information, I would publish it with my own name, and let them have fun trying to figure out how to stick their laws to someone who is not their citizen. Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws. > What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to bre…

At least be coherent Minor nitpick: you mean consistent .

Thanks, teaches me to post when tired.
Post reply on HN