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

WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#51

Post by sp332 »

vaksel wrote: post #46
NathanKP wrote: post #5

Is anyone else getting just a little bit sick of WikiLeaks? The basic concept of providing transparency is good, but I think they are taking things way too far. I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Taliban being able to read the records themselves to find out who the informants are. Just because something is a secret doesn't mean it has to be exposed, and I think that is the fundamental problem with Wikileaks. S…

frankly I'm a little surprised at the number of people that just plain don't hold government accountable. Collateral damage video? No outrage over killing the civilians, Full outrage that they dared to add labels to a video. This thing? No outrage over the fact that innocent people are getting killed...full outrage that WL dares to release information. Seems like a lot of people are just plain authoritative and have…

Outrage over civilians being killed? Been there, done that. We knew ridiculous numbers of civilians were being killed, like, 10 or 20 news cycles ago. No one cares anymore.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#52

Post by hbd »

NathanKP wrote: post #5

Is anyone else getting just a little bit sick of WikiLeaks? The basic concept of providing transparency is good, but I think they are taking things way too far. I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Taliban being able to read the records themselves to find out who the informants are. Just because something is a secret doesn't mean it has to be exposed, and I think that is the fundamental problem with Wikileaks. S…

Wikileaks is about trying to implement the right to know, the right to inform and source protection via technology. This is laws[1] that in Sweden[2] is part of the "constitution" via the freedom of press act and the fundamental law on freedom of expression (free speech). If more countries had similar laws, Wikileaks would be unnecessary. If you don't agree with or understand why these laws exist, then of course your view on the necessity of Wikileaks might differ.

Wikileaks, just like laws on rights and freedoms, will sometimes facilitate the distribution of, for governments, "problematic" material. Does this mean we should remove these laws and/or outlaw Wikileaks? Not in my opinion. Of course there will always be some limitations.

Nothing stops government and organizations from protecting their information in the first place. Wikileaks doesn't pick what information they get access to. If someone in your organization is leaking your most inner secrets, you probably have more serious problem than than the existence of Wikileaks. Also the public nature of Wikileaks distribution model means that intelligence agencies are free to do all the operation security analysis they want when something is published.

[1] http://www.meddelarfrihet.nu/freedom.php?lang=en

[2] This is why Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#53

Post by Rod »

philwelch wrote: post #48
todayiamme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to agree or disagree with anything. All I want to agree with is that innocent people have the right to exist without getting shot in the middle of the night. You know what's the biggest problem over here? It's okay if someone from country ABC kills people living in XYZ. That's collateral damage, but as soon as a few ABC civilians get killed it's war. It's like somehow everyone in this world have agreed t…

It's facile to assume a moral equivalence between one side accidentally killing civilians in situations where it's extremely difficult to isolate the enemy, and the other side hijacking jetliners and flying them into office buildings.

Agreed. But please do note that the Taliban didn't fly any aircraft into buildings. The ones who did were Saudis. The Taliban want to kick the invader out, just like the Vietcong 40 years ago. If you think the war in Afghanistan is motivated by the desire to kill Al Qaeda, you need to read a thing or two on geopolitics.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#54

Post by Rod »

gaius wrote: post #45
Rod wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Ellsberg and Assange have claimed that they do believe that there are legitimate secrets (e.g., cyphers, nuclear technology, and the like). Your argument is based on the assumption that WL sees all secrets as being born equal, which is utter nonsense. Do you honestly believe that: - the Afghan war diaries contain secrets of the same magnitude as, say, U.S. radar tech 70 years ago? - Pakistan does not know that t…

the release of the documents contains very little the enemy does not know about They didn't know about this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1560565

The burden of proof lies on the accuser's shoulders. How do you know it's not disinformation? From now on, the Pentagon will blame WikiLeaks for every civilian death. WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, but the Pentagon has all the incentives to discredit WikiLeaks.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#55

Post by todayiamme »

philwelch wrote: post #48
todayiamme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to agree or disagree with anything. All I want to agree with is that innocent people have the right to exist without getting shot in the middle of the night. You know what's the biggest problem over here? It's okay if someone from country ABC kills people living in XYZ. That's collateral damage, but as soon as a few ABC civilians get killed it's war. It's like somehow everyone in this world have agreed t…

It's facile to assume a moral equivalence between one side accidentally killing civilians in situations where it's extremely difficult to isolate the enemy, and the other side hijacking jetliners and flying them into office buildings.

I am talking about all sides. Not just the USA or the terrorists, but the Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Israelis, the Somalians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Russians...

The world is more complex than these shallow sides. I wish I could tell you what I see in one comment, but I can't. All I can ask you to do is to read history from a neutral perspective and follow the chain of causality down the ages.

I've read enough to know that I don't understand the world, and I never will. I can merely try to help other human beings unconditionally no matter what. This might sound crazy, but provided that a terrorist is willing to take a path of peace and understanding I am willing to give him/her a peaceful home both mentally and physically.

I wish you peace.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#56

Post by akadruid »

Confusion wrote: post #40
todayiamme wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to agree or disagree with anything. All I want to agree with is that innocent people have the right to exist without getting shot in the middle of the night. You know what's the biggest problem over here? It's okay if someone from country ABC kills people living in XYZ. That's collateral damage, but as soon as a few ABC civilians get killed it's war. It's like somehow everyone in this world have agreed t…

All I want to agree with is that innocent people have the right to exist without getting shot in the middle of the night. Which is a naive view, because without American intervention in Afghanistan, their citizens ran the risk of being shot in the middle of the night anyway, because they rubbed some Taliban the wrong way.

Things might be better post-invasion - they damn well should be - but surely the point is that the US, British and other armies must be held to a higher standard than the Taliban?

No-one expects them to be perfect, but they do expect avoiding the killing of innocent civilians to be a priority. If there is evidence to suggest it is not, it should be given due attention.

A prefectly free and unhindered press helps to prevent atrocities by making armies accountable for their actions. Wikileaks might be a very crude tool, but it's definitely enhancing press freedom

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#57

Post by gaius »

Rod wrote: post #54
gaius wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the release of the documents contains very little the enemy does not know about They didn't know about this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1560565

The burden of proof lies on the accuser's shoulders. How do you know it's not disinformation? From now on, the Pentagon will blame WikiLeaks for every civilian death. WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, but the Pentagon has all the incentives to discredit WikiLeaks.

Only for civilians whose name and village were in the leak! How much is "coincidence" and how much is "enemy action"?

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#58

Post by ovi256 »

sp332 wrote: post #51
vaksel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

frankly I'm a little surprised at the number of people that just plain don't hold government accountable. Collateral damage video? No outrage over killing the civilians, Full outrage that they dared to add labels to a video. This thing? No outrage over the fact that innocent people are getting killed...full outrage that WL dares to release information. Seems like a lot of people are just plain authoritative and have…

Outrage over civilians being killed? Been there, done that. We knew ridiculous numbers of civilians were being killed, like, 10 or 20 news cycles ago. No one cares anymore.

Well, banality of evil cannot be an excuse, it was not accepted at the Nuremberg trials for example. If you don't care anymore, you are a monster, and monster are destroyed.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#59

Post by elblanco »

Confusion wrote: post #39
NathanKP wrote: post #5

Is anyone else getting just a little bit sick of WikiLeaks? The basic concept of providing transparency is good, but I think they are taking things way too far. I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Taliban being able to read the records themselves to find out who the informants are. Just because something is a secret doesn't mean it has to be exposed, and I think that is the fundamental problem with Wikileaks. S…

Just because something is a secret doesn't mean it has to be exposed Why does everyone suppose WikiLeaks is being naive about this? I'm sure there are plenty of files that they won't leak, because they think it will endanger more people than it will save. In this case, the safety of a few Afghan informants could be considered collateral damage: you can't expect WikiLeaks to keep their hands completely clean, when the…

In this case, the safety of a few Afghan informants could be considered collateral damage: you can't expect WikiLeaks to keep their hands completely clean, when they are trying to out pools of blood on the hands of others.

I wonder if wikileaks will start posting some videos (hopefully edited and annotated out of context) of the deaths of the people they just caused.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#60

Post by ovi256 »

jsz0 wrote: post #10
NathanKP wrote: post #5

Is anyone else getting just a little bit sick of WikiLeaks? The basic concept of providing transparency is good, but I think they are taking things way too far. I hadn't even thought of the issue of the Taliban being able to read the records themselves to find out who the informants are. Just because something is a secret doesn't mean it has to be exposed, and I think that is the fundamental problem with Wikileaks. S…

If there had been major revelations in the leaked data I would be more sympathetic to their cause. 5 days later it's out of the mainstream news cycle because it's not really news worthy. The leak itself is news worthy but the content mostly is not. It looks like all they managed to do was out some informants and damage the possibility of reconciliation. (not that the odds were great to start with)

I think the content demands analysis and cross-examination that incumbent news organisations are not used doing. Most current media formats (TV news and debates) are ill suited for such as well, so it's not going to happen.

Furthermore, incumbent news organisations loathe WL, and have incentives to ignore them.

Post reply on HN