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

Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 211 posts

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#51

Post by die_sekte »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #9
kiba wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3) Anarchy is not the same as openness. Openness says I demand full insight into what my government is doing. If not me personally, then somebody I elected or appointed. Anarchy says any type of secret is bad and open air always beats secrets. Governments can't function without secrets -- even your local small town has to have secret meetings to discuss personnel issues and such. Wikileaks is, to my mind, opposed to…

Hey I'm a systems guy -- technology systems and people systems. If you have a good idea for how a system of people would work to govern themselves, I'm game. Is there an example -- in the entire history of the planet -- of a government which had no need for secrecy? Sounds cool if it would work.

FYI, Iceland was some kind of anarchy between 930 and 1262. Which apparently lead to a lot of feuds.

I think it's important to what kind of information governments need to keep secret and what kind they keep secret. Judging by Wikileaks content this seems to be information about (a) wars of aggression (defensive wars apparently need less secrets) (b) providing unfair advantages to private companies (I think ACTA counts here) (c) things they shouldn't allow (such as misbehaving personnel) (d) censorship.

So, we need to ask: does our perfect, imaginary, peaceful state need to keep anything secret from its own citizens? I think no.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#52

Post by rick888 »

mcantelon wrote: post #22
zaphar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

U.S. government and military, who have a track record of keeping horrifying, god-awful secrets regarding their own misconduct. This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Which effectively puts them all the way on the other end of the spectrum. Your saying that putting 100's of peoples lives at risk in…

>This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Some examples of this would be great.

"I hate to put people on the spot with "well, what would YOU do." But Daniel's post implies that there is some wise oversight that can expose just the right secrets, without exposing the dangerous ones. I don't think that's realistic, unless he has some particular scheme in mind. I think the choice is between total control and some degree of anarchy, and I would take as much anarchy as I could get on that spectrum."

How about not including names? They obviously knew it was an issue because they attempted to contact the government to have some of the names removed. Instead of doing the right thing and removing all names, they released them all with this "any deaths are worth the information" attitude.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#53

Post by rbanffy »

tptacek wrote: post #36
mcantelon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit. >2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are. >3) Anarchy is…

When you call those prosecuting the US/NATO side of the conflict in Afghanistan "murderers", you run the risk of implicitly taking the side of US/NATO's adversaries, who in this case are the Taliban. Here's what I'm wondering: when did it become fashionable to stick up for the Taliban? The Taliban aren't the Sandinistas. The Taliban aren't the North Vietnamese Army. They aren't even Hezbollah. It is conceivable --- e…

> When you call those prosecuting the US/NATO side of the conflict in Afghanistan "murderers", you run the risk of implicitly taking the side of US/NATO's adversaries, who in this case are the Taliban.

Nice strawman. Calling the folks who recklessly fire on civilians murderers may be a bit exaggerated. Human error happens and human error when the human is on the trigger of a 30 mm cannon is usually disastrous, but automatically siding those who propose a less reckless fight with the Taleban is a flaw of logic.

When you are in position of using lethal force, you must use it responsibly, with great care.

Also, removing the Taleban from power in Afghanistan was necessary, but empowering corrupt local powers is, most definitely, not the best way to employ the resources consumed in this invasion. People die in wars and we owe them to make wars short, clean and effective, so that no more people need to die other than absolutely necessary.

This whole situation is appalling. It reeks incompetency and corruption from top to bottom. It's unworthy of the high ideals that are, or, at the very least, should be, the core philosophy of the groups we authorize to use lethal force against our fellow humans.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#54

Post by mcgraw »

mcantelon wrote: post #41
rick888 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in chall…

>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…

>> Specific examples would be great.

We don't even need 1 person to die from stupid non-sense like this. I understand that we need transparency, but you are not playing a game right now. The probability of a death related to 'leaks' just magnified. There is no denying that. Considering I served in this war, what doesn't absolutely need to be said shouldn't be said at this time. It's like we're playing russian roulette here.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#55

Post by mbrubeck »

petercooper wrote: post #2

I've been surprised recently how many worldly people have been cheering Wikileaks and think what they're doing is OK. This isn't a judgment on anyone - just surprise. I'm as big an infojunkie as anyone ;-) Is there significant support amongst the intelligentsia for nixing laws like the Espionage Act and Official Secrets Act that the government and military rely on?

Naming it "Wikileaks" was excellent for PR. People's first associations will be with efforts like Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, which have a significant amount of goodwill.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#56

Post by DanielBMarkham »

mr_eel wrote: post #38
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #3

I am struck by four things. 1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go-protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished. 2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just so…

1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally. 2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do. 3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothi…

1) I don't think this is a good thing overall, but I am happy people are angry. When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange, we'll know how far you can push folks. That'll heat some up more -- maybe enough for things to change.

2)I believe the question you are asking me is "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" For which I have to say no. As much as I love movies with the underdog and the little guy beating the giant opponent, as much as I love movies where somebody fights the system and wins, I can't support these decisions being made by some guy I never met. To think otherwise seems insane to me -- as I understand it the basic argument would be that things are so bad now that any type of release of docs is good. I'm not ready to go that far. Yet.

3) See above

Abuse as viewed by whom? Assange? The average 15-year-old internet reader? Oliver Stone? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't you want some kind of orderly process for releasing docs, even if you were for releasing all of them? What kind of half-assed system is this?

4) Sure it makes sense. All you have to do is start delegating and telling folks to keep no written records. Presto-chango, your "secrets" disappear. No docs, nothing to leak.

I think there are a lot of options -- a constitutional amendment comes to mind first. Make it a crime to keep any secrets longer than a certain period of time. All sorts of options there.

I feel uncomfortable because the arguers seem to want to push towards either supporting all sorts of crazy secrecy or supporting some system whereby random people email secret information to some asshole overseas who posts it on his website. Surely there has to be some middle ground here. I'd like to get rid of 99.9% of the currently classified documents. I'd like to streamline the intelligence agencies and programs. I'd like to impose criminal penalties on intelligence agencies which abuse their trust by over-classifying information.

But fuck-all if I want Assange playing peek-a-boo with national security items -- even if it's .1% of the total. It's wrong on so many levels that it'd take another post to list them all. I am perfectly capable of realizing how bad the problem is without having to cling to Assange as some kind of life-preserver -- the only way to safety. That's not happening.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#57

Post by mcantelon »

zaphar wrote: post #45
mcantelon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is true. However Assande and Wikileaks have put over a hundred peoples lives directly in danger through their leaks as well as potentially thousands more. Some examples of this would be great.

Read the article one intelligence officer and hundreds of Afghani informants have been revealed to the world including the folks who want them dead. Before the leak their potential killers didn't know who they were now they do. Assande has no intention of not revealing more information of the same sort in the future.

There are no specifics mentioned and the article the AEI member links to doesn't have much in the way of specifics either. If the US military is concerned about those involved in the death trade having their identities revealed they would do well to make Wikileak's public role redundant and tell the truth about their actions.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#58

Post by rick888 »

mcantelon wrote: post #41
rick888 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are." Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? "Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in chall…

>Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them. Specific examples would be great. >If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information? The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison. >That's because Obama knows the importance…

"The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison."

That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging."

Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here

"Specific examples would be great."

This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#59

Post by isamuel »

mixmax wrote: post #26

As a European this comments really pisses me off "In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world." The political hatred the US has gotten from around the world stems largely from the idea that the US can do whatever it pleases wherever it pleases. Also " The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his communications and disrupt his ope…

Yeah, the idea that the U.S. should blow apart its international alliances to apprehend someone whose activities are protected under American law is slightly insane. Then again, the author has a history of such things.

Re: Wikileaks Must Be Stopped

#60

Post by damoncali »

I get the sense he thinks this a big political game. (after all, war is just the imposition of political policy via force).

Having spent some time with the folks he is pissing off, I don't think it's an understatement to say that he may just get himself killed.

Post reply on HN