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

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#181

Post by mpyne »

trevelyan wrote: post #156
mpyne wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I've been, and those leaks substantially date back to before the switchover I just described. In fact that was my point. They used to be about transparency and now they have a different political agenda. Did WikiLeaks ever leak the documents describing Ecuadorian network surveillance equipment they were trying to buy? It was leaked to WikiLeaks first but they, for some strange and surely innocuous reason didn't p…

I've seen stuff about Canada that I'd say is completely about transparency. As for other material, the organization vets and authenticates documents and has always taken some time to do so. It doesn't surprise me that non-English language stuff is slower.

> It doesn't surprise me that non-English language stuff is slower.

You don't have to read the stories I linked. You might want to at least glance at the URL though. E.g. [2] was posted in 2010. Still waiting...

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#182

Post by dandelany »

balabaster wrote: post #143
swombat wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it violate any rights to privacy? What rights are you talking about, anyway? The only thing we don't share openly in this manner is personal health problems.

To clarify: It's my right, if I so choose, to keep my salary and any other personal financial information private from the rest of the world (minus of course, my employer and the IRS). So your releasing that information is a violation of my privacy.

According to whom? To your sensibilities or a specific law? There is no general right to privacy in the U.S. like there is a right to free speech. AFAIK unless there's something in the contract prohibiting it, they're just as free to disclose it as you are to not disclose it. (ianal tinla)

edit: of course, if this is something you feel stongly about, you should just add it to any future employment contract you sign - I imagine most employers would be pretty flexible about this sort of thing.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#183

Post by tedunangst »

eru wrote: post #177
jafaku wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how did NK end up being that crazy? USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Bombing_North_Korea "As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed."

How do destroyed buildings lead to such craziness?

Have you ever been to Tokyo? Craziness everywhere!

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#184

Post by tedunangst »

vkou wrote: post #172
aurelius83 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also, makes it easier to figure out who to kidnap and also who to blackmail.

No easier then driving around the nearest gated multi-million-dollar community. Or a trip through the Trader Joes parking lot.

There are some millionaires who choose to live modest and discreet lives. (or some I'm told). Publishing everybody's tax return does deny them the discreet part of their choice. That may be acceptable, but it is a real consequence.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#185

Post by tedunangst »

mpyne wrote: post #112
_mulder_ wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the fact that they keep half of their leaked material secret from us.

I'm still waiting for the WikiLeaks major leaks about Moscow that we were all promised. At least, promised until Assange got his TV show on Russia Today.

I was personally more interested in the Bank of America files, but I think they're gone now too.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#186

Post by chrislipa »

gasull wrote: post #80
ihsw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with these kinds of things is that the document might be watermarked to obviate who leaked it. It follows the same vein as "spying on allies" which -- until recently -- was tin-foil-hat conspiracy territory. The political fallout will not be minimal, and it will not be kept secret.

The Collateral Murder video was most likely watermarked. I think the low quality of the video is because the quality had to be degraded so the watermarks can't be seen/scanned. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Do you have a reference for this hypothesis?

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#187

Post by jafaku »

eru wrote: post #177
jafaku wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how did NK end up being that crazy? USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Bombing_North_Korea "As a result, almost every substantial building in North Korea was destroyed."

How do destroyed buildings lead to such craziness?

It's not just "destroyed buildings", like in a few military bases here and there. Read again.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#188

Post by jafaku »

tedunangst wrote: post #183
eru wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do destroyed buildings lead to such craziness?

Have you ever been to Tokyo? Craziness everywhere!

Japan didn't have "every substantial building destroyed". But we can pretend you are funny if that's what you are into.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#189

Post by mercurial »

jafaku wrote: post #188
tedunangst wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever been to Tokyo? Craziness everywhere!

Japan didn't have "every substantial building destroyed" . But we can pretend you are funny if that's what you are into.

According to your logic, we can expect concentration camps to pop up right and left in the Philippines a few years from now.

Re: Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

#190

Post by hackula1 »

eruditely wrote: post #102
hackula1 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are playing to win, you tell them you currently make whatever salary you are seeking. When they ask you what sort of salary you need, say something along the lines of "Obviously, I want to take a step forward, but I am pretty flexible, so if you can at least match my current pay, then I would be open to accepting". While this tactic does fall into the grey area of morality, it is quite effective.

Dont companies pay equifax and such for employee salary data? I'd be careful on this one.

"Well, I guess Eqifax is not that accurate" and "Oops. Thanks for letting me know I don't want to work here" would both be reasonable responses. Most companies are not doing this.
Post reply on HN