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

61–70 of 74 posts

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#61

Post by joshuacc »

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.

While it may be true that WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, it's also beside the point. It's entirely reasonable to believe that laziness/stupidity/lack of resources caused them to leak informants names even if that wasn't their intention.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#62

Post by [deleted] »

gaius wrote: post #57
Rod wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

[deleted]

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#63

Post by sp332 »

ovi256 wrote: post #58
sp332 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're talking about people participating in the killing. I just mean people who are hearing about it from the other side of the world.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#64

Post by okaramian »

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.

The problems in Afghanistan are far deeper than the Taliban and we're now embroiled in a civil war that has lasted for decades.

What was once an Afghani problem is now our problem and we're paying for it in various ways.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#65

Post by jberryman »

ovi256 wrote: post #60
jsz0 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure how you are defining "incumbent news organizations", but the New York Times and Der Spiegel essentially broke this story in collaboration with wikileaks and have been analyzing the documents for some time.

Their conclusion seems to be that these documents don't contain anything explosive, but provide a really detailed picture into military thinking and the state of the war effort.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#66

Post by parallax7d »

joshuacc wrote: post #61
Rod wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While it may be true that WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, it's also beside the point. It's entirely reasonable to believe that laziness/stupidity/lack of resources caused them to leak informants names even if that wasn't their intention.

I accept the concept that Wikileaks puts informants at additional risk. I also accept that the government is lying through their teeth about the activities on the ground in Afghanistan.

Is it more important for a the taxpaying population to be informed of what the military is doing in their name? Or is it more important to hide all information that may have any connection to the activities of informants?

I would suggest, that as an informant you make a direct choice to act, which effectively stakes your claim to a large majority of the repercussions. No such choice is offered to the public, and even if it were, a large heterogeneous group of people cannot be saddled with the same responsibility that an individual chooses for them self.

Additionally, any government that hides non national security type information from their population, puts itself at risk by allowing it's informants to be possibly exposed by leaks. If it wanted to provide protection from possibly damaging leaks, thus ensuring the anonymity of it's informants, it would provide a robust channel of accurate information to the public. Such information would greatly reduce the perceived need for leaks, hold the government and military more accountable, better serve the public good, and provide additional protection for informants.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#67

Post by gaius »

parallax7d wrote: post #66
joshuacc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it may be true that WikiLeaks had no incentive to put innocents at risk, it's also beside the point. It's entirely reasonable to believe that laziness/stupidity/lack of resources caused them to leak informants names even if that wasn't their intention.

I accept the concept that Wikileaks puts informants at additional risk. I also accept that the government is lying through their teeth about the activities on the ground in Afghanistan. Is it more important for a the taxpaying population to be informed of what the military is doing in their name? Or is it more important to hide all information that may have any connection to the activities of informants? I would sugg…

effectively stakes your claim to a large majority of the repercussions

So what are you saying, that if Wikileaks got access to the data of the Witness Protection Programme in the US it should publicize that too? Because all government coverups are bad?

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#68

Post by chopsueyar »

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.

Good thing we intervened, because now it is no longer possible for an Afghani to be shot in the middle of the night by the Taliban.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#69

Post by okaramian »

philwelch wrote: post #25
maika wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't need to continue your litany without context. I here a lot of bleating about national security, good of the state, and all, but that is used far too often as a blanket justification to cover up anything. Restriction, or manipulation, of information is what gave rise to the powers that your examples had to counter. For example, if all information relevant to the public, was public, then the Afghan/Iraq w…

"How can you have a democracy that includes censorship?" If it wasn't for censorship, democracy wouldn't have survived the 20th century. There are concrete, non-hypothetical secrets democratic states did keep during the 20th century which safeguarded their continued existence and the reestablishment of democracy throughout much of the world. Everything you say can and has been applied to every power of the state--the…

Your argument hinges on the fact that we currently live in a Democracy/Republic, which is highly debatable.

Re: WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File

#70

Post by nickpinkston »

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.

Further - the one with the info is truly responsible for keeping it a secret. Maybe the Pentagon should look internally if they want to see the real leaker. However - it has to be said that the more secrets weigh on the conscience, the more risk they are of compromise. The worse the moral perception of the act, the more risk of a leak.
Post reply on HN