Wikileaks

[BingBangBop]

I think Wikileaks may be having serious problems. Enough so, that they may not stay in existence. First it was the rape charges against their founder and chairman which sound rather trumped up but I don't know those facts. Then there was a DDOS against them which forced them to take to the Amazon cloud to host their data. Then Amazon kicked them out. Now PayPal has yanked their paypal account which accounted for the vast majority of their funding. People now have to send them real checks (god forbid).

Their problems keep building up and at some point I think they may kill the project.

 

[snowhiker]

Julian Assange interviewed at guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/dec/03/julian-assange-wikileaks

Ron Paul defends Assange:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7518099-ron-paul-defends-julian-assange

...interesting reading.

 

[sechs]

To protect themselves from their newly founded government, your founding fathers designed it to be RESPONSIBLE. A responsible government is a more secure government, because abuses, while unpreventable, will be discontinued, eventually (so long as the government continues to be responsible)

So, why are we knee-deep in debt?

 

[ddrueding]

So, why are we knee-deep in debt?

Because we fought two wars without paying for them? Not particularly responsible, but one would hope that, had their been proper disclosure to the people, there wouldn't have been enough buy-in to get us there. Another argument for transparency.

 

[sechs]

Are you talking about Grenada? Reagan's the one who really got this debt thing rolling.

 

[ddrueding]

Are you talking about Grenada? Reagan's the one who really got this debt thing rolling.

Clinton had it fixed. That wasn't all that long ago...

 

[ddrueding]

Miss me yet?

 

[Stereodude]

Clinton had it fixed. That wasn't all that long ago...

Yeah, fixed it using imaginary accounting. Perhaps you can list for the me the years where there was an actual surplus while Clinton was in office.

 

[Stereodude]

Because we fought two wars without paying for them? Not particularly responsible, but one would hope that, had their been proper disclosure to the people, there wouldn't have been enough buy-in to get us there. Another argument for transparency.

Of course, lets pick on the military and defense spending. One of the things the Constitution actually tasks the gov't with doing. Lets ignore social security, medicare, welfare, and all the other social / redistributionist things the gov't is doing that the Constitution doesn't task the gov't with doing (that also cost far more than military / defense spending).

I have a great idea. Lets just start cutting spending 10% across the board on everything regardless of what it is.

 

[ddrueding]

Yeah, fixed it using imaginary accounting. Perhaps you can list for the me the years where there was an actual surplus while Clinton was in office.

Something like this?

 

[ddrueding]

Of course, lets pick on the military and defense spending. One of the things the Constitution actually tasks the gov't with doing. Lets ignore social security, medicare, welfare, and all the other social / redistributionist things the gov't is doing that the Constitution doesn't task the gov't with doing (that also cost far more than military / defense spending).

I have a great idea. Lets just start cutting spending 10% across the board on everything regardless of what it is.

I'm a big fan of cutting spending on everything else as well, but if the Iraq war cost (conservatively) $3T+ and wasn't paid for, that is gross financial negligence.

 

[Stereodude]

Something like this?

Sorry, but it's all political theater (shocking I know right?). They decreased public debt so they could claim a surplus, but increased intragovernmental holdings which resulted in a net increase in the national debt every year (even during the "surplus" years). Part I Part II

 

[time]

I'm sick of this. How about you create your very own tea party thread so you can stop contaminating other threads with your rants?

 

[Stereodude]

I'm sick of this. How about you create your very own tea party thread so you can stop contaminating other threads with your rants?

So, you're only about transparency on things you agree with then? Leaking secrets is okay, but telling the truth about Clinton's imaginary budget surpluses isn't okay. Or was the purpose of this thread only to cheerlead political causes you agree with?

 

[Stereodude]

PS: It's not like threads here start particularly on topic for very long. They sort of meander and wander. :rofl:

 

[time]

Meandering and wandering are fine, but in your case it's always the same well-worn track. It's become so familiar, I suspect it's circular; you have become a broken record, a tape loop.

Think twice before climbing on your favorite high horse at every opportunity, save the repetitive rants for those situations where they might actually be relevant. Then people will bother to read your otherwise excellent posts.

 

[time]

A published letter from Julian Assange. Probably his last.

It occurs to me that I probably have a fair bit in common with him, eg. raised in Queensland country towns, fondness for plain speaking, mistrust of big government, IT background ... hang on, maybe I am Julian Assange?

Fortunately, I'm missing the enormous tungsten carbide cojones that he seems to be cursed with.

 

[flagreen]

A published letter from Julian Assange. Probably his last.

It occurs to me that I probably have a fair bit in common with him, eg. raised in Queensland country towns, fondness for plain speaking, mistrust of big government, IT background ... hang on, maybe I am Julian Assange?

Fortunately, I'm missing the enormous tungsten carbide cojones that he seems to be cursed with.

It stirikes me that you're an honorable man. There is no honor however in stealing another's private correspondance and publishing it for the world to see. But then to those who detest American policy it seems the end always justifies the means. No tactic is too low for these characters. If Assange has really has tungsten carbide cahones let him publish his own private mail and leave that of strangers alone.

 

[timwhit]

It stirikes me that you're an honorable man. There is no honor however in stealing another's private correspondance and publishing it for the world to see. But then to those who detest American policy it seems the end always justifies the means. No tactic is too low for these characters. If Assange has really has tungsten carbide cahones let him publish his own private mail and leave that of strangers alone.

He didn't steal anything. Someone else stole and he published it for them. The same type of thing that any reputable newspaper would do.

 

[ddrueding]

He didn't steal anything. Someone else stole and he published it for them. The same type of thing that any reputable newspaper would do.

This is an important point. Wikileaks is a tool; a way for people to anonymously publish information. A tool that performs this task is invaluable in modern society, corruption and cronyism exists at such high levels that no other technique will get this information out.

The value of this particular leak can be argued, but the value of the tool is quite clear.

 

[BingBangBop]

No, I can easily argue the positive value of the tool if there is no morality or ethical values behind it. a good example would be anonymously publishing peoples SSN's or credit card numbers. I contend that if the tool is publishing content that is moral or ethically questionable then the value of the tool is negative and questioning the value of a particular leak is questioning the value of the tool itself.

 

[ddrueding]

No, I can easily argue the positive value of the tool if there is no morality or ethical values behind it. a good example would be anonymously publishing peoples SSN's or credit card numbers. I contend that if the tool is publishing content that is moral or ethically questionable then the value of the tool is negative and questioning the value of a particular leak is questioning the value of the tool itself.

?

So knives are bad because they can stab people? Fire is bad because it burns down people's homes?

 

[BingBangBop]

Wikileaks is a collection of people, not a collection of inanimate objects. They get to choose what they publish and what they don't. So, in this case, the tool gets to be blamed for their ethical lapses.

 

[ddrueding]

From what I understand, the most recent batch of docs was released to a number of papers around the globe for analysis and redaction before anything was released. This means that the decision to release the docs was a fairly common one. If the press felt the need to release the docs as well (and they did), do you hold them equally in contempt? If not, what is the difference?

 

[BingBangBop]

No matter what the content, there's always someone out there that will promote it further without regard to ethics and that includes credit cards numbers and social security numbers. So the fact that they submitted them to others for review does not invalidate their moral and ethical responsibility. You can not pass responsibility off to others.

As to the responsibility of others, that all depends on what they actually promised to do and did. If I'm just an anonymous person or organization that they sent data with a request to examine, and redact I don't think that I have an inherent obligation to do what they request of me. If on the other hand I have promised to do so then there is a different level of obligation.

I'm not sure what the ethical purpose of "analysis" is. When giving the data out to five major news organizations, that are known for leaking classified data, for "analysis" my assumption is that they are just trying to get it published in a major way rather than getting ethical feedback to see what is ethically releasable.

But really, with the volume of data that is being released it would take many months, even with a large organization, to do a reasonable job. I'm sorry, but the amount of time necessary to do the job properly was not given to these external organizations before publication. Even in-house where theoretically they had as much time as they needed there were people that quit and gave the reason that they were not even close to finished going through all the data, for redaction purposes, before it was published. If Wikileaks gives the data out for redaction but then does not make it possible to actually do the job then I would argue it is all just a smoke screen.

 

[time]

a good example would be anonymously publishing peoples SSN's or credit card numbers. I contend that if the tool is publishing content that is moral or ethically questionable then the value of the tool is negative and questioning the value of a particular leak is questioning the value of the tool itself.

SSN's or credit card numbers are not morally questionable per se, but their publication would be mischievous or even malicious. That's because there are people out there who would use the information to steal identities or credit, so there needs to be a third party who will abuse the publication for their own gain. As a side note, I wonder if the publication of such numbers would be actually illegal or simply the subject of a civil damages action?

So far, I can't see how publication of these diplomatic cables can be used for significant gain by third parties. There really aren't many surprises for anyone in that arena, but the hard evidence allows mainstream media to confirm what many or even most people already suspected.

Incidentally, that's an amazing aspect to the reporting of the leaks; no-one is denying or questioning the content. It's almost surreal to read an article that you know is true without worrying about the quality of the journalist's research, their bias etc, not to mention some vested interest group or politician denying everything and claiming black is white.

However, it is true that they are publishing content that is moral or ethically questionable. It's just that that has nothing to do with Wikileaks, it's the nature of the content! From an ethically bankrupt governor of the Bank of England to a State Department directive for diplomats to steal personal identity details (is this somehow better than publishing SSN's?), there's questionable content aplenty. It seems to me however, that the third parties who can take advantage of the publication are the long-suffering citizens of the various countries involved.

 

[Stereodude]

From what I understand, the most recent batch of docs was released to a number of papers around the globe for analysis and redaction before anything was released. This means that the decision to release the docs was a fairly common one. If the press felt the need to release the docs as well (and they did), do you hold them equally in contempt? If not, what is the difference?

I'm not following you. IMHO, that makes the would make the papers co-conspirators and just as ethically liable as Wikileaks. Those newspapers don't publish their internal e-mails for us to see, so why do they feel it's essential to publish what amount to internal e-mails in the gov't? You also can't ignore that all the papers that were chosen are all of a certain political leaning.

 

[time]

There is no honor however in stealing another's private correspondance and publishing it for the world to see.

A friend who works for our IRS made a valuable distinction here. She pointed out that her personal correspondence was indeed private, but all client-related communications and notes had to be beyond reproach; they could be reviewed by many different officers and even cited in court.

She believes a similar standard applies to the diplomatic corps, so takes umbrage at the idea that such correspondence is "private" - although confidential, certainly.

But then to those who detest American policy it seems the end always justifies the means.

This is the part that I don't get so far. Don't the leaks reflect more on the people and countries that the diplomats were writing about, rather than the US itself? I suspect Robert Gates summed it up pretty well, "The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets."

 

[BingBangBop]

SSN's or credit card numbers are not morally questionable per se, but their publication would be mischievous or even malicious. That's because there are people out there who would use the information to steal identities or credit, so there needs to be a third party who will abuse the publication for their own gain. As a side note, I wonder if the publication of such numbers would be actually illegal or simply the subject of a civil damages action?

So far, I can't see how publication of these diplomatic cables can be used for significant gain by third parties. There really aren't many surprises for anyone in that arena, but the hard evidence allows mainstream media to confirm what many or even most people already suspected.

Incidentally, that's an amazing aspect to the reporting of the leaks; no-one is denying or questioning the content. It's almost surreal to read an article that you know is true without worrying about the quality of the journalist's research, their bias etc, not to mention some vested interest group or politician denying everything and claiming black is white.

However, it is true that they are publishing content that is moral or ethically questionable. It's just that that has nothing to do with Wikileaks, it's the nature of the content! From an ethically bankrupt governor of the Bank of England to a State Department directive for diplomats to steal personal identity details (is this somehow better than publishing SSN's?), there's questionable content aplenty. It seems to me however, that the third parties who can take advantage of the publication are the long-suffering citizens of the various countries involved.

I agree that SSN's and credit card numbers are not morally reprehensible by themselves but publishing them would be. My point is that there are people out there that don't think it is reprehensible and will do it for their own benefit. An example, would be that at one time you could put in a Google script that would search for credit card numbers that had been exposed on the web and the associated sales data like name and address. I use that as an example because lots of organizations put out articles about it that gave the actual script. I know some just didn't think but I can't attribute that to all of them. My basic point is that if people are willing to publish credit card data like that, then there are people that will publish anything regardless of ethics. P.S. Google fixed it so that the script doesn't work anymore.

It is obvious to me that the leaks have value to 3rd parties. The best example I can give are news organizations which seem to be writing and publishing lots of stuff related to these leaks and quoting them. They really are 3rd parties.

I agree it is interesting that no one is denying the content of these leaks. I think it is too massive to effectively put a spin or a believable denial. Even though it is all classified, there's just too much at too specific of a detail level, so that much of it will still be cross checkable regardless of the secrecy. It is just not possible to create a blanket denial, so why try and so they don't.

 

[ddrueding]

You also can't ignore that all the papers that were chosen are all of a certain political leaning.

Reality does have a liberal bias...

 

[ddrueding]

OpenLeaks, a copycat organization founded by some of the WikiLeaks folks distancing themselves from Assange, has now been started. Soon there will be more, and competition to break the story and release more info than the others. This will lead to the dissemination of pretty much anything anyone wants to leak without being cut at all.

Good or bad (and I believe there will be quite a bit of both), this is now a tool. We have to go back to hunting the person that did the leak, and stop trying to shoot the messenger.

 

[time]

The whole thing is turning out to be an historically significant event.

How famous is Julian Assange? Try googling his name as a quoted phrase. Less references than Oprah, Michael Jackson or Angelina Jolie, but more than Katy Perry or Brad Pitt and neck and neck with Barack Obama.

How famous is Wikileaks? Less references than Amazon, but more than Microsoft, Ebay or even Wikipedia. Well over half a billion as I post this.

How many servers does Wikileaks have? It actually grew while I was researching it; right now it's just under 1900 mirrors. Also, at the end of November, the organization took action to keep the info in the public domain:
Due to recent attacks on our infrastructure, we've decided to make sure everyone can reach our content. As part of this process we're releasing archived copy of all files we ever released - that's almost 20,000 files. The archive linked here contains a torrent generated for each file and each directory.

For once, there seems to be a fairly stark contrast between opinion in Australia and the US. Here, Assange seems to be seen as some sort of national hero. Our newly-minted prime minister appears to have committed political suicide by publicly condemning him and accusing him of breaking the law - which law exactly, the attorney general has yet to determine ...

We now have a 'hung' parliament in Australia, i.e. each major party has roughly the same number of seats and the government relies on the support of 4 out of 6 independents. We don't need an election to change the government, just someone to change their mind!

Why doesn't StorageForum have a popcorn emoticon?