|
Post by ltfred on Nov 29, 2010 19:44:03 GMT -5
WikiLeaks bothers me a little. Journalists have codes of ethics, editors, publishers, people they are beholden to. WikiLeaks seems to just leak information willy nilly, which in the field of international relations/spying can get people killed. The public has a right to know what its government is up to, but I see in wikileaks just seems like something that is destined to end poorly. Most journalists do not obey their codes of ethics (eg: Judy Miller). Wikileaks always does. That's the difference.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 29, 2010 20:47:26 GMT -5
Most journalists do not obey their codes of ethics (eg: Judy Miller). Wikileaks always does. That's the difference. What code of ethics, make the people they don't like look bad? You know how they edited the video of the one Journalist getting killed with comments like "this is a camera" or "people trying to help". Wikileaks does no good what so ever. It does not make governments more open it just makes them more adapt at hiding secrets.
|
|
|
Post by matante on Nov 29, 2010 21:01:13 GMT -5
Today, we learn how to discourage people from taking us seriously: Wikileaks does no good what so ever. A good old hyperlative is the quickest way to correct anybody who may be mistaken into thinking you have a point.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 29, 2010 21:05:46 GMT -5
OK, what good have they done?
|
|
|
Post by matante on Nov 29, 2010 21:10:35 GMT -5
Distributing all of 'em documents. Do you think this does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER? You can think the risk outweights the (obvious) benefits, but not that those benefits don't exist.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 29, 2010 21:12:44 GMT -5
Distributing all of 'em documents. Do you think this does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER? You can think the risk outweights the (obvious) benefits, but not that those benefits don't exist. How is distributing them good?
|
|
|
Post by matante on Nov 29, 2010 21:22:49 GMT -5
Attempting to explain this is like attempting to explain why 2+2=4; it's so basic it's hard to say more than state it. Well I'll try. Accountability. Democracy. Governments can't do everything they want and expect the people not to care because the people won't know. Less secrecy allows to raise the bar. Less room for corruption, etc.
You can think there is more bad than good in it, but there obviously IS good. Hey, go back a page or two and read Itfred's post. He laid it out very clearly, maybe you'll get it.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 29, 2010 21:45:26 GMT -5
Well, being in Philosophy and being around all that "Search for Truth" crap, i think a few lives put in danger but not necessarily forfeit is a good trade for knowing what the only establishment that can take away civil liberties is doing.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Nov 29, 2010 21:47:02 GMT -5
Wikileaks offered to work with the U.S. government in managing the last two releases so that the stuff that actually should be secret stayed that way, but the government blew them off. Oh, and the aforementioned "insurance files" ( encrypted files that wikileaks puts up on peer to peer sites) are presumably composed of the stuff that even they agree should remain classified.Gee, I wonder why the government wouldn't be too hot to work with the people who put up the edited-with-misleading captions battlefield video. The fact is that, government cooperation or not, wikileaks is not accountable to anyone. Not professional associations. Not the people. No one. And then they proceed to leak confidential government documents where literally anyone and everyone can see them, with no foreknowledge of the nature of what they put out. Is it just me, or is that a really awesome way to get people killed? Also - am I misreading the bolded part, because it sounds like you're saying they're putting stuff out on the internet that they hypothetically agree should be classified. Which would be, you know, incredibly stupid and dangerous. Most journalists do not obey their codes of ethics (eg: Judy Miller). Wikileaks always does. That's the difference. The reason we hear about the Judy Millers of the world is precisely because they are the EXCEPTION. Your statement is akin to saying that most Grammy Winners are frauds because Milli Vanilli was. What code of ethics is wikileaks beholden to? Who holds them accountable? It strikes me as about as accountable as The Pirate Bay. They just traffic in government documents instead of entertainment. I'm not about to say that wikileaks doesn't have the potential to do good. They really do, especially in an age where profits sometimes supersede hard journalism. It is the unrestricted and permanent nature of leaking documents to the net, the apparent lack of care they're taking (if the best defense to accusations of outing agents is "well, they weren't marked top secret" and "you didn't return my e-mails", you are doing it wrong), and lack of accountability (it is the internet, all the owner has to do is host the site out of Botswana and he's good to go) involved.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 29, 2010 21:53:57 GMT -5
Not the people. No one. And then they proceed to leak confidential government documents where literally anyone and everyone can see them, with no foreknowledge of the nature of what they put out. Is it just me, or is that a really awesome way to get people killed? Certain governments are not accountable to their people, and there are arguments that can be said that states the US is one of them. The way Wikileak's...well...leak...can be justified is that IF people die, it is not a direct causation of the information being available, just justification to an individual or government for committing the act. If a government, however, decides to assassinate an individual based on this information, they are more directly responsible because they are acting on this information. Wikileaks is just posting information it feels should be left to the public. The public decides whether or not its worth killing over.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Nov 29, 2010 22:07:51 GMT -5
Gee, I wonder why the government wouldn't be too hot to work with the people who put up the edited-with-misleading captions battlefield video. Well there's a non sequitur. Let's turn down an offer to help mitigate what we claim is a national security disaster because they did something we didn't like in the past. Okay, what? WikiLeaks has been sitting on these documents for months. They're not just releasing everything that gets submitted to the site willy-nilly. Even a cursory amount of research would have told you that. And funny that you should complain about a lack of accountability while complaining about an organization dedicated to holding governments (and other entities) accountable. Sure, there's the question of who guards the guards and all that, but in this case it just seems disingenuous. In securely encrypted files that they'll only release the password to if the government does something in retaliation. And since WikiLeaks is based outside the U.S. and has committed no crime, that means criminal action against the site or its administrators. www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/And whether or not you agree with that tactic is besides the point - which is that WikiLeaks, contrary to what you seem to think, does make efforts to be responsible with the information they leak.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Nov 29, 2010 22:46:02 GMT -5
Attempting to explain this is like attempting to explain why 2+2=4; it's so basic it's hard to say more than state it. Well I'll try. Accountability. Democracy. Governments can't do everything they want and expect the people not to care because the people won't know. Less secrecy allows to raise the bar. Less room for corruption, etc. You can think there is more bad than good in it, but there obviously IS good. Hey, go back a page or two and read Itfred's post. He laid it out very clearly, maybe you'll get it. You know, if that worked, governments wouldn't be shady anymore. But oops, that hasn't happened. I can understand the release of documents, and I'm sure some think they're doing good, but other times things should remain secret for the benefit of others and equipment that need secrecy. I'm sure you wouldn't want them releasing info on reactive armor or the builds of military equipment, for example.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Nov 29, 2010 23:02:29 GMT -5
Attempting to explain this is like attempting to explain why 2+2=4; it's so basic it's hard to say more than state it. Well I'll try. Accountability. Democracy. Governments can't do everything they want and expect the people not to care because the people won't know. Less secrecy allows to raise the bar. Less room for corruption, etc. You can think there is more bad than good in it, but there obviously IS good. Hey, go back a page or two and read Itfred's post. He laid it out very clearly, maybe you'll get it. Oh so without leaked documents there is no accountability or democracy? How does releasing these documents hold government officials accountable? Before you laugh think about it. So US ambassadors where giving their honest opinions of world leaders because they thought those opinions would not be seen. Now that they are know all they can do is hurt relations. Leaders in the Middle East where expressing concerns about Iran more in private then in public. Having that knowledge public does what good. None, all it does it make those leaders less likely to express what they really feel. Secrets between people build trust. So why is such leaks good?
|
|
|
Post by matante on Nov 29, 2010 23:07:47 GMT -5
You know, if that worked, governments wouldn't be shady anymore. But oops, that hasn't happened. Oops, it did. Unless what you claim is that unless governments became perfect overnight, no improvement has ever happened, but you wouldn't, would you? Edit: m52nickerson: that's it, I am incapable of taking you seriously anymore. I'll be generous and point out that the statement I was countering was "Wikileaks does no good what so ever." and now you demand that I prove that this particular release is going to single-handedly save democracy, which is barely related. You should first support your own claim that making those gossips public are going to destroy diplomacy forever. Take your time, I'm going to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by wolfgangravenna on Nov 29, 2010 23:19:22 GMT -5
So why is such leaks good? The government was called out. Now they HAVE to be honest, or face loosing legitimacy. At least that's my take on it.
|
|