Wikileaks - who does it hurt and who does it help?

[Nightshade]

With all of the revelations laid bare by the document dumps by thw Wikileaks site, it is curious to see that many of the ideas and points of view of the US and Israel of Iran and North Korea are validated and perhaps even vindicated.

There are certainly embarassing snippets here and there, but they are far outweighed by the \"evidence\" presented that Iran isn't just an Israeli concern. Many arab nations also see Iran's regime and drive for nuclear weaponry as unacceptable.

So, whose purposes does Wikileaks actually serve?

[Heretic]

So, whose purposes does Wikileaks actually serve?

Thats an easy one. Julian Assange

[null0010]

The people deserve to know what their government is doing.

[Will Robinson]

It hurts the U.S. because it will become even harder to secure cooperation or information from foreign governments or citizens now that we have shown just how easily that cooperation can be be exposed to the world by a single pimple faced punk in the Army acting totally on his own. And the fact that it can go on for months with numerous release dates published and met like the release of the next Harry Potter book without our ability to stop any of it just makes us look even less effective at managing our own affairs. We look pathetic to most of the major players in the world and that in and of itself is quite harmful to us and won't easily or quickly be overcome.

It will help the egomaniac who runs wikileaks because he will become a celebrity who could cash in on this financially or materially in some other way or simply elevate his status in many peoples eyes.

I wouldn't want to be in his shoes however. If this was Russian secret info he would have been killed long ago and probably in a really painful way.

Will we do something like that? Probably not going to happen if it hasn't already but who knows. He thinks he's doing the world a service but I think he's full of ★■◆● because so far it looks like he's merely validated fears and suspicions already well established and simply put names to what were once unrecorded insults and lies. He's simply made the players a little bit less friendly and trusting to each other but not changed how the game was, or still will be, played.

He's kind of like a tattle tale and a critic. Neither characteristic is really useful or productive.

[CUDA]

The people deserve to know what their government is doing.

To a point

[Spidey]

I wonder why WikiLeaks is not on that blocked DNS list…is it that stopping rich white suburban kids from stealing music is more important.

[Foil]

I'm personally finding the partisan U.S. reactions to WikiLeaks very intriguing... and a bit self-contradictory.

On one hand, conservatives (who typically make a big deal about government transparency and hidden agendas) seem to be attacking WL, saying it reveals too much.

On the other hand, liberals (who typically support higher governmental authority) seem to be supporting WL, saying it gives more power/information to the people.

Does this strike anyone else as a bit backward?

[Spidey]

Clues…

Look at who is doing it, and the motive behind it.

Yea conservatives get a little pissed when someone does something to bash America and reduce its respect in the world, and liberals enjoy that kind of thing.

[CUDA]

Yea conservatives get a little pissed when someone does something to bash America and reduce its respect in the world, and liberals enjoy that kind of thing.

WORD

[Will Robinson]

Part of me hopes the initial leak was the work of the brat in the army who leaked all the files to the euroweenie but all the subsequent publication of the data only happened because our state department decided they could work the results to our benefit.
But then I thought we might work the invasion of Iraq the same way so...nevermind... maybe all that pot I quit smoking so many years ago hasn't really worn off yet after all...

[woodchip]

Well my question is, how did the army kid mange to access all this data? When he started downloading it, didn't any security alarms go off?

[null0010]

Possible bonus: With the revelation that so many countries were considering backhanding Iran if they so much as breathed funny, maybe Iran will step back from the ledge of total crazy for a while.

On a philosophical level, the government shouldn't fear Wikileaks like this. Unless they've got something they're trying to hide from the American people. Much like citizens of America needn't fear warrantless wiretaps unless they're guilty of a crime.

[Avder]

One thing I hope is that the stuff that actually needs to stay secure is known only to those who are trustworthy. Like upcoming attack plans, current logistics schemes in the armed forces and whatnot.

The whole rest of it is pretty unimportant.

Additionally, if I hate someone and I go out of my way to keep that hate hidden, I just end up hating that person even more. But if the hate is laid bare, I generally find it a lot easier to work with that person.

[Mjolnir]

I personally think they've done some really great stuff so far, but that might seem to just be me.

[Will Robinson]

I personally think they've done some really great stuff so far, but that might seem to just be me.

Who did what that is great?

[Krom]

My opinion is mixed, there can be some benefit to getting the dirty laundry aired out. If everyone knows about it, then there is a better chance of it actually getting cleaned up. What is good for the government isn't necessarily good for the country or the citizens.

If someone has a problem with the US government that is fine, a lot of Americans have problems with government. However when they use that as an excuse to post stuff that either directly or indirectly causes harm to the American citizens while not really changing the government, then it just makes them a douche-bag.

[Tunnelcat]

Some of this stuff is just stupid and insipid too! I mean, noting the thirty VIRGIN female guards and the Ukrainian nurse that Qaddafi drags along with him on state trips! Why classify that!

[d3jake]

I agree with Krom and tunnelcat.
There are times when things need to be classified. The same reason applies to why you don't tell your opponent your thoughts and strategy during a game of Chess. Granted, inter-state happenings are a couple of orders of magnitude more important.
I have no proof, except for cynicism and guesswork, but I can almost guess that classifying information has been used throughout the ages as a means for a government to do misdeed, and not have to answer for it. I'm interested for if\\when information about our fun domestic wiretapping program comes to light and see who has been abusing it the worst.

[Mjolnir]

I personally think they've done some really great stuff so far, but that might seem to just be me.

Who did what that is great?

Figured it'd be obvious I was talking about Wikileaks since that's the basis of the thread.

[Will Robinson]

I personally think they've done some really great stuff so far, but that might seem to just be me.

Who did what that is great?

Figured it'd be obvious I was talking about Wikileaks since that's the basis of the thread.

Yes, I gathered that much. Can you spell it out in some detail?

I haven't read all of it obviously but so far I haven't seen anything that is worthy of whistleblower status. More like gossip. At best it is merely affirming what was already widely believed to be.
On the other hand those people in the middle east, for example, who provided the west with assistance have now been exposed.
Where is the greatness?

[CDN_Merlin]

Because of wikileaks, our current Ambassador to Kabul might resign due to some things he said in the emails.

Not sure releasing all this info is good but kinda to late now.

[Lothar]

Wikileaks is amateur. They style themselves as an \"intelligence agency of the people\", and then whine like little girls when other intelligence agencies dare to mess with their \"operatives\". They're more than willing to editorialize and propagandize (see: collateral murder), and show a remarkable lack of sophistication in their decisions as to what to release and how.

I've got plenty of arguments for why we need more transparency. But a huge data dump of state department cables is not what I had in mind. Especially not if the whole thing is done by an organization I don't have the ability to vote for/against -- I didn't elect Julian Assange, and I don't want him being the final, unaccountable arbiter of what data should and shouldn't be secret.

Transparency good. Wikileaks bad.

[null0010]

Wikileaks is amateur and more often than not they make me frown or cringe, but I feel like them doing a crappy partisan job is better than nobody doing any job at all.

[Will Robinson]

Wikileaks is amateur and more often than not they make me frown or cringe, but I feel like them doing a crappy partisan job is better than nobody doing any job at all.

But is there any real good in what they have done?

Sure if simply aggravating the U.S. government is your goal then I guess they have achieved something but I'm reading into comments from most people who appreciate this data dump that some kind of service has been performed... as in some bad thing is now going to be exposed causing an outcry from the public to change and I just don't see it.

A crappy job that does no good but does do some harm is not better than having done nothing at all.

[Grendel]

Wikileaks is amateur. [..]
Transparency good. Wikileaks bad.

Look up Steven Levy.

Do you approve of what your government is doing in regards to wikileaks ?

[Foil]

... not what I had in mind. Especially not if the whole thing is done by an organization I don't have the ability to vote for/against -- I didn't elect Julian Assange, and I don't want him being the final, unaccountable arbiter of what data should and shouldn't be secret.

Wait... you want an government official in charge of determining what government secrets are exposed?

I don't particularly like the way Wikileaks has gone about its business, but I DO like the idea that these things run through private organizations.

-----

Personally, I expect we'll soon see some competition to WikiLeaks. Of course, it'll probably be oppositely partisan ("Exclusive! Secret Obama Tapes Exposed!"). But at least it won't be handled by federal gloves.

[Lothar]

... not what I had in mind. Especially not if the whole thing is done by an organization I don't have the ability to vote for/against -- I didn't elect Julian Assange, and I don't want him being the final, unaccountable arbiter of what data should and shouldn't be secret.

Wait... you want an government official in charge of determining what government secrets are exposed?

Most of the time, yes, I do. I don't want the same guy taking actions and deciding his actions should be secret; I want some government officials to do stuff and others to decide if said stuff should be secret. Like, you know, classification review boards and accountability offices and such. Most of the time, the system works.

On occasion, there is need for whistleblowers and leakers. Even then, I'd prefer if they were all accountable to the American public in some way. If it's the New York Times, at least I can ask my representative to pursue legal action. If it's some guy in Sweden, it's a lot more complicated. I would also prefer if said whistleblowers/leakers actually thought carefully about what they're doing and gave legitimate consideration to the reasons for secrecy and disclosure, and as a result leaked only what was necessary, as the NYT has done with past leaks.

-----

Look up Steven Levy.

Do you approve of what your government is doing in regards to wikileaks ?

I am both familiar and unimpressed with Steven Levy's 7 commandments. "All information should be free" is a naive sentiment.

What specific action is my government undertaking with regard to wikileaks? I can't voice either approval or disapproval of a vague "what they're doing".

[Grendel]

Have you tried to reach wikileaks.org lately ? (ref)

I find the analysis of the information by The Guardian and Der Spiegel quite interesting BTW. Gives a good insight about what's going on, something that we would never have gotten w/o the documents. Frankly, I'm surprised it took that long -- 2.5 million people had access to the info, seems that the safety checks where fairly good.

[Lothar]

Have you tried to reach wikileaks.org lately ? (ref)

Nope. I have no interest in accessing wikileaks.

But I am aware of the Amazon thing. Joe Lieberman is kind of a blowhard, and I have no reason to believe Amazon would cave just because of him.

I do have reason to believe Wikileaks expected Amazon to drop them, and only chose to host their for more publicity. Either that, or they're even more amateur than I thought. Amazon's TOS include provisions like "you have rights to the data" and "the data isn't harmful to anyone"; it should have been fully expected that they'd deny Wikileaks' attempt to host data they'd loudly announced they don't have rights to.

[Grendel]

Food for thought. I was refering to this tho, must have mixed up the links.

[Mjolnir]

I personally think they've done some really great stuff so far, but that might seem to just be me.

Who did what that is great?

Figured it'd be obvious I was talking about Wikileaks since that's the basis of the thread.

Yes, I gathered that much. Can you spell it out in some detail?

I haven't read all of it obviously but so far I haven't seen anything that is worthy of whistleblower status. More like gossip. At best it is merely affirming what was already widely believed to be.
On the other hand those people in the middle east, for example, who provided the west with assistance have now been exposed.
Where is the greatness?

Knowing what our Government is doing is key to our democracy, obviously some things can remain a secret but we are a Republic and what this Government does reflects back upon us. Do we really want to be associated with a Government secretly bombing yet ANOTHER two sovereign nations? Thanks to wikileaks we've discovered that we're bombing Yemen and according to some articles I've read we are the cause of an explosion there that killed 22 children.

This really should be an era where Governments have trouble hiding things from their citizens, a more transparent one where people are more informed instead of the leading us by the nose that is going on today, and I think Wikileaks is a step in the right direction towards that... could just be me though.

[Spidey]

Right idea…very poor execution.

[Tunnelcat]

Just wait until they dump out the private sector stuff. I hear there's some not-so-nice dirty laundry from a Bank of America insider.

[Gekko71]

Interesting range of views - many of them varied and all of them valid (what a great thread! )

Myself I think that WL is far from perfect, (no whistle blowing mechanism is) nor are the moral issues clear cut one way or the other. But I'm still damn glad it exists. And rightly or wrongly, it brings hypocrisy and dishonesty into the open for all to see. It prompts and promotes honest discussion on serious issues (many of which we would not even be aware existed without WL exposure).

Most importantly, it empowers and enables all the above via anonymity (or at least whatever passes for anonymity these days) - to me that's it's biggest advantage.

[d3jake]

Just wait until they dump out the private sector stuff. I hear there's some not-so-nice dirty laundry from a Bank of America insider.

If they don't get snuffed out by hackers\\whoever when it comes time to roll out that information. It's one thing to expose secrets of the government, it's quite another to fark with large multi-national corporations.

[Skyalmian]

Wikileaks - who does it hurt and who does it help?

Thus far, it looks like:

Hurt: The Internet's future of being free / avoiding becoming \"Internet 2\"

Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice.
Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation
Operation Trojan Horse: US government will use WikiLeaks 'revelations' to shut down internet domains
Is Wikileaks An Internet 9-11?

Help: Israel; Possible further wars in the Middle East

WikiLeaks – More Israeli Game Theory Warfare?
Wikleaks and Imperial Mobilization - The CIA's \"Mighty Wurlitzer\"
Wiki-Leaks and Plausible Lies - Where Have All The Critical Thinkers Gone?
Wikileaks leaks toxic acid in every direction, except to Israel
Gordon Duff: Wikileaks, A Touch Of Assange and the Stench of AIPAC
Ex-AIPAC official threatens to uncover mass spying at Israel lobby

Fun times on Planet Earth.

Update 2010-12-07 07:51 UTC: Added \"Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice.\" to list.

[null0010]

WikiLeaks Shows the Skills of U.S. Diplomats

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 84,00.html

First, there is little deception. These leaks have been compared to the Pentagon papers. Which they are not. The Pentagon papers revealed that the U.S. engaged in a systematic campaign to deceive the world and the American people and that its private actions were often the opposite of its stated public policy. The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast, show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American interests. Ambassadors are not caught pushing other countries in order to make deals secretly to strengthen the U.S., but rather to solve festering problems.

The cables also show an American diplomatic establishment that is pretty good at analysis. The British scholar Timothy Garton Ash concurs, writing in the Guardian, "My personal opinion of the State Department has gone up several notches. [W]hat we find here is often first-rate." It is also often well wrought. The account of a wedding in Dagestan filed by William Burns, now the No. 3 person at the State Department, is — as Garton Ash writes — straight out of Evelyn Waugh. When foreigners encounter U.S. diplomats and listen to their bland recitation of policy, they would do well to keep in mind that behind the facade lie some very clever minds.

[Will Robinson]

....

Knowing what our Government is doing is key to our democracy, obviously some things can remain a secret
....

Well nothing is going to remain secret if this 'greatness' is the model of things to come.

A question asked of Assange that he totally dodged was something like this:
What do you think if a serious situation develops and diplomacy is unable to be used to stop it from turning into a conflict because of the damage wikileaks did to the diplomatic corps involved in trying to stop the conflict in a peaceful way?

It is a very good question and he didn't have an answer.
So I'm still wondering what the heck is so great about it? You seem to be heralding transparency as great but acknowledge some secrets are important. The leaking and publishing data this way is not close to living up to even your standard.

I find it sadly ironic that the same liberals that shouted diplomacy should have been given the chance to solve the Iraqi situation are the same ones sabotaging diplomacy on a world wide scale!! Self serving ego weenies make really bad saviors.

[woodchip]

While I agree Assange should be horsewhipped, OTOH how is he any different than the NYT's when they published leaks about the govt. tracking bank to find out where terrorist money was coming or even more egregious...the pentagon papers? Assange differs from regular journalist in only volume.

[Lothar]

how is he any different than the NYT's when they published...the pentagon papers?

The pentagon papers were explicitly selected for leaking because they showed government wrongdoing. The leaker understood exactly what was being leaked. It was not an indiscriminate data dump, but a specific targeted transmission of information that could reasonably be seen as in the public interest.

The NYT appeared to weigh whether or not it was actually in the public interest to publish. They made an argument for it, and actually dealt with the Supreme Court. Wikileaks seems to think virtually all leaks are in the public interest, and seems unwilling to deal with any court on the matter.