4 ms·

This is why we need Wikileaks..

Silhouette 17y ago
Wikileaks isn't the answer to problems like this. If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. For a start, we have to ask why the legal power exists to seal records in this way, who has the authority to order such seals, and what kind of oversight exists to make independent determinations about whether such seals are in the public interest.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > For a start, we have to ask why the legal power exists to seal records in this way That is exactly the key. The fact that a government can put itself above any sort of public inquiry for 70 years is completely counter to what any respectable democracy should stand for.
- gruseom 17y ago
  Yes, but in the meantime, let's have Wikileaks.
- cabalamat 17y ago
  > Wikileaks isn't the answer to problems like this. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need Wikileaks. In the world we have, Wikileaks is a valuable resource.
- CamperBob 17y ago
  If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. Correct. I pay Wikileaks to be explicitly unethical, for that very reason. It's like someone said elsewhere in the thread: if governments have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear, right?
  - Silhouette 17y ago
    The problem with this argument is that sometimes people, governments, businesses or whoever else do have something to hide, and sometimes they are hiding those things for honest, legitimate reasons. But sites like Wikileaks don't tend to pay much attention to that.
    - mr_eel 17y ago
      Well it might be more useful for your argument if you discussed particular instances where wikileaks has published material that you consider hidden legitimately.
      - Silhouette 17y ago
        One obvious example was publishing the membership records of the BNP. You and I might not share their political views, but violating the privacy/anonymity of members of any political party is not the way forward, particularly when such violation will inevitably lead to sanctions that are at best dubiously ethical themselves.
        mr_eel 17y ago
        That's a good example. I agree with you. In that case Wikileaks was clearly unethical.
hristov 17y ago
Unfortunately, somebody has to leak it first. People that have things to hide are really good at leak control. The article says that they prevented an ordinary police inquest from taking place in order to have their "special" investigation. This means that the people that were doing the investigating were probably carefully selected. If there was a normal police inquest chances are there would be at least one honest cop or DA that would leak the stuff. But now it is doubtful.

Wikileaks isn't the answer to problems like this. If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. For a start, we have to ask why the legal power exists to seal records in this way, who has the authority to order such seals, and what kind of oversight exists to make independent determinations about whether such seals are in the public interest.

jacquesm 17y ago
> For a start, we have to ask why the legal power exists to seal records in this way That is exactly the key. The fact that a government can put itself above any sort of public inquiry for 70 years is completely counter to what any respectable democracy should stand for.
gruseom 17y ago
Yes, but in the meantime, let's have Wikileaks.
cabalamat 17y ago
> Wikileaks isn't the answer to problems like this. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need Wikileaks. In the world we have, Wikileaks is a valuable resource.
CamperBob 17y ago
If you have to rely on a dubiously ethical web site that tries to position itself outside the law, some pretty fundamental things have already gone wrong. Correct. I pay Wikileaks to be explicitly unethical, for that very reason. It's like someone said elsewhere in the thread: if governments have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear, right?
- Silhouette 17y ago
  The problem with this argument is that sometimes people, governments, businesses or whoever else do have something to hide, and sometimes they are hiding those things for honest, legitimate reasons. But sites like Wikileaks don't tend to pay much attention to that.
  - mr_eel 17y ago
    Well it might be more useful for your argument if you discussed particular instances where wikileaks has published material that you consider hidden legitimately.
    - Silhouette 17y ago
      One obvious example was publishing the membership records of the BNP. You and I might not share their political views, but violating the privacy/anonymity of members of any political party is not the way forward, particularly when such violation will inevitably lead to sanctions that are at best dubiously ethical themselves.
      - mr_eel 17y ago
        That's a good example. I agree with you. In that case Wikileaks was clearly unethical.

hristov 17y ago

Unfortunately, somebody has to leak it first. People that have things to hide are really good at leak control. The article says that they prevented an ordinary police inquest from taking place in order to have their "special" investigation. This means that the people that were doing the investigating were probably carefully selected. If there was a normal police inquest chances are there would be at least one honest cop or DA that would leak the stuff. But now it is doubtful.