4 ms·
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. Corr
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWell 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 agoOne 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 agoThat's a good example. I agree with you. In that case Wikileaks was clearly unethical.