9 ms·

So you'd be fine with Wikileaks being shut down at this point?

solipsism 10y ago
How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.
- anondon 10y ago
  > what can wikileaks do that some other website can't? No fear of going against the establishment. How many websites that you know of reveal such classified information and get wide press coverage for the same? I don't fully understand Assange's political motivations, but the world is definitely better off with Wikileaks than without.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops.
    - koolba 10y ago
      > Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. Most countries have this already. It's called the CIA or whatever the local equivalent is. The only difference is that rather than publishing directly, they leak information to media outlets for dissemination. > It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops. Bah, it can't be worse. The ordinary citizens that can get hurt by stuff like this are in countries that can (and will) already hurt them for less or even nothing. The common citizens of western democracies have nothing to fear.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        If one really believes this, I have a very hard time understanding how they can believe dragnet surveillance is an important issue. After all, nobody is really getting hurt, except in the places where they can already get hurt just for chewing gum in public. So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? Why is privacy super important, one of our most fundamental rights, until some dude with white hair who wrote a bad port scanner decides it doesn't matter?
jacquesm 10y ago
Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.
- Gargoyle 10y ago
  None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
  - analog31 10y ago
    Indeed, personalities don't matter. To make an analogy, there are scientists whose personalities, and even political views, turn me off. But what matters is whether they do credible science. If it's just somebody's hobby to release information, than that's as far as it goes. But in order for the information to be actionable, it requires interpretation, and then the process of choosing what information to release becomes important. Imagine how a hypothetical scientist's results would be interpreted if it were known that they were only publishing the information that favored their own agenda -- personal, political, commercial, etc. Yet none of the data points that they publish can be discredited.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end. Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern. At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
    - Gargoyle 10y ago
      No, I'm not missing the selective withholding. And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.
      - 10y ago

How important are they really? If they aren't trustworthy -- and I think there's a great case to be made for the fact that Assange is not -- what can wikileaks do that some other website can't?

Gargoyle 10y ago
In what way are the wikileaks releases -- Not Assange, not their Twitter, but wikileaks releases -- not trustworthy? Are any of the releases discredited?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  They may not be discredited but you have to wonder what has been purposefully left out. Wikileaks as an institution depends very much on being perceived as a-political, simply a bunch of techies that will get your leaked documents out. Over the years they have shifted further and further to becoming a politically actve entity. Part of that is in response to the inevitable backlash to some of the released but that backlash was to be expected and the best way to deal with it would have been to ignore it. Part of it may be because some of Wikileaks high value contacts are now in places where they are vulnerable (which adds weight to the call to Pardon Snowden, it would make it much easier for WL to release dirt on Putin and company, assuming they have any). Assange set himself up to be easily corralled, not the smartest thing but he's not the first (and won't be the last) person that makes it into the limelight and ends up tripping up because of it. Releases themselves can be independently verified, what data that is there that ends up labeled factually accurate is a great gift and I'm very happy they did what they did, however we will need more or other organizations like WL if we're to get the whole picture. That would help in another way, you could immediately check for any modifications or selective withholding of information from the various sources.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    So going back to my question, you think wikileaks should be shut down?
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Shutting it down or not is up to those that run WL, I'm fine with them continuing to leak whatever people send them, in the meantime I'd love to see a serious competitor.
anondon 10y ago
> what can wikileaks do that some other website can't? No fear of going against the establishment. How many websites that you know of reveal such classified information and get wide press coverage for the same? I don't fully understand Assange's political motivations, but the world is definitely better off with Wikileaks than without.
- idlewords 10y ago
  Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > Think about a world where every country has an embassy with an Assange in it, and document dumps like we've seen are a routine weapon in information warfare. Most countries have this already. It's called the CIA or whatever the local equivalent is. The only difference is that rather than publishing directly, they leak information to media outlets for dissemination. > It's not a very nice world to imagine. The people who get hurt are ordinary citizens whose info winds up in these giant data drops. Bah, it can't be worse. The ordinary citizens that can get hurt by stuff like this are in countries that can (and will) already hurt them for less or even nothing. The common citizens of western democracies have nothing to fear.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      If one really believes this, I have a very hard time understanding how they can believe dragnet surveillance is an important issue. After all, nobody is really getting hurt, except in the places where they can already get hurt just for chewing gum in public. So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? Why is privacy super important, one of our most fundamental rights, until some dude with white hair who wrote a bad port scanner decides it doesn't matter?

jacquesm 10y ago

Wikileaks only coin was trust, they've lost that as far as I can see therefore their time of usefulness is more or less over. I really don't see how they will regain it at this point, sometimes a fresh start is better.

Gargoyle 10y ago
None of their releases have been discredited. Focusing on personalities is a mistake.
- analog31 10y ago
  Indeed, personalities don't matter. To make an analogy, there are scientists whose personalities, and even political views, turn me off. But what matters is whether they do credible science. If it's just somebody's hobby to release information, than that's as far as it goes. But in order for the information to be actionable, it requires interpretation, and then the process of choosing what information to release becomes important. Imagine how a hypothetical scientist's results would be interpreted if it were known that they were only publishing the information that favored their own agenda -- personal, political, commercial, etc. Yet none of the data points that they publish can be discredited.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  You are missing the possibility of selective withholding of information and possible changes of the information leaked to suit a political end. Focusing on personalities is a mistake when it comes to mere technical ability, but when it becomes a political question I think it is a valid concern. At a minimum I'd like to see another outlet next to WL.
  - Gargoyle 10y ago
    No, I'm not missing the selective withholding. And no one has shown any change to released information. Not once.
    - 10y ago