8 ms·

> 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 in

by 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?
    - koolba 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. Why is that so hard to reconcile? You don't draw a line between individual privacy rights and those of government officials? > So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? If you're going to go that route, take it one step further and ask: Why not have a camera in everybody's house to prevent battery?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        What "government officials" are you talking about? Wikileaks leaked, wholesale, the personal information of millions of Turkish citizens. For that matter, in its attempt to sway the US elections, Wikileaks dumped personal emails from random staffers --- not the John Podestas of the world, but the one-step-above-intern people making $40,000 to do public service work. Not just their work-related emails. Their personal emails. What part of taking $40,000 a year in salary from the government entitles Wikileaks to the contents of your personal emails? http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-e...
        koolba 10y ago
        > What "government officials" are you talking about? Wikileaks leaked, wholesale, the personal information of millions of Turkish citizens. For that matter, in its attempt to sway the US elections, Wikileaks dumped personal emails from random staffers --- not the John Podestas of the world, but the one-step-above-intern people making $40,000 to do public service work. Not just their work-related emails. Their personal emails. They didn't get the personal emails of Turkish citizens, they got the emails of Turkish citizens that were on the AKP email server. That would be like complaining that a company has access to my personal emails because I use my work email to communicate with my non-work friends. The AKP is the government in Turkey so drawing a distinction between them as a private party and them as the government is weak. > What part of taking $40,000 a year in salary from the government entitles Wikileaks to the contents of your personal emails? None and if you don't mix personal and work, it makes it much easier to have that separation. If it's all one soup then you can't complain that the part gets released with the whole. > http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-e... Ditto for the DNC and RNC. I don't give a rats ass which side has their documents leaked. If it happens, I say it's fair game because, even though they're technically "private organizations", for all practical purposes they are the government. If people want to avoid having "personal" comments and communications being impacted by this they need to maintain that separation and the poster child for what NOT to do is Hillary Clinton.
- otakucode 10y ago
  Weapon? Think about a world where governments are run by representatives of the citizens using a system that is fully open to the citizens. Ability to communicate with them, for them to see every vote as it happens, and every communication between them. Both the elected and electorate seeing the same system, just with citizens having read-only access to some parts. It was impossible in the past for technical reasons, but could now happen. Spying and leaks would no longer be a weapon because the government would be open by default.

by anondon 10y ago

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?
  - koolba 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. Why is that so hard to reconcile? You don't draw a line between individual privacy rights and those of government officials? > So why not let the government search everyone's email for signs of terrorism? If you're going to go that route, take it one step further and ask: Why not have a camera in everybody's house to prevent battery?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      What "government officials" are you talking about? Wikileaks leaked, wholesale, the personal information of millions of Turkish citizens. For that matter, in its attempt to sway the US elections, Wikileaks dumped personal emails from random staffers --- not the John Podestas of the world, but the one-step-above-intern people making $40,000 to do public service work. Not just their work-related emails. Their personal emails. What part of taking $40,000 a year in salary from the government entitles Wikileaks to the contents of your personal emails? http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-e...
      - koolba 10y ago
        > What "government officials" are you talking about? Wikileaks leaked, wholesale, the personal information of millions of Turkish citizens. For that matter, in its attempt to sway the US elections, Wikileaks dumped personal emails from random staffers --- not the John Podestas of the world, but the one-step-above-intern people making $40,000 to do public service work. Not just their work-related emails. Their personal emails. They didn't get the personal emails of Turkish citizens, they got the emails of Turkish citizens that were on the AKP email server. That would be like complaining that a company has access to my personal emails because I use my work email to communicate with my non-work friends. The AKP is the government in Turkey so drawing a distinction between them as a private party and them as the government is weak. > What part of taking $40,000 a year in salary from the government entitles Wikileaks to the contents of your personal emails? None and if you don't mix personal and work, it makes it much easier to have that separation. If it's all one soup then you can't complain that the part gets released with the whole. > http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-ed-emails-between-tanden-and http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/151983995587/on-the-wikileak-e... Ditto for the DNC and RNC. I don't give a rats ass which side has their documents leaked. If it happens, I say it's fair game because, even though they're technically "private organizations", for all practical purposes they are the government. If people want to avoid having "personal" comments and communications being impacted by this they need to maintain that separation and the poster child for what NOT to do is Hillary Clinton.
otakucode 10y ago
Weapon? Think about a world where governments are run by representatives of the citizens using a system that is fully open to the citizens. Ability to communicate with them, for them to see every vote as it happens, and every communication between them. Both the elected and electorate seeing the same system, just with citizens having read-only access to some parts. It was impossible in the past for technical reasons, but could now happen. Spying and leaks would no longer be a weapon because the government would be open by default.