9 ms·

Time for Wikileaks to make all their internal communications public. After all, don't they believe in full transparency?

cloudjacker 10y ago
Sure when they start accepting public money or get absorbed into the Government Accountability Office
- vkou 10y ago
  Not all of the people whose correspondence they leak accept public money, or are part of governments. They don't have much of a moral hill to stand on - unless they subscribe to the morality of "The ends justify the means." (Which most people do.)
  - saint_fiasco 10y ago
    If the ends don't justify the means, then what does?
    - Swizec 10y ago
      Maybe you shouldn't use means that need justifying in the first place?
      - saint_fiasco 10y ago
        But then why do anything at all?
    - manifestsilence 10y ago
      Exactly - certain means are perhaps inherently not justifiable. Consequentialism vs. other competing philosophical stances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
      - saint_fiasco 10y ago
        I see. So the interesting moral claim is not "the end justify the means" (which is too obvious) but rather "For every mean there exists at least one end that can justify it", which is controversial.
  - cloudjacker 10y ago
    Now that you got that off of your chest, what does that have to do with this comment thread about them being more transparent?
maxerickson 10y ago
They can be hypocrites and still accomplish their goals just fine. How many people are going to avoid leaked material because Wikileaks are hypocrites?
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  When you say something factual why does it matter who you are? Stalin probably said "Nice night tonight" does that make the statment wrong?
  - jfoutz 10y ago
    Stalin is an interesting choice [1]. He was very much in a position to say nice night tonight, then change his mind a month later and have all of the records altered. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I never had seen that image. The last one is essentially a drawing.
atemerev 10y ago
Let's build Metawikileaks and gather all leaks from Wikileaks!
crdoconnor 10y ago
No. Wikileaks isn't interested in revealing your emails. They go after people in positions of power who have demonstrated the willingness to abuse that power.
- varjag 10y ago
  I'm not sure which power, say, foreign confidants to U.S. diplomats have abused.
  - tedks 10y ago
    Well, presumably their confidence to the US government helped the US in some way, or the their relationship would be pretty brief.
    - varjag 10y ago
      There's not necessarily a relationship, it's often just people blurting rumours at a reception, commentary from opposition activists and so on. What's their abuse here? That years ago, they had enough sympathy to a nation that Assange is on crusade against now?
      - tedks 10y ago
        'Blurted' (thinking this is how a diplomatic reception works is straining) utterances don't end up on Wikileaks, and the united states isn't different now, for better or worse, than it was any number of years ago. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. If you don't personally agree with Assange that's one thing, but I think it's irrational to think that accepting his goals, you should still be forgiving of collaborators.
        varjag 10y ago
        No, I'm actually pretty sure assangedom comes as a package, you don't get to cherry-pick whom you oppose.
jerf 10y ago
Maybe they're just OK with being "closed, conspiratorial and inefficient." It's not hypocrisy unless they insist on choosing something they're denying others, and they aren't necessarily.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Bartweiss 10y ago
At risk of taking bait, they explicitly don't believe in full transparency. They've backed and associated with various privacy groups and suggested that individuals and groups not in the public interest deserve privacy. Assange has complicated that a little by releasing personal, unredacted emails, but it's been their stated intent at least. Give that transcript another read: "organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye". That's not decrying privacy, its decrying use of privacy to hide abusive behaviors. I haven't seen Wikileaks accused of that; the usual accusation is that their public behaviors are politically motivated, which is very different than alleging internal corruption.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  Wikileaks claims they use leaks to serve the public's interest. That makes them a public interest organization. Being politically motivated can very much be a form of abuse. When you have the ability to significantly hinder or tear down public organizations through leaking, I think the public deserves to know how Wikileaks decided what to leak, how they are funded, and what interests they represent. Simple hypothetical scenario: Wikileaks gets compromising information about a left-leaning and a right-leaning organization, but they only decide to make public one of those leaks because they're biased. Or they receive some damaging info, and use it to trade for political or personal favors in return for suppressing the leak. Given that there are so many ways that Wikileaks could abuse the public's trust, their 'transparency' rhetoric very much should apply to themselves.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    > Wikileaks claims they use leaks to serve the public's interest. That makes them a public interest organization. That's some pretty intense equivocation from where we started. Acting in the public interest does not make you "a public interest". The details of Chelsea Manning's gender identity don't influence the ethical status of her leaks. Assange's claim (which is not my claim) seems to be that groups with structural power and objective control over people's lives should be forced into transparency or inefficient secrecy. That's largely governments, and agencies like the DNC that shape them. It's also militaries, powerful investment banks, and other groups like utilities which can control access to credit or basic needs. None of that is representative of Wikileaks. Their influence all happens at one remove, by doing things which the public reacts to. If their disclosures on X are accurate and the public gets mad about X, that can be a direct conversation between X and the public that need not involve them. "Abusive" here seems to mean groups that can take direct financial/legally/physical action on people. Having said all of that, I understand how selective enforcement works. If you know that a disclosure will harm a person, and take that act to achieve your interests, it's a cop-out to blame "the public" if you're choosing what to disclose. But it's relevant that Assange has made it quite clear that he's disclosing to hurt Clinton; his political motivation is already public knowledge. There's really no good answer here. You can explain how you make your decisions, but "not leaking a document" is inherently a secretive act. No one can be sure your choice was honest and public-spirited unless you do reveal the document, so all that's left is faith. That's part of why Snowden and other leakers have gone through respected news orgs, because if someone's judgement is the deciding factor you might as well choose well-regarded judgement. I don't have much of that faith in Assange at this point. I think his leaks are probably selective and politically motivated. It would be interesting to know who funds them and what they say internally, but that couldn't possibly clear up the whole question. After all, if Assange reads one paper about Clinton and one about Trump, and says "the one about Clinton is worth leaking, but the one about Trump isn't in the public interest", how could you possibly evaluate that claim without both leaks? But none of that means Wikileaks is equivalent to the groups he's demanding disclosure for. Ethical questions on our part do not amount to hypocrisy on his part, and it's still a distinction worth drawing.
digler999 10y ago
are they a governing agency with authority over people, acting under the auspices of a democratic charter ? Democratic government is supposed to be open and transparent. There is no reason for it not to be. Which is why WL do things like show secret anti-democratic cooperation between government and corporations.

cloudjacker 10y ago

Sure when they start accepting public money or get absorbed into the Government Accountability Office

vkou 10y ago
Not all of the people whose correspondence they leak accept public money, or are part of governments. They don't have much of a moral hill to stand on - unless they subscribe to the morality of "The ends justify the means." (Which most people do.)
- saint_fiasco 10y ago
  If the ends don't justify the means, then what does?
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Maybe you shouldn't use means that need justifying in the first place?
    - saint_fiasco 10y ago
      But then why do anything at all?
  - manifestsilence 10y ago
    Exactly - certain means are perhaps inherently not justifiable. Consequentialism vs. other competing philosophical stances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism
    - saint_fiasco 10y ago
      I see. So the interesting moral claim is not "the end justify the means" (which is too obvious) but rather "For every mean there exists at least one end that can justify it", which is controversial.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Now that you got that off of your chest, what does that have to do with this comment thread about them being more transparent?

maxerickson 10y ago

They can be hypocrites and still accomplish their goals just fine. How many people are going to avoid leaked material because Wikileaks are hypocrites?

cmdrfred 10y ago
When you say something factual why does it matter who you are? Stalin probably said "Nice night tonight" does that make the statment wrong?
- jfoutz 10y ago
  Stalin is an interesting choice [1]. He was very much in a position to say nice night tonight, then change his mind a month later and have all of the records altered. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#/media/File:Soviet_censorship_with_Stalin2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I never had seen that image. The last one is essentially a drawing.

atemerev 10y ago

Let's build Metawikileaks and gather all leaks from Wikileaks!

crdoconnor 10y ago

No. Wikileaks isn't interested in revealing your emails. They go after people in positions of power who have demonstrated the willingness to abuse that power.

varjag 10y ago
I'm not sure which power, say, foreign confidants to U.S. diplomats have abused.
- tedks 10y ago
  Well, presumably their confidence to the US government helped the US in some way, or the their relationship would be pretty brief.
  - varjag 10y ago
    There's not necessarily a relationship, it's often just people blurting rumours at a reception, commentary from opposition activists and so on. What's their abuse here? That years ago, they had enough sympathy to a nation that Assange is on crusade against now?
    - tedks 10y ago
      'Blurted' (thinking this is how a diplomatic reception works is straining) utterances don't end up on Wikileaks, and the united states isn't different now, for better or worse, than it was any number of years ago. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. If you don't personally agree with Assange that's one thing, but I think it's irrational to think that accepting his goals, you should still be forgiving of collaborators.
      - varjag 10y ago
        No, I'm actually pretty sure assangedom comes as a package, you don't get to cherry-pick whom you oppose.

jerf 10y ago

Maybe they're just OK with being "closed, conspiratorial and inefficient." It's not hypocrisy unless they insist on choosing something they're denying others, and they aren't necessarily.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Bartweiss 10y ago

At risk of taking bait, they explicitly don't believe in full transparency. They've backed and associated with various privacy groups and suggested that individuals and groups not in the public interest deserve privacy. Assange has complicated that a little by releasing personal, unredacted emails, but it's been their stated intent at least. Give that transcript another read: "organizations which are abusive and need to be [in] the public eye". That's not decrying privacy, its decrying use of privacy to hide abusive behaviors. I haven't seen Wikileaks accused of that; the usual accusation is that their public behaviors are politically motivated, which is very different than alleging internal corruption.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Wikileaks claims they use leaks to serve the public's interest. That makes them a public interest organization. Being politically motivated can very much be a form of abuse. When you have the ability to significantly hinder or tear down public organizations through leaking, I think the public deserves to know how Wikileaks decided what to leak, how they are funded, and what interests they represent. Simple hypothetical scenario: Wikileaks gets compromising information about a left-leaning and a right-leaning organization, but they only decide to make public one of those leaks because they're biased. Or they receive some damaging info, and use it to trade for political or personal favors in return for suppressing the leak. Given that there are so many ways that Wikileaks could abuse the public's trust, their 'transparency' rhetoric very much should apply to themselves.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  > Wikileaks claims they use leaks to serve the public's interest. That makes them a public interest organization. That's some pretty intense equivocation from where we started. Acting in the public interest does not make you "a public interest". The details of Chelsea Manning's gender identity don't influence the ethical status of her leaks. Assange's claim (which is not my claim) seems to be that groups with structural power and objective control over people's lives should be forced into transparency or inefficient secrecy. That's largely governments, and agencies like the DNC that shape them. It's also militaries, powerful investment banks, and other groups like utilities which can control access to credit or basic needs. None of that is representative of Wikileaks. Their influence all happens at one remove, by doing things which the public reacts to. If their disclosures on X are accurate and the public gets mad about X, that can be a direct conversation between X and the public that need not involve them. "Abusive" here seems to mean groups that can take direct financial/legally/physical action on people. Having said all of that, I understand how selective enforcement works. If you know that a disclosure will harm a person, and take that act to achieve your interests, it's a cop-out to blame "the public" if you're choosing what to disclose. But it's relevant that Assange has made it quite clear that he's disclosing to hurt Clinton; his political motivation is already public knowledge. There's really no good answer here. You can explain how you make your decisions, but "not leaking a document" is inherently a secretive act. No one can be sure your choice was honest and public-spirited unless you do reveal the document, so all that's left is faith. That's part of why Snowden and other leakers have gone through respected news orgs, because if someone's judgement is the deciding factor you might as well choose well-regarded judgement. I don't have much of that faith in Assange at this point. I think his leaks are probably selective and politically motivated. It would be interesting to know who funds them and what they say internally, but that couldn't possibly clear up the whole question. After all, if Assange reads one paper about Clinton and one about Trump, and says "the one about Clinton is worth leaking, but the one about Trump isn't in the public interest", how could you possibly evaluate that claim without both leaks? But none of that means Wikileaks is equivalent to the groups he's demanding disclosure for. Ethical questions on our part do not amount to hypocrisy on his part, and it's still a distinction worth drawing.

digler999 10y ago

are they a governing agency with authority over people, acting under the auspices of a democratic charter ? Democratic government is supposed to be open and transparent. There is no reason for it not to be. Which is why WL do things like show secret anti-democratic cooperation between government and corporations.