4 ms·

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 indivi

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.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Well, Wikileaks goes and does things like "leak" a bunch of Turkish emails containing nothing which "exposes" government action and which does put ordinary citizens -- many of them already vulnerable -- at risk. At that point Wikileaks needs to be auditable to find out who decided that would be a good thing to do and why.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      Fair point. I'm honestly horrified that Wikileaks did that, and it should probably make prospective leakers question their judgement with material that could endanger private citizens. I was speaking the to larger claim that Wikileaks owes us transparency to avoid being hypocritical, which I still don't accept. But at this point, they might well owe some transparency not as a public establishment but as some people who screwed up badly with the power they were given.
- btilly 10y ago
  One reason why Wikileaks should not wish full public transparency is that they don't want to create any barrier for would-be leakers to start talking to them. Because then they won't get as many leaks. This is exactly the rationale behind why reporters frequently wish to keep their own sources private, even while they are busy publishing things that other organizations wish they wouldn't.
- rndgermandude 10y ago
  Quite honestly, when wikileaks releases material such as the Podesta emails, undoctored (most Podesta emails are verifiable by checking google's DKIM signatures), it does not matter what wikileaks objectives and motives are and if they are ethically clean. Corruption is still corruption, no matter if it is made public by a "good" organization or another corrupt organization. The corrupt organization does not get a free pass just because their competitors might be even more corrupt (and wikileaks might know that and hold back that information).
  - jimmydddd 10y ago
    Good point. I noticed that many of the people questioned about info in the leaks don't answer the questions, but just state that the info was obtained illegally. Q: "The email says you did X wrong thing. Is that true." A: "That email was obtained from Russion hackers!" Q: "Maybe, but in any case, did you do X?" A: "Russian hackers are bad!"
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    The question is not whether we should give corrupt organizations a pass (we shouldn't), it's whether we should try to keep Wikileaks honest, given that its position gives it strong incentives to do shady things without any transparency. Wikileaks' core activity forces it to walk a very very thin moral and ethical line. I think we the public have obligation to make sure they don't cross it, especially if we benefit from the leaks. I'll note that in another context, it was for a long time not alright for prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence, in order to discourage prosecutors and police from breaking the law, even at the cost of potentially letting criminals go free. Why doesn't that logic apply here?
    - rndgermandude 10y ago
      I was replying to this specifically: 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 [...] If there is no (major) wrongdoing, you cannot just tear them down. The organization needs to be corrupt in the first place. it's whether we should inspect Wikileaks itself, given that its position gives it strong incentives to do shady things without any transparency. I don't see anything suggesting strong incentives to do shady things, can you elaborate please? I see the opposite, however, they got strong incentives NOT to do shady things, because if they are caught even once doing shady things, their reputation is in the gutter and nobody will ever listen to them again. That is not to say that they got no political bias and even political bias. When the emails you obtained contained Hillary asking why they cannout just "drone him" (aka Assange), you might take that a bit personally too. But political bias and personal bias is in no way evidence for "shady things" and wrongdoing. But yes, wikileaks too should be scrutinized, and I think it is, by pretty much everybody, the government, it's agencies, the media. Still, so far, after a decade of operation, there is no proof wikileaks did anything sinister, and the best attempts so far to discredit wikileaks was coming for their leader with rape charges instead of discrediting what the organization is doing. And yes again, we the public should not stop to be vigilant and continue to scrutinize wikileaks.
gohrt 10y ago
There's no way to know for certain if an organization is abusive, until it is examined.
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  There's no way to know if a powerful organization is abusive, anyway. I'm willing to bet my aunt's knitting group isn't abusing anyone outside its membership. I'm being flip, but there's real substance here. A government, bank, utility, or military has direct power over people. They can cut people off from money, property, or freedom without any offering any recourse or external accountability, and that makes them potentially abusive to the public. A private citizen, hobby group, or business with strong competitors is generally not at risk of abusing the public. They don't have the power, or couldn't sustain it while behaving badly. So there is a narrative where we can decline "full transparency" while demanding transparency from public actors. The role of media (and Wikileaks) here is complicated, because they lack direct power but can still have predictable influences on the world; even so, we don't have to grant privacy as a totally symmetric right.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    I agree that as a matter of policy, perhaps media organizations and Wikileaks shouldn't be held to the same standards as governments. But that's not a distinction that Assange makes in his rhetoric, and I'm doubtful it's one he will make in practice either. Would Wikileaks really hold off on publishing if it came across a damaging leak about a news organization? I feel Assange and his supporters do a great disservice to the public debate by oversimplifying things. Sometimes secrets are necessary for the proper functioning of our governments.

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.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Well, Wikileaks goes and does things like "leak" a bunch of Turkish emails containing nothing which "exposes" government action and which does put ordinary citizens -- many of them already vulnerable -- at risk. At that point Wikileaks needs to be auditable to find out who decided that would be a good thing to do and why.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Fair point. I'm honestly horrified that Wikileaks did that, and it should probably make prospective leakers question their judgement with material that could endanger private citizens. I was speaking the to larger claim that Wikileaks owes us transparency to avoid being hypocritical, which I still don't accept. But at this point, they might well owe some transparency not as a public establishment but as some people who screwed up badly with the power they were given.
btilly 10y ago
One reason why Wikileaks should not wish full public transparency is that they don't want to create any barrier for would-be leakers to start talking to them. Because then they won't get as many leaks. This is exactly the rationale behind why reporters frequently wish to keep their own sources private, even while they are busy publishing things that other organizations wish they wouldn't.
rndgermandude 10y ago
Quite honestly, when wikileaks releases material such as the Podesta emails, undoctored (most Podesta emails are verifiable by checking google's DKIM signatures), it does not matter what wikileaks objectives and motives are and if they are ethically clean. Corruption is still corruption, no matter if it is made public by a "good" organization or another corrupt organization. The corrupt organization does not get a free pass just because their competitors might be even more corrupt (and wikileaks might know that and hold back that information).
- jimmydddd 10y ago
  Good point. I noticed that many of the people questioned about info in the leaks don't answer the questions, but just state that the info was obtained illegally. Q: "The email says you did X wrong thing. Is that true." A: "That email was obtained from Russion hackers!" Q: "Maybe, but in any case, did you do X?" A: "Russian hackers are bad!"
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  The question is not whether we should give corrupt organizations a pass (we shouldn't), it's whether we should try to keep Wikileaks honest, given that its position gives it strong incentives to do shady things without any transparency. Wikileaks' core activity forces it to walk a very very thin moral and ethical line. I think we the public have obligation to make sure they don't cross it, especially if we benefit from the leaks. I'll note that in another context, it was for a long time not alright for prosecutors to use illegally obtained evidence, in order to discourage prosecutors and police from breaking the law, even at the cost of potentially letting criminals go free. Why doesn't that logic apply here?
  - rndgermandude 10y ago
    I was replying to this specifically: 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 [...] If there is no (major) wrongdoing, you cannot just tear them down. The organization needs to be corrupt in the first place. it's whether we should inspect Wikileaks itself, given that its position gives it strong incentives to do shady things without any transparency. I don't see anything suggesting strong incentives to do shady things, can you elaborate please? I see the opposite, however, they got strong incentives NOT to do shady things, because if they are caught even once doing shady things, their reputation is in the gutter and nobody will ever listen to them again. That is not to say that they got no political bias and even political bias. When the emails you obtained contained Hillary asking why they cannout just "drone him" (aka Assange), you might take that a bit personally too. But political bias and personal bias is in no way evidence for "shady things" and wrongdoing. But yes, wikileaks too should be scrutinized, and I think it is, by pretty much everybody, the government, it's agencies, the media. Still, so far, after a decade of operation, there is no proof wikileaks did anything sinister, and the best attempts so far to discredit wikileaks was coming for their leader with rape charges instead of discrediting what the organization is doing. And yes again, we the public should not stop to be vigilant and continue to scrutinize wikileaks.

gohrt 10y ago

There's no way to know for certain if an organization is abusive, until it is examined.

Bartweiss 10y ago
There's no way to know if a powerful organization is abusive, anyway. I'm willing to bet my aunt's knitting group isn't abusing anyone outside its membership. I'm being flip, but there's real substance here. A government, bank, utility, or military has direct power over people. They can cut people off from money, property, or freedom without any offering any recourse or external accountability, and that makes them potentially abusive to the public. A private citizen, hobby group, or business with strong competitors is generally not at risk of abusing the public. They don't have the power, or couldn't sustain it while behaving badly. So there is a narrative where we can decline "full transparency" while demanding transparency from public actors. The role of media (and Wikileaks) here is complicated, because they lack direct power but can still have predictable influences on the world; even so, we don't have to grant privacy as a totally symmetric right.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  I agree that as a matter of policy, perhaps media organizations and Wikileaks shouldn't be held to the same standards as governments. But that's not a distinction that Assange makes in his rhetoric, and I'm doubtful it's one he will make in practice either. Would Wikileaks really hold off on publishing if it came across a damaging leak about a news organization? I feel Assange and his supporters do a great disservice to the public debate by oversimplifying things. Sometimes secrets are necessary for the proper functioning of our governments.