6 ms·
Once you admit that keeping secret and controlling the release of sensitive information has some 'harm minimization effect' - and therefore that releasing info
by Aqueous 10y ago
Once you admit that keeping secret and controlling the release of sensitive information has some 'harm minimization effect' - and therefore that releasing information in the wrong way or to the wrong people is potentially harmful - exactly where does that take the philosophy of 'radical transparency?'
- iaw 10y agoWikileaks stopped being about 'radical transparency' when Julian Assange felt personally threatened by Hillary Clinton and Google. Since then the Wikileaks agenda appears to be more about attacking and undermining US policy and standing wherever it can.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- M_Grey 10y agoIt tells you that the person advocating that philosophy has given themselves license to wield all of that enormous power you're describing, without check or balance.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- 0xfeba 10y ago> He added that while Wikileaks maintained a neutral position on most of its leaks, in this case it did take a strong stance. Uh huh. After the US Election debacle, I'm not so sure of that.
- snowpanda 10y agoRight because they should never publish anything that might harm the left, that automatically means they must be supporting the right.
- 0xfeba 10y agoNo, not publish. Assange has repeatedly criticized Clinton and yet there's not a peep about Trump. And funnily enough, those who called for death warrants against Assange have literally apologized (Palin) and done a complete 180 (Trump, Hannity) and praise him.
- lechiffre10 10y agoClinton held public office for years, she's a career politician so it only makes sense he'd scrutinize and criticize her considering how corrupt she is. As for Trump, Assange has stated many times that if anyone has anything to provide that Wikileaks would share it. Maybe wait a few months or years ?
- 0xfeba 10y agoI don't understand this "Clinton is corrupt" thing. You imply that career politicians are corrupt. Ok, I accept that. But how is Hillary, specifically, any worse than other politician? And how is Trump not any worse than Hillary when he spouts nonsense and blatant falsehoods on a daily basis? But yes, now that Trump is a politician, I imagine it's only a matter of time.
- lechiffre10 10y agowatch the documentary Clinton Cash and you'll understand the whole Clinton is corrupt thing.
- Nutomic 10y agoYou think they should have kept the emails back? Why?
- 0xfeba 10y agoNo, I doubt he was responsible for obtaining them, I'm just saying he's not impartial. He's repeatedly criticized Clinton on multiple occasions.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago>> Wikileaks maintained a neutral position >> I'm just saying he's not impartial Assange != Wikileaks Having documents on both sides and releasing one and not the other would be a break with impartiality. Having personal political opinions has nothing to do with Wikileaks impartiality.
- xienze 10y agoHow quickly we forget that Wikileaks was the darling of the left when all those Iraq War documents were released several years ago.
- brainfire 10y agoThey've always seen support and revulsion on both sides of the aisle. Your partisan retcon is dishonest and shameful.
- WillyOnWheels 10y agoFeeling disgust while viewing the "Collateral Murder" video(good job with the title, wikileaks!) should not be a 'left' or 'right' thing.
- 0xfeba 10y agoAnd Trump, Palin, Hannity have all done the same. Called for practically drone striking Assange during the Bush era, but now that he's released Clinton's emails, they've literally apologized [1] and done 180s. 1 - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-trump-surrogates-once-led-fight-vs-wikileaks-and-assange/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-trump-surrogates-once-led-fi...
- devy 10y agoWikileaks did take a strong stance because they "want to secure communications technology because, without it, journalists aren't able to hold the state to account". (one paragraph below your original quote)
- 0xfeba 10y agoAnd I can agree with that. I don't agree they they are impartial politically.
- problems 10y agoThey're advocating for radical transparency of governments and corporations, not individuals - there's a significant difference. Releasing these exploits as is would result in harm to individuals who are unrelated entirely to the CIA or government.
- smitherfield 10y ago> They're advocating for radical transparency of governments and corporations, not individuals I can think of at least one instance where they targeted individuals: publishing the names and addresses of members of the extreme-right British National Party. Of course that is OTOH hard to square with the narrative that they're right-wing Trumpists.
- Eridrus 10y agoI think it's pretty clear that they're opportunists, rather than hardcore ideologues. Assange probably has no love for Trump, but certainly hates Hillary and was willing to get in bed with whoever was necessary to hurt her.
- jessaustin 10y agoIf he had had some "goods" on Trump (e.g. a video in which Trump had said some rude things) I'm sure he would have released that too. Fortunately for Trump his henchpeople were smart enough not to get phished.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Fortunately for Trump his henchpeople were smart enough not to get phished. While there was no similar mass disclosure (most likely because of the political goals of those conducting the operation), Republican groups, not just Democrats, were compromised by the same actors behind the DNC attack.
- jessaustin 10y ago
- knieveltech 10y agoHarmful to whom may be the important question here. I thought the underlying premise of radical transparency was to make it sufficiently difficult to maintain state and corporate secrets that they either give up trying to keep secrets entirely or at least learn to avoid conducting truly shady activities because secrecy is no longer a guaranteed. If that's true then I'd say that admission is a strong endorsement that the practice is at least on sound theoretical ground.
- tssva 10y agoWikiLeaks believe in radical transparency has never applied to WikiLeaks itself.
- moo 10y agoYou brought it up so you tell me. And give me concrete examples, not hypothetical, how people have been hurt and laws broken by Wikileaks. Discussions of transparency can just be a redirection from the issue at hand. The new DNC chair is toting transparency as an issue but he really is just using it to obfuscate that they don't represent the public but only corporate interests and use buzzwords to distract and redirect people from the DNC corruption. Oh, and BBC is fake news.
- Iv 10y agoWikileaks has always defended responsible disclosure and censored crucial names. They simply have a different notion of who or what is crucial.