5 ms·

1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally. 2) That's a good point

by mr_eel 16y ago

1) It's difficult to gauge the general sentiment, but as you say a lot of people have got het up. I see that as a good thing personally. 2) That's a good point. Wikileaks has the potential to leak material which is more damaging than it is beneficial. The question is if you think that risk is worthwhile. I do. 3) Anarchy encompasses a wide variety of political thought. You are being reductive. Besides, there is nothing to suggest Wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. Also you are incorrect when you suggest that they are opposed to all secrets. Assange himself has repeatedly said that there is often a legitimate need for secrecy. It's not a question of the need for secrecy, it's a question of it's abuse. 4) This makes little sense to me; information doesn't need to be on a computer for it to be leaked. All it takes is one person with access and motivation. "As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen." What is the alternative then? As it stands, governments have little motivation to become more transparent; the opposite is true in my opinion.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
1) I don't think this is a good thing overall, but I am happy people are angry. When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange, we'll know how far you can push folks. That'll heat some up more -- maybe enough for things to change. 2)I believe the question you are asking me is "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" For which I have to say no. As much as I love movies with the underdog and the little guy beating the giant opponent, as much as I love movies where somebody fights the system and wins, I can't support these decisions being made by some guy I never met. To think otherwise seems insane to me -- as I understand it the basic argument would be that things are so bad now that any type of release of docs is good. I'm not ready to go that far. Yet. 3) See above Abuse as viewed by whom? Assange? The average 15-year-old internet reader? Oliver Stone? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't you want some kind of orderly process for releasing docs, even if you were for releasing all of them? What kind of half-assed system is this? 4) Sure it makes sense. All you have to do is start delegating and telling folks to keep no written records. Presto-chango, your "secrets" disappear. No docs, nothing to leak. I think there are a lot of options -- a constitutional amendment comes to mind first. Make it a crime to keep any secrets longer than a certain period of time. All sorts of options there. I feel uncomfortable because the arguers seem to want to push towards either supporting all sorts of crazy secrecy or supporting some system whereby random people email secret information to some asshole overseas who posts it on his website. Surely there has to be some middle ground here. I'd like to get rid of 99.9% of the currently classified documents. I'd like to streamline the intelligence agencies and programs. I'd like to impose criminal penalties on intelligence agencies which abuse their trust by over-classifying information. But fuck-all if I want Assange playing peek-a-boo with national security items -- even if it's .1% of the total. It's wrong on so many levels that it'd take another post to list them all. I am perfectly capable of realizing how bad the problem is without having to cling to Assange as some kind of life-preserver -- the only way to safety. That's not happening.
- hansef 16y ago
  +1 for consideration of a Constitutional amendment. Proffering a system where it's perfectly ok for one random dude in Australia, who is beholden to no one, to make choices about the distribution of information directly impacting the lives scores of millions of people as some sort of acceptable alternative to fixing the structural defects of the current system is INSANE. It's a false dichotomy between leaving the current system untouched and disowning the need for a system at all. It's like choosing between optimizing the world financial system and returning to an agrarian barter economy.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  > When the Afghan intelligence services... The who? On my list of prioritized concerns, Wikileaks falls well below unchecked military. But since you're adamantly opposed to this ... Surely there is a middle ground, but the status quo was (is) heading in the direction of more secrecy. Sometimes, as now, it takes a shakeup. The very actions you prefer (eliminating classification for 99.9% of documents, streamlined intelligence agencies, criminal penalties) are so far in opposition to the past 10 years that they're literally pipe dreams. If your solution is to hold your breath until your pipe dreams come true, well, that's no solution at all. Meanwhile, the unchecked military rampantly wages war, killing thousands. If Wikileaks helps the public take even a small step in opposition to these wars by virtue of shining a light on the depth of Govt lies, it will have done a far greater service than those who not only attack it, but essentially sit quietly waiting for impossible things to suddenly happen out of thin air.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  I think there are a lot of options -- a constitutional amendment comes to mind first. Make it a crime to keep any secrets longer than a certain period of time. All sorts of options there. How can a constitutional amendment help, unless it's backed by a threat? The powerful have repeatedly shown that they don't respect the rule of law. It's a pleasant fiction. It's just not the way the world works. You can't realistically expect those in power to modify their behaviour to your liking unless you somehow have power over them. You can't realistically take on an establishment (if that's your thing) by playing by their rules. There has to be an element of threat, which will appear reckless.
steveklabnik 16y ago
> Besides, there is nothing to suggest Wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. "Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It's inherently an anarchist act." - Julian Assange - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933892.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933892.htm (note, I don't think this is a bad thing)
- mr_eel 16y ago
  And he is correct, but that still doesn't mean that wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. Remember we know nothing about the people that comprise wikileaks.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    Even if Wikileaks doesn't have a stated agenda, the organization is run in a manner that's very consistent with anarchism. It's sort of amusing that 'an anarchist organization' can mean two things... I don't think they'd ever admit to being one, there's too much stigma in the 'a word'.

by mr_eel 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

1) I don't think this is a good thing overall, but I am happy people are angry. When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange, we'll know how far you can push folks. That'll heat some up more -- maybe enough for things to change. 2)I believe the question you are asking me is "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" For which I have to say no. As much as I love movies with the underdog and the little guy beating the giant opponent, as much as I love movies where somebody fights the system and wins, I can't support these decisions being made by some guy I never met. To think otherwise seems insane to me -- as I understand it the basic argument would be that things are so bad now that any type of release of docs is good. I'm not ready to go that far. Yet. 3) See above Abuse as viewed by whom? Assange? The average 15-year-old internet reader? Oliver Stone? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't you want some kind of orderly process for releasing docs, even if you were for releasing all of them? What kind of half-assed system is this? 4) Sure it makes sense. All you have to do is start delegating and telling folks to keep no written records. Presto-chango, your "secrets" disappear. No docs, nothing to leak. I think there are a lot of options -- a constitutional amendment comes to mind first. Make it a crime to keep any secrets longer than a certain period of time. All sorts of options there. I feel uncomfortable because the arguers seem to want to push towards either supporting all sorts of crazy secrecy or supporting some system whereby random people email secret information to some asshole overseas who posts it on his website. Surely there has to be some middle ground here. I'd like to get rid of 99.9% of the currently classified documents. I'd like to streamline the intelligence agencies and programs. I'd like to impose criminal penalties on intelligence agencies which abuse their trust by over-classifying information. But fuck-all if I want Assange playing peek-a-boo with national security items -- even if it's .1% of the total. It's wrong on so many levels that it'd take another post to list them all. I am perfectly capable of realizing how bad the problem is without having to cling to Assange as some kind of life-preserver -- the only way to safety. That's not happening.

hansef 16y ago
+1 for consideration of a Constitutional amendment. Proffering a system where it's perfectly ok for one random dude in Australia, who is beholden to no one, to make choices about the distribution of information directly impacting the lives scores of millions of people as some sort of acceptable alternative to fixing the structural defects of the current system is INSANE. It's a false dichotomy between leaving the current system untouched and disowning the need for a system at all. It's like choosing between optimizing the world financial system and returning to an agrarian barter economy.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
> When the Afghan intelligence services... The who? On my list of prioritized concerns, Wikileaks falls well below unchecked military. But since you're adamantly opposed to this ... Surely there is a middle ground, but the status quo was (is) heading in the direction of more secrecy. Sometimes, as now, it takes a shakeup. The very actions you prefer (eliminating classification for 99.9% of documents, streamlined intelligence agencies, criminal penalties) are so far in opposition to the past 10 years that they're literally pipe dreams. If your solution is to hold your breath until your pipe dreams come true, well, that's no solution at all. Meanwhile, the unchecked military rampantly wages war, killing thousands. If Wikileaks helps the public take even a small step in opposition to these wars by virtue of shining a light on the depth of Govt lies, it will have done a far greater service than those who not only attack it, but essentially sit quietly waiting for impossible things to suddenly happen out of thin air.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
I think there are a lot of options -- a constitutional amendment comes to mind first. Make it a crime to keep any secrets longer than a certain period of time. All sorts of options there. How can a constitutional amendment help, unless it's backed by a threat? The powerful have repeatedly shown that they don't respect the rule of law. It's a pleasant fiction. It's just not the way the world works. You can't realistically expect those in power to modify their behaviour to your liking unless you somehow have power over them. You can't realistically take on an establishment (if that's your thing) by playing by their rules. There has to be an element of threat, which will appear reckless.

steveklabnik 16y ago

> Besides, there is nothing to suggest Wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. "Leaking is inherently an anti-authoritarian act. It's inherently an anarchist act." - Julian Assange - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933892.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933892.htm (note, I don't think this is a bad thing)

mr_eel 16y ago
And he is correct, but that still doesn't mean that wikileaks is an anarchist organisation. Remember we know nothing about the people that comprise wikileaks.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  Even if Wikileaks doesn't have a stated agenda, the organization is run in a manner that's very consistent with anarchism. It's sort of amusing that 'an anarchist organization' can mean two things... I don't think they'd ever admit to being one, there's too much stigma in the 'a word'.