3 ms·

I see that your opinion has changed quite drastically from only a few days ago when your comment was a resounding cry against such vast secrecy as exposed by Wa

by Ardit20 16y ago

I see that your opinion has changed quite drastically from only a few days ago when your comment was a resounding cry against such vast secrecy as exposed by Washington Post, or was it WSJ. I am growing by the day to learn that the united state has become or maybe always was a Phireha (I can't quite find the spelling of the word). The opinion formers there are so poisonous and it seems quite effective. The atmosphere also is contaminating and very divisive. A "commentator" there has the freedom to say any lie whatever, even blatant lie. It is, or at least the impression, is awful. Now to the business at hand. I suppose much of the above paragraph was aimed at your first point "the people". These are the same people who voted Bush back in 2005. Among them there is probably a good deal of people who want freaking Palin for president. Who probably have no idea whatever what is contained in those leaks, hardly have read them - has anyone? - and well the commentators are not called opinion formers for no reason, they have formed the opinions of these people. How on earth can people who "are not normally angry with anybody" be so - not angry - no, no not cuddling angry - not angry in the - lets go and protest in the student union way - after which point I thought you were gone follow with but out on the street seeking for blood - but how on earth can these very nice people who are so unbothered about such things as going to an illegal war - that is Iraq - re-electing the person who took them to war - that is bush - put up with Mr Guitmo, be fine with the comments of Mr Thiesen that they can just override international law - but not fine at all with being told that their government has actually been lying a lot to them. You see Pakistan apparently is our ally. That is what we are told, and nothing else, so I thought that Pakistan is a good guy, helping us you see, I did not know that they are engaged in some sort of double game, playing nicely with both sides. Maybe the public shouldn't know that. Why bother them right? Its not like the "commentators" can make them think day is night. But let us move on. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said what was described in a newspaper that we all knew this - though I did not know - he said it in public, he said - Pakistan is playing nicely with the terrorists. Do you know what happened? Oo, people got angry, The Ministry of Truth, that is the Foreign Ministry, said you can not say things like that, you have to be diplomatic, that is, not say it in public, lest the little children are worried. Its a joke! The whole response to the leak, which has been slowly building up, is a joke. But beyond this joke, something is actually happening. Although the White House might say there is nothing new here, and then go on to say, but hey man this not new thing is very damaging, a lot is new, and I think decisively new. Besides all the sarcasm I used with the PM event, there is actually great power from words coming from his mouth. Now everyone knows what we supposedly all knew - yet I did not know and I am very certain the general public did not ether - that Pakistan is playing a double game. Also, we get the president of Afghanistan saying it clear and bluntly - or was it perhaps some official from Pakistan "getting back" to the PM - that Afghanistan is a mess and the coalition forces are really just making a mess and nothing is getting anywhere and basically you guys are rubbish - that is the US, UK etc. So, a new awareness is slowly but decisively shifting the opinion of "the people" against this war and just want us to get out. Now in regards to secrecy. Without the names of the informers - which in defence to wikileaks how are they to know that they are informers - is there anything else that deserves the secrecy in those leaks? If not, then why were they kept secret in the first place? To save embarrassment perhaps - it was the previous guy who dun it not me - or just to keep the public misinformed or uninformed about things which the public is supposed to authorise through the general elections. Sure you need some secrecy, wikileaks says that they did take much information out of the leaks which they considered worthy of being kept secret and had the knowledge to arrive at such consideration, but many things should not be kept secret, especially by the government. Finally, why does the way Julian presents himself have anything to do with anything? Are you perhaps a bit jealous that the guy has managed to acquire so much power and is actually quite intelligent to have done so? Also, why is it not the way to make it happen? I think to the contrary, when you get people really angry when you expose the truth then you know full well that it is exactly the way to make it happen.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
My position on both issues is consistent. You do not have to support some crazy intelligence apparatus to realize that Wikileaks is whacked. It's not an either-or situation. The intelligence and secrecy thing is extremely bad and something must be done immediately. AND Wikileaks is an awful thing and the operators probably should be arrested and imprisoned. Both of these things can be true at the same time. Pakistan has been playing the double game all along. It's not new information. But see, your entire discussion is about the political content of the leaks. My discussion is that the system is broken and lets go fix it. Your discussion is all about this particular thing that makes you so angry. It's like Assange has managed to troll the world's media, interjecting a whole load of noise. Trolls are great because they drop content that is so emotionally laden to the room that the room is unable to process it. If Assange had leaked information just as important but not as emotionally-laden, say something about nuclear secrets or something, nobody would care. But now we have to go off on a multi-month conversation about the Afghan war, which is very important, no doubt, but has jack-shit to do with the process of having some website dump secret docs. You are all being terribly distracted here. Let's say he manages to end the war without killing more people (about as likely as him becoming Santa Claus, but I know this is the feeling). Next year we have the same systemic problem of too many agencies. And we'll still have Assange. Hell, it's almost like he's feeding off the problem, not solving it. You have to ask yourself the serious question -- am I supporting Assange because I am angry at the intelligence agencies, secrets, and Afghan war? Or am I supporting him because of what he is doing, his business model? It's the guys who do things you'd like to do, with goals that you share, that you should be looking the most circumspectly at. Always suspect people and news reports that agree with your worldview.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  In that thread you quoted someone who basically said that secrecy is the antithesis of democracy, while now you are completely against an organisation which makes public information which shouldn't really be secret. "Always suspect people and news reports that agree with your worldview." Yeh sure, but I am willing, unlike it seems you, to give him and this very new company the benefit of good will. I have not seen the "collateral murder" video, so maybe I should not comment on that, but it strikes me as strange that people would focus on the tile and use that against the entire company, what it does, and all else, never mind that it was a revelation of some sort and I suspect that the media has a great role to play in such strange behaviour. Again we see the same happening with the Afghan files. Could, possibly, it may be, arguably. On these very thin foundations an argument so powerful is made. No, it doesn't matter that the government was careless, no its him, him.. I think it is both. I am not in any way angry at the intelligence agencies, nor secrets, nor at the Afghan war. What I do dislike and would like is a world which is not guided by selfish interests, big corporations with too much power, big individuals with too much power, I suppose it very shorty can be summed up as things which are not right or just by the standard of the reasonable man. For example, I would very much like the minutes of the meetings between Google and Verizon to be leaked in their entirety because they have no right to conduct a conversation of such grave importance in secret and the fact that they have chosen to do so makes me highly suspicious and makes me think that they are conspiring against the public to their own benefit. A while back here in the UK there was a super injunction whereby no one could report about a specific statement in Parliament! Wkileaks leaked the statement. The injunction was lifted I would think despite the leak due to much pressure, but in another situations it might have not been lifted while it was right that it should be. These are only examples which indicate quite well the combination between the two things you mentioned. I believe that the person who was able to build such a formidable machine is a reasonable man in the same way that I would consider myself a reasonable man. Thus I would not think - and the fact that he has not published some info in the Afghan files - that he would expose a secret that a reasonable man would think not right to expose. Reasonable people can of course disagree. An example of anarchism might be the making public of Google's algorithm. Would a reasonable person think this to be desirable? Well Google thrives on secrecy. It is because of this secrecy that they have the liberty to state things like "oh we are impressed that our search results are not getting worse". It is because of this secrecy that innovation in the area of search is stifled. They had for example the decency to tell us only recently just how much it takes from the adverts places on our sites. Why should such a thing be secret? You might say well that's the free market, but is there really a choice here? As for the algorithm, the argument often is that people would play the system, so lets just keep it as it is and fatten our pockets rather than try and make things better. People are playing the system anyway. But that argument is like saying lets not tell people what the law is because they then would be able to subvert it. No one would suggest not telling people what the law is. That is a Kafkaesque world and the way google operates is very much Kafkesque. So if people play the system, is google just going to sit back and relax and have a cup of tea, or is it actually going to fight back and keep order? Might it perhaps be that this secrecy suits them well, suits their pockets, and screws everyone else? That is just an example. Perhaps of no relevance as I said he does not leak everything. He seems to be a reasonable man. Everything that has happened until now seems very reasonable to me. Yes perhaps he did made some mistakes, but these are 90,000 documents! and it is not all entirely his fault, a one man, as opposed to the entire machinery of state who has the decency to refuse considering whether the life of people might be put in danger. I do not however blindly favour it. If so it happens that he does something which would be considered unreasonable, then there might be an argument, but he hasn't. Now, what problem is he exactly feeding? The government is keeping secrets from us for the benefit of the politicians and the wealthy, the wealthy are keeping secrets from us and conspiring against the public to further increase their wealth. He is trying to expose things which have no reason to be secret. What problem is he exactly feeding? That perhaps there will be an arm's race, that we will see evolution in a fast motion in regards to keeping secrets? That's very good. The harder it is to keep secrets which need not be kept secret, the better for us all. So, at the very least, give the man and the company the benefit of the doubt. He is not an idiot, I doubt he is evil, I doubt he is being an asshole. He is standing up to the wealthy and fighting for the general public not in some Hollywood film, but in our real life and he seems to be doing a good job. So at the very least, support some neocon guy who favours torture and illegal wars and thinks he is above the law when wikileaks has actually done something which is deserving of being judged criminal.

by Ardit20 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

My position on both issues is consistent. You do not have to support some crazy intelligence apparatus to realize that Wikileaks is whacked. It's not an either-or situation. The intelligence and secrecy thing is extremely bad and something must be done immediately. AND Wikileaks is an awful thing and the operators probably should be arrested and imprisoned. Both of these things can be true at the same time. Pakistan has been playing the double game all along. It's not new information. But see, your entire discussion is about the political content of the leaks. My discussion is that the system is broken and lets go fix it. Your discussion is all about this particular thing that makes you so angry. It's like Assange has managed to troll the world's media, interjecting a whole load of noise. Trolls are great because they drop content that is so emotionally laden to the room that the room is unable to process it. If Assange had leaked information just as important but not as emotionally-laden, say something about nuclear secrets or something, nobody would care. But now we have to go off on a multi-month conversation about the Afghan war, which is very important, no doubt, but has jack-shit to do with the process of having some website dump secret docs. You are all being terribly distracted here. Let's say he manages to end the war without killing more people (about as likely as him becoming Santa Claus, but I know this is the feeling). Next year we have the same systemic problem of too many agencies. And we'll still have Assange. Hell, it's almost like he's feeding off the problem, not solving it. You have to ask yourself the serious question -- am I supporting Assange because I am angry at the intelligence agencies, secrets, and Afghan war? Or am I supporting him because of what he is doing, his business model? It's the guys who do things you'd like to do, with goals that you share, that you should be looking the most circumspectly at. Always suspect people and news reports that agree with your worldview.

Ardit20 16y ago
In that thread you quoted someone who basically said that secrecy is the antithesis of democracy, while now you are completely against an organisation which makes public information which shouldn't really be secret. "Always suspect people and news reports that agree with your worldview." Yeh sure, but I am willing, unlike it seems you, to give him and this very new company the benefit of good will. I have not seen the "collateral murder" video, so maybe I should not comment on that, but it strikes me as strange that people would focus on the tile and use that against the entire company, what it does, and all else, never mind that it was a revelation of some sort and I suspect that the media has a great role to play in such strange behaviour. Again we see the same happening with the Afghan files. Could, possibly, it may be, arguably. On these very thin foundations an argument so powerful is made. No, it doesn't matter that the government was careless, no its him, him.. I think it is both. I am not in any way angry at the intelligence agencies, nor secrets, nor at the Afghan war. What I do dislike and would like is a world which is not guided by selfish interests, big corporations with too much power, big individuals with too much power, I suppose it very shorty can be summed up as things which are not right or just by the standard of the reasonable man. For example, I would very much like the minutes of the meetings between Google and Verizon to be leaked in their entirety because they have no right to conduct a conversation of such grave importance in secret and the fact that they have chosen to do so makes me highly suspicious and makes me think that they are conspiring against the public to their own benefit. A while back here in the UK there was a super injunction whereby no one could report about a specific statement in Parliament! Wkileaks leaked the statement. The injunction was lifted I would think despite the leak due to much pressure, but in another situations it might have not been lifted while it was right that it should be. These are only examples which indicate quite well the combination between the two things you mentioned. I believe that the person who was able to build such a formidable machine is a reasonable man in the same way that I would consider myself a reasonable man. Thus I would not think - and the fact that he has not published some info in the Afghan files - that he would expose a secret that a reasonable man would think not right to expose. Reasonable people can of course disagree. An example of anarchism might be the making public of Google's algorithm. Would a reasonable person think this to be desirable? Well Google thrives on secrecy. It is because of this secrecy that they have the liberty to state things like "oh we are impressed that our search results are not getting worse". It is because of this secrecy that innovation in the area of search is stifled. They had for example the decency to tell us only recently just how much it takes from the adverts places on our sites. Why should such a thing be secret? You might say well that's the free market, but is there really a choice here? As for the algorithm, the argument often is that people would play the system, so lets just keep it as it is and fatten our pockets rather than try and make things better. People are playing the system anyway. But that argument is like saying lets not tell people what the law is because they then would be able to subvert it. No one would suggest not telling people what the law is. That is a Kafkaesque world and the way google operates is very much Kafkesque. So if people play the system, is google just going to sit back and relax and have a cup of tea, or is it actually going to fight back and keep order? Might it perhaps be that this secrecy suits them well, suits their pockets, and screws everyone else? That is just an example. Perhaps of no relevance as I said he does not leak everything. He seems to be a reasonable man. Everything that has happened until now seems very reasonable to me. Yes perhaps he did made some mistakes, but these are 90,000 documents! and it is not all entirely his fault, a one man, as opposed to the entire machinery of state who has the decency to refuse considering whether the life of people might be put in danger. I do not however blindly favour it. If so it happens that he does something which would be considered unreasonable, then there might be an argument, but he hasn't. Now, what problem is he exactly feeding? The government is keeping secrets from us for the benefit of the politicians and the wealthy, the wealthy are keeping secrets from us and conspiring against the public to further increase their wealth. He is trying to expose things which have no reason to be secret. What problem is he exactly feeding? That perhaps there will be an arm's race, that we will see evolution in a fast motion in regards to keeping secrets? That's very good. The harder it is to keep secrets which need not be kept secret, the better for us all. So, at the very least, give the man and the company the benefit of the doubt. He is not an idiot, I doubt he is evil, I doubt he is being an asshole. He is standing up to the wealthy and fighting for the general public not in some Hollywood film, but in our real life and he seems to be doing a good job. So at the very least, support some neocon guy who favours torture and illegal wars and thinks he is above the law when wikileaks has actually done something which is deserving of being judged criminal.