3 ms·

No. I'm not saying that at all. You seem to have forgotten that you wrote this. > The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically.

No. I'm not saying that at all. You seem to have forgotten that you wrote this. > The best we can do is, as with lung cancer, is think about it statistically. Compare the people exposed in the leaks to similarly situated people who were not mentioned, and see if the former had a statistically significant higher death rate from Taliban attacks for themselves or their families. > I don't know if the data is available to carry out that analysis.

ScottBurson 9y ago
Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. I think you're both making valid points and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, with certain kinds of leaks, there are potential risks to people that should be taken into account, by carefully selecting, and redacting when appropriate, the material to be leaked (which Manning didn't begin to do, nor allow anyone else to do). And on the other hand, with any leak of information about the military, one can count on people who object to the leak raising concerns about such risks, making it difficult to tell exactly how valid these concerns are in any particular case. That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.
- benchaney 9y ago
  > Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. I generally reject arguments of this form, because: 1. In the absence of real data, they are essentially just fear mongering. 2. It violates the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, because we are assuming Chelsea Manning is guilty of getting people killed without evidence that this is the case. 3. Accepting arguments of this form puts a strong incentive on those in charge to classify everything so that they can always rely on uncertainty to fuel fear. In some sense this incentive is the root cause of everything we are discussing. > That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so. That's definitely not a good arguments against leaking at all. The much more interesting question in my mind is: in a situation where people might have been hurt or killed because of a leak is it right to be critical of the leaker in stead of focusing on the contents of the leak. Personally I (somewhat predictably) would say no. For the reasons above, and also because, Chelsea Manning exposed plenty of instances where people definitely were hurt and killed (in a situation where the leak contained lower stakes information, my opinion might be different).
  - tzs 9y ago
    I think my point may have been unclear. People commonly argue that Manning's leaks were justified because they exposed some cover ups, and the leaks did not harm anyone who was not doing anything illegal. They base the second half of that on nobody being able to name any specific person who was harmed. My point is that is an impossible standard. They want absolute proof of harm before they will consider the possibility that maybe Manning should have redacted names, or left out documents that were completely irrelevant to whatever crimes and cover ups she hoped to expose. By that standard if someone is already in a situation where they are in danger, you could leak anything about them and disclaim any responsibility if they subsequently get killed, because it might have been due do that danger they were already in.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    I don't disagree with you very much. I think Manning's heart was in the right place, and some of the material she leaked was very important. I just wish she had released the material through journalists, as Snowden did later, rather than dumping it on WikiLeaks.

ScottBurson 9y ago

Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. I think you're both making valid points and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, with certain kinds of leaks, there are potential risks to people that should be taken into account, by carefully selecting, and redacting when appropriate, the material to be leaked (which Manning didn't begin to do, nor allow anyone else to do). And on the other hand, with any leak of information about the military, one can count on people who object to the leak raising concerns about such risks, making it difficult to tell exactly how valid these concerns are in any particular case. That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so.

benchaney 9y ago
> Well, the data not being available doesn't necessarily mean that people weren't killed, either. I generally reject arguments of this form, because: 1. In the absence of real data, they are essentially just fear mongering. 2. It violates the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, because we are assuming Chelsea Manning is guilty of getting people killed without evidence that this is the case. 3. Accepting arguments of this form puts a strong incentive on those in charge to classify everything so that they can always rely on uncertainty to fuel fear. In some sense this incentive is the root cause of everything we are discussing. > That's not necessarily a good argument against leaking at all, in my opinion, though many consider it so. That's definitely not a good arguments against leaking at all. The much more interesting question in my mind is: in a situation where people might have been hurt or killed because of a leak is it right to be critical of the leaker in stead of focusing on the contents of the leak. Personally I (somewhat predictably) would say no. For the reasons above, and also because, Chelsea Manning exposed plenty of instances where people definitely were hurt and killed (in a situation where the leak contained lower stakes information, my opinion might be different).
- tzs 9y ago
  I think my point may have been unclear. People commonly argue that Manning's leaks were justified because they exposed some cover ups, and the leaks did not harm anyone who was not doing anything illegal. They base the second half of that on nobody being able to name any specific person who was harmed. My point is that is an impossible standard. They want absolute proof of harm before they will consider the possibility that maybe Manning should have redacted names, or left out documents that were completely irrelevant to whatever crimes and cover ups she hoped to expose. By that standard if someone is already in a situation where they are in danger, you could leak anything about them and disclaim any responsibility if they subsequently get killed, because it might have been due do that danger they were already in.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  I don't disagree with you very much. I think Manning's heart was in the right place, and some of the material she leaked was very important. I just wish she had released the material through journalists, as Snowden did later, rather than dumping it on WikiLeaks.