6 ms·

In defense of Wikileaks

85 points by greatgoof 16y ago

esponapule 16y ago
I am thankful the world has wikileaks
retree 16y ago
A good article. Too often I feel the debate about wikileaks has become polarised. On the one hand you have those saying everything should be open and available. And then on the other hand you have those who say that nothing should be leaked because it puts people at risk. There is no doubt that, in the world, there are some very unpleasant people who want to harm/kill other people, and for that reason surely some things should be kept secret? But then surely those trying to protect us should be held accountable? There is a fine line, and people draw that line at different points. Wikileaks provides a valuable service, but I do find it ironic that, for an organisation that tries to cut through and destroy government PR/propoganda, Julian Assange is very good at using similar PR to further his goals. John Young of Cryptome has been very happily leaking documents without the whole "not staying in the same place for than 2 nights" mentality that Assange has.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'd trust Julian Assange a lot more if I thought that his goal were actually some sort of obsessive-compulsive desire for openness of information, rather than fighting against US interests.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    You don't need to trust Assange, he's only providing facts.
loewenskind 16y ago
>It is also increasingly clear that the U.S. taxpayer is funding a vast array of clandestine activities of which they are only dimly aware Increasingly clear? This book was published in the early thirties [1]. This has been totally clear for decades for anyone who cared to look. The quest is; what (if anything) can be done to make people care what the government is inflicting on other peoples in their name and with their money? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
- chaostheory 16y ago
  You've already made the point that I'm about to make. That book is from the 30's, it hasn't made the best seller lists in decades; nor am I aware if it's required reading for most classes. People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks Is there really a lack of suspicion of intelligence agaencies going about? Roughly one out of every three movies currently being made is something about the US Government being secretly involved in dodgy clandestine activities. How many movies have the "twist" that the real bad guys turn out to be some corrupt US Government official? Want to make a short list? Count up the number of movies where the CIA is portrayed in a positive light. Even the latest James Bond, a series which has been refreshingly positive in its depiction of the Western intelligence agencies, had the CIA as the bad guys. Ask people what they think of the CIA and you'll find that they have an image much more Jason Bourne than real life.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      No, thats just in the movies. That stuff doesn't happen in real life. Jeez. Get a grip. Its the movies! You gotta learn to tell the difference between reality and fantasy buddy. What are you, a leftie conspiracy nutjob? At least, thats the response I get around here from people.
- rokamic 16y ago
  I was going to question that idea too. That book you just brought to my attention is amazing. A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow. Why are you surprised at such stuff from the 30s? (There's similar stuff from the 1910s, the 1890s, 1860s and even that wasn't novel.)
sausagefeet 16y ago
I think I agree with this article for the most part. In my opinion, for important things you need people on pushing the extremes so you can get to the healthy middle. My friend often quotes to me "If you get what you asked for, you didn't ask for enough", and I think people who make the extreme claims (there should be no secrets, all software should be open source) are helping us people that actually want a middle ground.
rokamic 16y ago
<quote>I believe that human beings are more likely to misbehave if they think they can shield what they are doing from public view.</quote> I do not agree. I think that people are more likely to misbehave when they want to misbehave, regardless of a shielding mechanism.
- anonymous245 16y ago
  For a politician "shielding from public view" is the same as "shielding from consequences". Do you agree? If you still disagree with the quote, then you're saying that people will misbehave regard of consequences.
greyman 16y ago
There is also a good summary of the leak in this Spiegel article -> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-724026,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-72402... (in English). It's quite revealing just how brutal the war in Iraq has been, with all parties willing to commit atrocities (al-Qaeda, Iraq police and U.S. army). It's definitely a much stronger image than media have been serving to us about the war. Also, for those who feel some sympathy towards al-Qaeda, the reports about their decapitations practices are also quite enlightening. ("A document dated Nov. 3, 2007, for example, relates that an Iraqi woman approached US troops to tell them that Islamists had cut off her baby's head. The officers sent out a few soldiers to look into the matter. The report ends: "Confirms baby is decapitated."").
- dennisgorelik 16y ago
  That's such a good article from Sipegel. I submitted it as a separate article on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1835767 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1835767
melonakos 16y ago
I did a very similar blog post back in August and took the other side, here - http://www.melonakos.com/2010/08/02/wikileaks/ http://www.melonakos.com/2010/08/02/wikileaks/
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things that the government finds inconvenient for political reasons -- should be praised. Having said that, this author is arguing at the extremes. I am not in favor of using any mechanism to bring facts to light. Murder? Bribery? Torture? Nope, I expect leakers to come forward honestly, not under duress. Do I support the selective leaking of information by foreign intelligence services? Nope, because the purposeful leaking of information to sway public opinion is called propaganda, and it's the most effective when it's true information. Things exist in a context. Because of the context question, it's actually better that wikileaks dumped thousands of records. If, say, there had only been a couple hundred, folks could easily charge that the docs were hand-picked. Second, and this is more important, as much as I love leaking and openness, I am not a child. Some amount of secrecy is necessary for a government to function. Salary negotiations, diplomatic memos, military threat assessments, signals intelligence -- lots of things need to be keep secret. Even if you have a complete bunch of idiots in charge of running things, that doesn't mean that any method used to dump any kind of secret information is good. And that's exactly the point the author is making in the quote above. I hate to say this, and I know you guys are going to downvote me for it, but I can't help but think that this all gets back to political affiliation: if you don't like the politics, then leak the information. It's the good guys against the military-industrial complex. If you like the politics, then it's a crime to leak the information. It's the zealous idiots against the sane organization of humanity into governmental structures. I don't buy any of it. Not everything has to be open, and we must have an extreme amount of more public information available in order to function intelligently as voters. Both of these views can coexist. That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? I'd view them more as another combatant rather than a player for good in all of this. I have to draw the line with leaks -- whether I like the politics or not -- with getting people killed. After all, one of the main reasons we have an executive branch is to put people in charge of making sensitive decisions based on secret information that get people killed. Looking over their shoulder every minute is not part of our role in a democracy. Checking up on them and getting as many facts as we can? Sure. But not micro-managing. If the executive branch didn't have secret information and make sensitive decisions that large portions of the population didn't believe in? There would be no point in having it. The president is nothing special -- he's just another schmuck -- but he does have a defined job and he needs the tools to do that job. Secrecy is part of the tools he needs, no matter how much we wish it weren't so.

85 points by greatgoof 16y ago

I am thankful the world has wikileaks

A good article. Too often I feel the debate about wikileaks has become polarised. On the one hand you have those saying everything should be open and available. And then on the other hand you have those who say that nothing should be leaked because it puts people at risk. There is no doubt that, in the world, there are some very unpleasant people who want to harm/kill other people, and for that reason surely some things should be kept secret? But then surely those trying to protect us should be held accountable? There is a fine line, and people draw that line at different points. Wikileaks provides a valuable service, but I do find it ironic that, for an organisation that tries to cut through and destroy government PR/propoganda, Julian Assange is very good at using similar PR to further his goals. John Young of Cryptome has been very happily leaking documents without the whole "not staying in the same place for than 2 nights" mentality that Assange has.

hugh3 16y ago
I'd trust Julian Assange a lot more if I thought that his goal were actually some sort of obsessive-compulsive desire for openness of information, rather than fighting against US interests.
- rhizome 16y ago
  You don't need to trust Assange, he's only providing facts.

loewenskind 16y ago

>It is also increasingly clear that the U.S. taxpayer is funding a vast array of clandestine activities of which they are only dimly aware Increasingly clear? This book was published in the early thirties [1]. This has been totally clear for decades for anyone who cared to look. The quest is; what (if anything) can be done to make people care what the government is inflicting on other peoples in their name and with their money? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket

chaostheory 16y ago
You've already made the point that I'm about to make. That book is from the 30's, it hasn't made the best seller lists in decades; nor am I aware if it's required reading for most classes. People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks.
- hugh3 16y ago
  People need a modern reminder like Wikileaks Is there really a lack of suspicion of intelligence agaencies going about? Roughly one out of every three movies currently being made is something about the US Government being secretly involved in dodgy clandestine activities. How many movies have the "twist" that the real bad guys turn out to be some corrupt US Government official? Want to make a short list? Count up the number of movies where the CIA is portrayed in a positive light. Even the latest James Bond, a series which has been refreshingly positive in its depiction of the Western intelligence agencies, had the CIA as the bad guys. Ask people what they think of the CIA and you'll find that they have an image much more Jason Bourne than real life.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    No, thats just in the movies. That stuff doesn't happen in real life. Jeez. Get a grip. Its the movies! You gotta learn to tell the difference between reality and fantasy buddy. What are you, a leftie conspiracy nutjob? At least, thats the response I get around here from people.
rokamic 16y ago
I was going to question that idea too. That book you just brought to my attention is amazing. A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow.
- anamax 16y ago
  > A man in that time, speaking out like that? Wow. Why are you surprised at such stuff from the 30s? (There's similar stuff from the 1910s, the 1890s, 1860s and even that wasn't novel.)

sausagefeet 16y ago

I think I agree with this article for the most part. In my opinion, for important things you need people on pushing the extremes so you can get to the healthy middle. My friend often quotes to me "If you get what you asked for, you didn't ask for enough", and I think people who make the extreme claims (there should be no secrets, all software should be open source) are helping us people that actually want a middle ground.

rokamic 16y ago

<quote>I believe that human beings are more likely to misbehave if they think they can shield what they are doing from public view.</quote> I do not agree. I think that people are more likely to misbehave when they want to misbehave, regardless of a shielding mechanism.

anonymous245 16y ago
For a politician "shielding from public view" is the same as "shielding from consequences". Do you agree? If you still disagree with the quote, then you're saying that people will misbehave regard of consequences.

greyman 16y ago

There is also a good summary of the leak in this Spiegel article -> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-724026,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-72402... (in English). It's quite revealing just how brutal the war in Iraq has been, with all parties willing to commit atrocities (al-Qaeda, Iraq police and U.S. army). It's definitely a much stronger image than media have been serving to us about the war. Also, for those who feel some sympathy towards al-Qaeda, the reports about their decapitations practices are also quite enlightening. ("A document dated Nov. 3, 2007, for example, relates that an Iraqi woman approached US troops to tell them that Islamists had cut off her baby's head. The officers sent out a few soldiers to look into the matter. The report ends: "Confirms baby is decapitated."").

dennisgorelik 16y ago
That's such a good article from Sipegel. I submitted it as a separate article on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1835767 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1835767

melonakos 16y ago

I did a very similar blog post back in August and took the other side, here - http://www.melonakos.com/2010/08/02/wikileaks/ http://www.melonakos.com/2010/08/02/wikileaks/

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

But unless you're willing to believe that the people in charge are always right and that their lies are therefore justified (and if you think that, you haven't been paying attention), you ought to be in favor of any mechanism that brought more facts to light. First, I'm a huge fan of leaking information. We have a thousand times too much secrecy as we can stand already. People who leak things -- especially things that the government finds inconvenient for political reasons -- should be praised. Having said that, this author is arguing at the extremes. I am not in favor of using any mechanism to bring facts to light. Murder? Bribery? Torture? Nope, I expect leakers to come forward honestly, not under duress. Do I support the selective leaking of information by foreign intelligence services? Nope, because the purposeful leaking of information to sway public opinion is called propaganda, and it's the most effective when it's true information. Things exist in a context. Because of the context question, it's actually better that wikileaks dumped thousands of records. If, say, there had only been a couple hundred, folks could easily charge that the docs were hand-picked. Second, and this is more important, as much as I love leaking and openness, I am not a child. Some amount of secrecy is necessary for a government to function. Salary negotiations, diplomatic memos, military threat assessments, signals intelligence -- lots of things need to be keep secret. Even if you have a complete bunch of idiots in charge of running things, that doesn't mean that any method used to dump any kind of secret information is good. And that's exactly the point the author is making in the quote above. I hate to say this, and I know you guys are going to downvote me for it, but I can't help but think that this all gets back to political affiliation: if you don't like the politics, then leak the information. It's the good guys against the military-industrial complex. If you like the politics, then it's a crime to leak the information. It's the zealous idiots against the sane organization of humanity into governmental structures. I don't buy any of it. Not everything has to be open, and we must have an extreme amount of more public information available in order to function intelligently as voters. Both of these views can coexist. That doesn't mean that what Wikileaks did is right: in fact if they get somebody killed? I'd view them more as another combatant rather than a player for good in all of this. I have to draw the line with leaks -- whether I like the politics or not -- with getting people killed. After all, one of the main reasons we have an executive branch is to put people in charge of making sensitive decisions based on secret information that get people killed. Looking over their shoulder every minute is not part of our role in a democracy. Checking up on them and getting as many facts as we can? Sure. But not micro-managing. If the executive branch didn't have secret information and make sensitive decisions that large portions of the population didn't believe in? There would be no point in having it. The president is nothing special -- he's just another schmuck -- but he does have a defined job and he needs the tools to do that job. Secrecy is part of the tools he needs, no matter how much we wish it weren't so.