8 ms·

> To ask the opposite loaded-question, [rhetoric]"what will happen the first time there's a credible link to someone's life being saved by a Wikileaks release?"

> To ask the opposite loaded-question, [rhetoric]"what will happen the first time there's a credible link to someone's life being saved by a Wikileaks release?" (Perhaps someone being released from Guantanamo Bay when they wouldn't have otherwise been? What if Wikileaks catches child-molestors in high places?)[/rhetoric] This is where discretion comes into play. If they caught a child molestor, that'd absolutely be the kind of thing you should leak - a crime. Leaking war videos to show people the real impact of a war - probably okay. Leaking war plans and war logistics info - a heck of a lot more questionable. Leaking anti-nuclear proliferation, leaking informants trying to protect dissidents - totally, straightup wrong. Discretion. They just demonstrated they don't have very much. Why the hell would they release that Chinese informant info? That's crazy. That's nuts. That's against their own frigging goal of more openness in the world. They want publicity, and don't have a sense of judgment. Leak crimes. Absolutely, yes! That's a public service. But don't frigging leak info that obstructs obviously good causes and accomplishes nothing. > Should free-speech be hobbled for those situations where the secret-keepers screw-up? Free speech has limits. Risking getting objectively good guys killed - like the Chinese politburo agent - is probably over that line. Can you see any good reason to leak that info besides getting celebrity and attention? Let me ask you Joe - do you think leaking that was bad? I do. I don't see any good it accomplishes for the potential damage it does.

joe_the_user 16y ago
This is where discretion comes into play. You're sort-of talking to the air here. I am not Wikileaks and no one on this forum is wikileaks. If we have a world-wide free flow of information, we'll have people releasing stuff. Wikileaks claims to release everything with the minimal redacting possible but necessary. If they did more redacting, the actual leaker could well go elsewhere. Are they responsible enough? That's not really the question. The question is, should they be stopped? Democratic society pretty much involves the assumption that while most people are responsible, a minority is irresponsible and that the cost of forcing everyone to be responsible ("benevolent" dictatorship) isn't worth the benefit. That's because any dictatorship gives the bad people who happen to get on top a much free-er run than democracy. And free speech is an important of the democratic equation. Lots of the speech is stupid and even irresponsible. But it keeps those on top honest. That is the democratic "equation": less efficiency in exchange for avoiding the "big bad" of despotism. But if it makes you feel better ... I hereby urge everyone in the world to be more responsible and discreet and only do good things. Are you satisfied?
- qq66 16y ago
  The Internet has made the potential power of a small number of irresponsible individuals much higher than it ever has been. Previously, only terrorists had such a high awareness/number ratio.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    The "power" of Wikileaks rests on the perceived need of the US government to govern secretly. I would question the need for a massive security state with a vast flow of secret information within it. Further, if the such a state is threaten whenever a flow of secrets are exposed, it says more about the fragility of such a system than the power of those who might reveal its secrets.
    - _djo_ 16y ago
      Confidentiality has always been a necessary element of diplomacy. There is nothing inherently sinister about that. So far I have seen very little in the released cables that can legitimately be said was in the public interest.
    - qq66 16y ago
      Does Julian Assange make his email password public?
aneth 16y ago
> Why the hell would they release that Chinese informant info? That's crazy. That's nuts. That's against their own frigging goal of more openness in the world. They want publicity, and don't have a sense of judgment. I agree completely with this sentiment. Anyone who argues with this statement might wonder to themselves whether it would be ok for someone to release documents implicating the person who leaked this trove to WikiLeaks - because it's the same thing - documents about an informant.
paganel 16y ago
> Leaking war videos to show people the real impact of a war - probably okay. "Probably" ?!!? Who are you, people?
lemming 16y ago
I doubt the Chinese government thinks that that agent is a good guy, hence it's not objectively true. The problem with what you're proposing is that it requires a very high level of editorial censorship. Who should perform that censorship? I've spoken with Americans relatively recently who still believe that the Iraq war was totally justified, or perhaps just didn't need justifying in the first place. If they are responsible for that censorship very different things will be censored than if I do it. Saying that only items indicating crimes should be leaked is a very low bar. How many people using that standard would choose to release the cables about the German citizen who was abducted and possibly tortured? In the other thread about these leaks here on HN that is dismissed as a "mistake", something that's impossible for me to fathom. It's basically saying that collateral damage is OK if it furthers the US interest. I'm not arguing the specific case of the politburo agent here since I haven't read that part yet, but your claims that it's easy to decide what's right and wrong are naive at best. Edit: Downvoters, feel free to leave comments disagreeing with me.

joe_the_user 16y ago

This is where discretion comes into play. You're sort-of talking to the air here. I am not Wikileaks and no one on this forum is wikileaks. If we have a world-wide free flow of information, we'll have people releasing stuff. Wikileaks claims to release everything with the minimal redacting possible but necessary. If they did more redacting, the actual leaker could well go elsewhere. Are they responsible enough? That's not really the question. The question is, should they be stopped? Democratic society pretty much involves the assumption that while most people are responsible, a minority is irresponsible and that the cost of forcing everyone to be responsible ("benevolent" dictatorship) isn't worth the benefit. That's because any dictatorship gives the bad people who happen to get on top a much free-er run than democracy. And free speech is an important of the democratic equation. Lots of the speech is stupid and even irresponsible. But it keeps those on top honest. That is the democratic "equation": less efficiency in exchange for avoiding the "big bad" of despotism. But if it makes you feel better ... I hereby urge everyone in the world to be more responsible and discreet and only do good things. Are you satisfied?

qq66 16y ago
The Internet has made the potential power of a small number of irresponsible individuals much higher than it ever has been. Previously, only terrorists had such a high awareness/number ratio.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  The "power" of Wikileaks rests on the perceived need of the US government to govern secretly. I would question the need for a massive security state with a vast flow of secret information within it. Further, if the such a state is threaten whenever a flow of secrets are exposed, it says more about the fragility of such a system than the power of those who might reveal its secrets.
  - _djo_ 16y ago
    Confidentiality has always been a necessary element of diplomacy. There is nothing inherently sinister about that. So far I have seen very little in the released cables that can legitimately be said was in the public interest.
  - qq66 16y ago
    Does Julian Assange make his email password public?

aneth 16y ago

> Why the hell would they release that Chinese informant info? That's crazy. That's nuts. That's against their own frigging goal of more openness in the world. They want publicity, and don't have a sense of judgment. I agree completely with this sentiment. Anyone who argues with this statement might wonder to themselves whether it would be ok for someone to release documents implicating the person who leaked this trove to WikiLeaks - because it's the same thing - documents about an informant.

paganel 16y ago

> Leaking war videos to show people the real impact of a war - probably okay. "Probably" ?!!? Who are you, people?

lemming 16y ago

I doubt the Chinese government thinks that that agent is a good guy, hence it's not objectively true. The problem with what you're proposing is that it requires a very high level of editorial censorship. Who should perform that censorship? I've spoken with Americans relatively recently who still believe that the Iraq war was totally justified, or perhaps just didn't need justifying in the first place. If they are responsible for that censorship very different things will be censored than if I do it. Saying that only items indicating crimes should be leaked is a very low bar. How many people using that standard would choose to release the cables about the German citizen who was abducted and possibly tortured? In the other thread about these leaks here on HN that is dismissed as a "mistake", something that's impossible for me to fathom. It's basically saying that collateral damage is OK if it furthers the US interest. I'm not arguing the specific case of the politburo agent here since I haven't read that part yet, but your claims that it's easy to decide what's right and wrong are naive at best. Edit: Downvoters, feel free to leave comments disagreeing with me.