8 ms·

Why I will not analyze the new WikiLeaks data

90 points by agconway 16y ago

spektom 16y ago
Whatever happened, happened. I'd not appeal to journalists' conscience, but rather try to protect sensitive documents better in the future. I have not doubts that revealed information will harm in some way to "good guys" if they let it fall into "bad guys'" hands.
burgerbrain 16y ago
Seems rather juvenile.
grandalf 16y ago
Court jester? Is this guy serious? The value of Wikileaks is that it makes secrecy more difficult for governments. Period. What Wikileaks publishes is dependent on what is leaked, and so far (in my opinion) Wikileaks has done much to gain credibility as an institution. Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary. Ironically, Wikileaks will enhance the credibility of government in a good way b/c it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd, all of which help rein in the scope of government action so that what is actually undertaken stands a chance of being accomplished honestly. Sadly, much of what has been leaked shows simply that the government is putting on a show for the American people and that much of what is kept secret is done so for propaganda reasons, not security reasons.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  It's a bit hard to take wikileaks as an unbiased outlet considering it's heavy editorializing on the July 2007 Baghdad airstrikes.
  - chc 16y ago
    I think that would be the point of the "moved away from journalistic interpretation" part of the parent's comment.
- adamsmith 16y ago
  Do you trust these newspapers to have access to the raw information? Even if the public doesn't see the names of informants/etc, that doesn't mean that foreign governments aren't intercepting the information being handled by the press. I guarantee you the NYT INFOSEC budget is lower than you think. : ) More importantly, lots of the information is compromising in a way that is not in the best interests of the public. For example, it embarrases the Yemeni president, along with many other countries. Will that make these people more or less likely to work with the US (or anyone else for that matter) in the future?
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I don't think there is much threat of fallout from this other than embarrassment. The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. The main consequence will be (in my opinion) the diminished ability of the US to take security so lightly... Which is exactly the goal of wikileaks, to make it harder for governments to use secrecy. Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies.
    - adamsmith 16y ago
      > Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies. I agree. That's definitely a plus of these releases. (Though I think on the whole they are still net negative.) Now to some of the things I personally disagree with.. > The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. I can disagree with this, in at least one instance, using the data from wikileaks. From the NYT article: "[The cables] reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia." It's kind of a funny example, but I think the implications are more broad than embarrassment or showing government failures. As daniel_levine said, "The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue." To use a metaphor, imagine trying to run a big company wherein everything the CEO hears (!) or says is published to the world. Sure, it'd be harder to keep secrets, but it would also be harder to get anything done.
- eli 16y ago
  "Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary." Wikileaks certainly has an agenda. There's a good New Yorker piece [1] from back before a lot of this stuff broke about how Assange edited the 'Collateral Murder' video to maximize emotional impact. I personally do not view Wikileaks as a trusted intermediary. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...
  - Qz 16y ago
    The question is: is it more trustworthy than your particular government? How will we know without Wikileaks to tell us when they're lying?
    - Volscio 16y ago
      I don't think that's the question. No one is always trustworthy. You hope to approximate the truth from multiple sources, and the diversity of agendas and perspectives provides the best prism to look through. Corroboration, in other words.
      - Qz 16y ago
        From that perspective I simply see Wikileaks as just another diverse agenda and perspective. We still have to approximate the truth.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    The Collateral Murder video was from before Wikileaks transitioned away from its own journalistic interpretations. So I think my point is still valid. The impact of the footage was powerful, but was diminished by criticisms that the title was biased, etc.
  - ScottBurson 16y ago
    When bringing up the "Collateral Murder" video, it's always worth remembering that WikiLeaks released the unedited original alongside their version.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd This is in agreement with the author's assertion that "WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester, to mock and ridicule the contradictions of a state." What the author is saying in the post is that this is not what his motives were for doing analysis on prior leaks.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    If your interpretation is correct, I don't think the jester analogy holds, since it is the jester who acts/looks absurd.
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      No I think you just don't understand what a jester is. In the literate tradition (mostly Shakespearean), the fool is a character of uncommon wit that illuminates the ridiculousness of the system around him. While the joke may sometimes appear to be on the fool, the real joke is on his subject. In this way, Jon Stewart is probably the closest we have to a modern jester. The character that simply looks and acts ridiculous for the amusement of others (your definition) is properly called a buffoon.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        I doubt that was the author's intended definition. His article does not seem to be an attempt to distance himself from the sort of behavior your definition of a jester would commit.
        GHFigs 16y ago
        Now you're just being obtuse. The author's intent is abundantly clear even if you didn't understand the allusion.
        grandalf 16y ago
        I'm not intending to be obtuse. Even after a second reading, I still don't think the description you give quite matches Drew's use of the term. In his description, wikileaks is being brash and causing trouble, not just shining a light on absurdity through wit. Further, wikileaks is not using any wit, simply publishing everything verbatim. If Drew hopes to be taken seriously by the US Government and keeping his security clearance (probably highly valuable in his career path) he can't exactly cheer about Wikileaks. This sort of measured, slightly negative review is essentially a bow to power (and there seems like little reason for him to write such an article other than to bow conspicuously before authority). Drew is also a Homeland Security Fellow, whatever that is.
rtra 16y ago
> WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester Can anyone elaborate on that?
- gwern 16y ago
  > "It has always been the prerogative of children & half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, & the emperor remains an emperor." --Neil Gaiman See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging
  - rtra 16y ago
    I'd really like to get an honest try at the motion to see how far it goes.
linuxhansl 16y ago
I respectfully disagree. This is my government, working on my behalf, with my money, and I want to know what this government is doing. If public release of this information is damaging to US interest, the answer should not be to suppress this information, but rather to behave in an agreeable way in the first place.
- adamsmith 16y ago
  Would you say that governments should have no secrets? I think the issue is more nuanced than it first seems to most people.
  - snprbob86 16y ago
    While government secrets can be useful, I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret. So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets.
    - waterlesscloud 16y ago
      No secrets? None? Seriously?
      - snprbob86 16y ago
        Seriously. Think about this: Let's say we gave the government permission to keep EXACTLY ONE secret. They could change their mind about what that one thing is at anytime. In order for them to choose a new secret, all things must be kept secret by default (otherwise, the Streisand Effect holds). A grace period must be allowed for the government to review the new things before deciding whether they want to publish that new information or change their choice of one secret, publishing the old secret. Since everything is secret by default, they could just not tell us about the new information. They could cheat to keep TWO secrets. If one secret leaked, they could easily say "Oh well, that was our one secret! Damn." and we'd have no way to prove that they weren't keeping another secret. The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets. We must systematically uncover sources of secrets and shine a spotlight on them. In the event that a secret is uncovered, there must be immediate and stern repercussions.
noarchy 16y ago
This is the equivalent of seeing the US government sent through a full-body scanner. I, for one, think it is great. If they have nothing to hide, why are they worried? Isn't that what governments tell the rest of us, when they wish to intrude upon our privacy?
- potatolicious 16y ago
  The problem here is that this is not universal. If WikiLeaks is going to make a habit of this sort of leak, it will completely kneecap US foreign relations and make it impossible to speak to any of our foreign allies in confidence. Meanwhile our allies and enemies alike will have no such handicap. WikiLeaks can potentially shift the balance of diplomatic power drastically - and not in a particularly good way at that. It would be a difference story if they could get leaks out of every major government - but a few seem particularly problematic: China and Russia come to mind. In the US, Pfc. Manning faces court martial and jail time for leaking this information. In China they'd just put a bullet in your head without any kind of process, and then in your families' too just for good measure. This is information asymmetry, and is downright dangerous.
  - stantonk 16y ago
    Absolutely. The diplomacy that goes on behind closed doors does so for a reason. Politics tends to shift the focus to the irrational side (just look at the current state of political discourse in the US). If we had access to other nation's documents like these, I think the US would look downright saintly (or at least no worse).
klbarry 16y ago
If this really is information that other countries don't know, then interested parties will make much better use of it than American citizens will.
daniel_levine 16y ago
I have to agree with Drew here. I believe that our government should be more transparent and that its primary purpose is to serve its citizens. That said many of the documents being leaked contain information that was exchanged under the assumption of privacy. Just as it is sometimes necessary to defend anonymity on the Internet and a citizens right to privacy, the same right should be granted to many of these documents. The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue. It can also be abused and has been in certain instances to keep information from the public but I do not think it is the right of Wikileaks to rectify that mistake. Especially at the cost of individuals' safety or diplomatic relations.
- linuxhansl 16y ago
  Upvoted, not because I agree but because you have a good point (as all upvoting should go anyway). To your point, though, I do not think the government has a general expectation of privacy. On the other hand some of these cables might have been private in nature or might have been sent with an implicit expectation of privacy, so this is a difficult area. Still, I'd rather have us err on the side of transparency.
  - sigzero 16y ago
    I would be on the side that under certain circumstances governments should and do have expectations for a level of privacy. Wikileaks is doing the wrong thing here period.
- netcan 16y ago
  It's a tradeoff. Obviously an ideal situation is one where privacy can be used as a diplomatic tool and in the many other situations where it is powerful but refrain from using it for no legitimate purposes. We can't and don't have that though, anywhere. Secrecy and the ability to withhold information are and will be abused in at least some cases. Supporting or opposing wikileaks is tweaking the level of secrecy available. Secrecy is always doubtful. There is always a chance a secret will get out. Wikileaks increases those chances. This will have negative effects. For example, diplomats will have a harder time using secrecy to do good things. This will also have positive effects. Diplomats will have a harder time using secrecy for things their constituents think are bad. The primary effect of wikileaks and leaks in general is unseen. People must take into account a higher chance their secrets will come out. This affects their actions. The effect is not really measurable. It will affect the next war more than this one. Overall, I think it'll probably be for good. People behave better in public.
ChristianMarks 16y ago
If he refuses to analyze the data, his meta-analysis is worthless. He could point out that Assange seems to focus on corruption and violence perpetrated by the United States and its allies, and appears to shy from reporting on non-allied regimes. But the consequences might exceed indictment for rape.
scotus69 16y ago
bleh! sorry, this submission deserves nothing more.
ajays 16y ago
FTA: "Having worked inside the U.S. intelligence community, ..." Drew knows perfectly well that if he even touches this data with a 10-foot pole, he'll be persona non grata in the intelligence community. So my cynical view is that his decision to not analyze this data has more to do with future employment prospects than with the methods of WikiLeaks or the contents of the data...
- xilun0 16y ago
  This seems dubious. Everyone and his dog will soon have read it, and he'll better to work in the U.S. intelligence community by being the only one not having looked at it? If this really is the reason, it seems this indeed would reduce his value to work in this domain. Would be weird.
netcan 16y ago
Wikileaks motivation and the politics of its founders are somewhat of a red herring so long as they simply make documents available verbatim, leaving commentary to others. I would prefer it if there were 5 or 10 wikileaks to to balance the effect of this power being concentrated, but one step at a time. Meanwhile the immediate effects of breaking down secrecy are potentially volatile. For example, Iraeli papers are currently running stories about Israel coordinating with the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Anyone following ME politics knows that (a) this is almost certainly true. (b) proof of its truth will play to the hands of the anti-compromise, theocratic elements in that region. Similarly, Arab States (eg Saudi Arabia) supported US invasion of Iran. Similarly unsurprising. Similarly bolstering of anti-compromise, theocratic elements. My reading is that both of these are bad. The long term effects are more difficult to gauge. But I think they will be positive. Basically, governments will have to align their private policies more closely to their public ones.
- lucasjung 16y ago
  "Wikileaks motivation and the politics of its founders are somewhat of a red herring so long as they simply make documents available verbatim, leaving commentary to others." The choice of which documents to leak, when, and in what context is in itself a form of commentary. Drudge is a master of this: his website consists of nothing but headlines and a few pictures, and yet he is constantly accused of various biases.
  - netcan 16y ago
    Hence somewhat. I don't think the politics are immaterial. They may influence in exactly that way. Reporters, news shows and everything else has biases. When it's an opinion article, that bias is the central component. When it's fact based reporting the bias is a smaller component. The context here is "WikiLeaks’s continued and reckless pursuit of classified document disclosures seems to have much more to do with the proclivities of the organization’s founder, and very little to do with building knowledge or improving democratic discourse." and "by continuing to analyze new disclosures I am tacitly supporting this." I think that the above is somewhat of a red herring considering that we are talking about source documents released verbatim. How could wikileaks' bias come in to play? Withholding documents where people sound good? Withholding documents where the "other side" sounds bad?
smutticus 16y ago
Every time I hear someone criticize Wikileaks it just seems to me like they simply don't want to know what's happening in the world. Because if you want to gain more true understanding of what's happening in the world then why would you criticize more source material? The conclusion I then draw is that people who criticize Wikileaks seek ignorance.
- hugh3 16y ago
  I'd be happy for me to know everything. But if the cost is that everyone else gets to know it too, I need to think more carefully about that.
grantheaslip 16y ago
The simple-minded open=good mentality is thin enough when it applies to technology, but it just plain falls apart when you're talking about diplomacy. Let's be clear: What Assange and WikiLeaks are doing is incredibly irresponsible. They're uncovering important channels that are going to close up if neither side can trust that what's said won't become public (this is especially true of critical Middle Eastern relationships). Even worse, they're outing confidential informants and information critical to national defence. I hope they're prepared to have blood on their hands. These documents will undoubtedly reveal some important stuff that the public should know about, and I'm not saying that everything that the government does is automatically good, but I think that most experts in the field would agree that Assange is doing way more harm than good here. There are important trust-based relationships and sources, nurtured for decades, that have just been utterly ruined, if not severely damaged. Diplomacy is incredibly complicated and nuanced, and this naive belief that indiscriminately releasing thousands of documents and cables is automatically going to make the world a better place is totally out-of-touch with reality. My theory (and sorry if this sounds mean) is that the same personality traits that make geeks great at visualizing logic and data comes at the expense of being able to understand nuance. You see it with the tech press' bizarre, highlanderistic insistence on everything being a something killer, you see it in the anti-government streak that is rampant on HN, and I think you're seeing it here.
- gintas 16y ago
  I'm not sure it's just personality traits though, the technical professions may be influential as well. In technical matters, things do tend to be much more black-or-white, and if something is "subtle and nuanced", chances are it's a bug. Arts majors have been going on for ages about Aristotelian/Boolean logic being coarse and artificially compartmentalizing, there might be a grain of truth there.
- dpatru 16y ago
  "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." — Brian W. Kernighan. I think good programmers value simplicity and clarity more than the average person because they have more experience with and a better understanding of complexity and nuance. It's easy to build incomprehensible software: just don't make an effort to keep it simple. I would think the same is true of diplomacy. Without a strict policy of honesty and open dealing, national embarrassment is practically inevitable. It's unreasonable to believe that you can build sound foreign relations on lies and deceit. Diplomats, like lawyers, are effective because they are persuasive. Not because they are good liars.
plinkplonk 16y ago
I wonder how much outrage there would be if the exposed documents were not diplomatic records of the USA. As a thought experiment, assume these documents were from (say), Iran, China or Russia (miraculously translated to English , hey this is a thought experiment)- fundamentally any power opposed to the United States. For even more fun, throw in Pakistan, North Korea or (really stretching here, because they don't do formal nation state like diplomacy or maintain records thereof) the Taliban or Al Quaeda. I suspect a good portion of the people who decry WikiLeaks today would be analysing this data, or otherwise using it to draw insights to further US interests and lauding Assange as a hero, while the Chinese (or whoever) would be making the "this endangers our people/troops" and "Wikileaks is irresponsible" argument. I doubt US citizens would be doubting Assange's "agenda" or saying things like "many of the documents being leaked contain information that was exchanged under the assumption of privacy." and so they shouldn't be public and so on. I suspect people would laud Assange as some kind of heroic figure for exposing an enemy regime at great personal risk. Is Assange a US citizen? If not why should he care about the impact on the USA? Would an American care about the impact on say Chinese diplomacy before he exposed any records he had on their thinking? Nothing wrong with being nationalistic/patriotic as long as you are aware of your biases (if any) therefrom. Most HNers are Americans and the discussion here is somewhat biased in that direction of whether this is good or bad for the USA. That is just one possible perspective of many and hardly universal. Just something to be aware of. As an outsider (not a USA citizen though largely pro American), I think this is all to the good in the long term.
yason 16y ago
So, before talking about whys and why-nots, what is there that has leaked? Obviously someone has to feel morally equipped to analyze the data before any sane discussion can take place of whether it should have been leaked or not. Now, if I had to form an opinion about something related to this (but that I don't exactly know anything about), I might consider my baseline the fact that any nation that continuously exerts offensive military activity outside its own borders should not in the first place have the slightest expectation of any "rights" to remain private. It's indeed the U.S. whose "secrets" on the stake here; however, I'm not pointing particularly to the U.S.

90 points by agconway 16y ago

Whatever happened, happened. I'd not appeal to journalists' conscience, but rather try to protect sensitive documents better in the future. I have not doubts that revealed information will harm in some way to "good guys" if they let it fall into "bad guys'" hands.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Seems rather juvenile.

grandalf 16y ago

Court jester? Is this guy serious? The value of Wikileaks is that it makes secrecy more difficult for governments. Period. What Wikileaks publishes is dependent on what is leaked, and so far (in my opinion) Wikileaks has done much to gain credibility as an institution. Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary. Ironically, Wikileaks will enhance the credibility of government in a good way b/c it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd, all of which help rein in the scope of government action so that what is actually undertaken stands a chance of being accomplished honestly. Sadly, much of what has been leaked shows simply that the government is putting on a show for the American people and that much of what is kept secret is done so for propaganda reasons, not security reasons.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
It's a bit hard to take wikileaks as an unbiased outlet considering it's heavy editorializing on the July 2007 Baghdad airstrikes.
- chc 16y ago
  I think that would be the point of the "moved away from journalistic interpretation" part of the parent's comment.
adamsmith 16y ago
Do you trust these newspapers to have access to the raw information? Even if the public doesn't see the names of informants/etc, that doesn't mean that foreign governments aren't intercepting the information being handled by the press. I guarantee you the NYT INFOSEC budget is lower than you think. : ) More importantly, lots of the information is compromising in a way that is not in the best interests of the public. For example, it embarrases the Yemeni president, along with many other countries. Will that make these people more or less likely to work with the US (or anyone else for that matter) in the future?
- grandalf 16y ago
  I don't think there is much threat of fallout from this other than embarrassment. The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. The main consequence will be (in my opinion) the diminished ability of the US to take security so lightly... Which is exactly the goal of wikileaks, to make it harder for governments to use secrecy. Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies.
  - adamsmith 16y ago
    > Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies. I agree. That's definitely a plus of these releases. (Though I think on the whole they are still net negative.) Now to some of the things I personally disagree with.. > The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. I can disagree with this, in at least one instance, using the data from wikileaks. From the NYT article: "[The cables] reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia." It's kind of a funny example, but I think the implications are more broad than embarrassment or showing government failures. As daniel_levine said, "The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue." To use a metaphor, imagine trying to run a big company wherein everything the CEO hears (!) or says is published to the world. Sure, it'd be harder to keep secrets, but it would also be harder to get anything done.
eli 16y ago
"Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary." Wikileaks certainly has an agenda. There's a good New Yorker piece [1] from back before a lot of this stuff broke about how Assange edited the 'Collateral Murder' video to maximize emotional impact. I personally do not view Wikileaks as a trusted intermediary. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...
- Qz 16y ago
  The question is: is it more trustworthy than your particular government? How will we know without Wikileaks to tell us when they're lying?
  - Volscio 16y ago
    I don't think that's the question. No one is always trustworthy. You hope to approximate the truth from multiple sources, and the diversity of agendas and perspectives provides the best prism to look through. Corroboration, in other words.
    - Qz 16y ago
      From that perspective I simply see Wikileaks as just another diverse agenda and perspective. We still have to approximate the truth.
- grandalf 16y ago
  The Collateral Murder video was from before Wikileaks transitioned away from its own journalistic interpretations. So I think my point is still valid. The impact of the footage was powerful, but was diminished by criticisms that the title was biased, etc.
- ScottBurson 16y ago
  When bringing up the "Collateral Murder" video, it's always worth remembering that WikiLeaks released the unedited original alongside their version.
GHFigs 16y ago
it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd This is in agreement with the author's assertion that "WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester, to mock and ridicule the contradictions of a state." What the author is saying in the post is that this is not what his motives were for doing analysis on prior leaks.
- grandalf 16y ago
  If your interpretation is correct, I don't think the jester analogy holds, since it is the jester who acts/looks absurd.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    No I think you just don't understand what a jester is. In the literate tradition (mostly Shakespearean), the fool is a character of uncommon wit that illuminates the ridiculousness of the system around him. While the joke may sometimes appear to be on the fool, the real joke is on his subject. In this way, Jon Stewart is probably the closest we have to a modern jester. The character that simply looks and acts ridiculous for the amusement of others (your definition) is properly called a buffoon.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I doubt that was the author's intended definition. His article does not seem to be an attempt to distance himself from the sort of behavior your definition of a jester would commit.
      - GHFigs 16y ago
        Now you're just being obtuse. The author's intent is abundantly clear even if you didn't understand the allusion.
        grandalf 16y ago
        I'm not intending to be obtuse. Even after a second reading, I still don't think the description you give quite matches Drew's use of the term. In his description, wikileaks is being brash and causing trouble, not just shining a light on absurdity through wit. Further, wikileaks is not using any wit, simply publishing everything verbatim. If Drew hopes to be taken seriously by the US Government and keeping his security clearance (probably highly valuable in his career path) he can't exactly cheer about Wikileaks. This sort of measured, slightly negative review is essentially a bow to power (and there seems like little reason for him to write such an article other than to bow conspicuously before authority). Drew is also a Homeland Security Fellow, whatever that is.

rtra 16y ago

> WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester Can anyone elaborate on that?

gwern 16y ago
> "It has always been the prerogative of children & half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, & the emperor remains an emperor." --Neil Gaiman See also: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging
- rtra 16y ago
  I'd really like to get an honest try at the motion to see how far it goes.

linuxhansl 16y ago

I respectfully disagree. This is my government, working on my behalf, with my money, and I want to know what this government is doing. If public release of this information is damaging to US interest, the answer should not be to suppress this information, but rather to behave in an agreeable way in the first place.

adamsmith 16y ago
Would you say that governments should have no secrets? I think the issue is more nuanced than it first seems to most people.
- snprbob86 16y ago
  While government secrets can be useful, I think that the lack of secrets is far less damaging than entrusting the government with determining what may or may not be kept secret. So, yes. I do say that governments should have no secrets.
  - waterlesscloud 16y ago
    No secrets? None? Seriously?
    - snprbob86 16y ago
      Seriously. Think about this: Let's say we gave the government permission to keep EXACTLY ONE secret. They could change their mind about what that one thing is at anytime. In order for them to choose a new secret, all things must be kept secret by default (otherwise, the Streisand Effect holds). A grace period must be allowed for the government to review the new things before deciding whether they want to publish that new information or change their choice of one secret, publishing the old secret. Since everything is secret by default, they could just not tell us about the new information. They could cheat to keep TWO secrets. If one secret leaked, they could easily say "Oh well, that was our one secret! Damn." and we'd have no way to prove that they weren't keeping another secret. The only way to prevent bad secrets is to disallow all secrets. We must systematically uncover sources of secrets and shine a spotlight on them. In the event that a secret is uncovered, there must be immediate and stern repercussions.

noarchy 16y ago

This is the equivalent of seeing the US government sent through a full-body scanner. I, for one, think it is great. If they have nothing to hide, why are they worried? Isn't that what governments tell the rest of us, when they wish to intrude upon our privacy?

potatolicious 16y ago
The problem here is that this is not universal. If WikiLeaks is going to make a habit of this sort of leak, it will completely kneecap US foreign relations and make it impossible to speak to any of our foreign allies in confidence. Meanwhile our allies and enemies alike will have no such handicap. WikiLeaks can potentially shift the balance of diplomatic power drastically - and not in a particularly good way at that. It would be a difference story if they could get leaks out of every major government - but a few seem particularly problematic: China and Russia come to mind. In the US, Pfc. Manning faces court martial and jail time for leaking this information. In China they'd just put a bullet in your head without any kind of process, and then in your families' too just for good measure. This is information asymmetry, and is downright dangerous.
- stantonk 16y ago
  Absolutely. The diplomacy that goes on behind closed doors does so for a reason. Politics tends to shift the focus to the irrational side (just look at the current state of political discourse in the US). If we had access to other nation's documents like these, I think the US would look downright saintly (or at least no worse).

klbarry 16y ago

If this really is information that other countries don't know, then interested parties will make much better use of it than American citizens will.

daniel_levine 16y ago

I have to agree with Drew here. I believe that our government should be more transparent and that its primary purpose is to serve its citizens. That said many of the documents being leaked contain information that was exchanged under the assumption of privacy. Just as it is sometimes necessary to defend anonymity on the Internet and a citizens right to privacy, the same right should be granted to many of these documents. The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue. It can also be abused and has been in certain instances to keep information from the public but I do not think it is the right of Wikileaks to rectify that mistake. Especially at the cost of individuals' safety or diplomatic relations.

linuxhansl 16y ago
Upvoted, not because I agree but because you have a good point (as all upvoting should go anyway). To your point, though, I do not think the government has a general expectation of privacy. On the other hand some of these cables might have been private in nature or might have been sent with an implicit expectation of privacy, so this is a difficult area. Still, I'd rather have us err on the side of transparency.
- sigzero 16y ago
  I would be on the side that under certain circumstances governments should and do have expectations for a level of privacy. Wikileaks is doing the wrong thing here period.
netcan 16y ago
It's a tradeoff. Obviously an ideal situation is one where privacy can be used as a diplomatic tool and in the many other situations where it is powerful but refrain from using it for no legitimate purposes. We can't and don't have that though, anywhere. Secrecy and the ability to withhold information are and will be abused in at least some cases. Supporting or opposing wikileaks is tweaking the level of secrecy available. Secrecy is always doubtful. There is always a chance a secret will get out. Wikileaks increases those chances. This will have negative effects. For example, diplomats will have a harder time using secrecy to do good things. This will also have positive effects. Diplomats will have a harder time using secrecy for things their constituents think are bad. The primary effect of wikileaks and leaks in general is unseen. People must take into account a higher chance their secrets will come out. This affects their actions. The effect is not really measurable. It will affect the next war more than this one. Overall, I think it'll probably be for good. People behave better in public.

ChristianMarks 16y ago

If he refuses to analyze the data, his meta-analysis is worthless. He could point out that Assange seems to focus on corruption and violence perpetrated by the United States and its allies, and appears to shy from reporting on non-allied regimes. But the consequences might exceed indictment for rape.

scotus69 16y ago

bleh! sorry, this submission deserves nothing more.

ajays 16y ago

FTA: "Having worked inside the U.S. intelligence community, ..." Drew knows perfectly well that if he even touches this data with a 10-foot pole, he'll be persona non grata in the intelligence community. So my cynical view is that his decision to not analyze this data has more to do with future employment prospects than with the methods of WikiLeaks or the contents of the data...

xilun0 16y ago
This seems dubious. Everyone and his dog will soon have read it, and he'll better to work in the U.S. intelligence community by being the only one not having looked at it? If this really is the reason, it seems this indeed would reduce his value to work in this domain. Would be weird.

netcan 16y ago

Wikileaks motivation and the politics of its founders are somewhat of a red herring so long as they simply make documents available verbatim, leaving commentary to others. I would prefer it if there were 5 or 10 wikileaks to to balance the effect of this power being concentrated, but one step at a time. Meanwhile the immediate effects of breaking down secrecy are potentially volatile. For example, Iraeli papers are currently running stories about Israel coordinating with the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. Anyone following ME politics knows that (a) this is almost certainly true. (b) proof of its truth will play to the hands of the anti-compromise, theocratic elements in that region. Similarly, Arab States (eg Saudi Arabia) supported US invasion of Iran. Similarly unsurprising. Similarly bolstering of anti-compromise, theocratic elements. My reading is that both of these are bad. The long term effects are more difficult to gauge. But I think they will be positive. Basically, governments will have to align their private policies more closely to their public ones.

lucasjung 16y ago
"Wikileaks motivation and the politics of its founders are somewhat of a red herring so long as they simply make documents available verbatim, leaving commentary to others." The choice of which documents to leak, when, and in what context is in itself a form of commentary. Drudge is a master of this: his website consists of nothing but headlines and a few pictures, and yet he is constantly accused of various biases.
- netcan 16y ago
  Hence somewhat. I don't think the politics are immaterial. They may influence in exactly that way. Reporters, news shows and everything else has biases. When it's an opinion article, that bias is the central component. When it's fact based reporting the bias is a smaller component. The context here is "WikiLeaks’s continued and reckless pursuit of classified document disclosures seems to have much more to do with the proclivities of the organization’s founder, and very little to do with building knowledge or improving democratic discourse." and "by continuing to analyze new disclosures I am tacitly supporting this." I think that the above is somewhat of a red herring considering that we are talking about source documents released verbatim. How could wikileaks' bias come in to play? Withholding documents where people sound good? Withholding documents where the "other side" sounds bad?

smutticus 16y ago

Every time I hear someone criticize Wikileaks it just seems to me like they simply don't want to know what's happening in the world. Because if you want to gain more true understanding of what's happening in the world then why would you criticize more source material? The conclusion I then draw is that people who criticize Wikileaks seek ignorance.

hugh3 16y ago
I'd be happy for me to know everything. But if the cost is that everyone else gets to know it too, I need to think more carefully about that.

grantheaslip 16y ago

The simple-minded open=good mentality is thin enough when it applies to technology, but it just plain falls apart when you're talking about diplomacy. Let's be clear: What Assange and WikiLeaks are doing is incredibly irresponsible. They're uncovering important channels that are going to close up if neither side can trust that what's said won't become public (this is especially true of critical Middle Eastern relationships). Even worse, they're outing confidential informants and information critical to national defence. I hope they're prepared to have blood on their hands. These documents will undoubtedly reveal some important stuff that the public should know about, and I'm not saying that everything that the government does is automatically good, but I think that most experts in the field would agree that Assange is doing way more harm than good here. There are important trust-based relationships and sources, nurtured for decades, that have just been utterly ruined, if not severely damaged. Diplomacy is incredibly complicated and nuanced, and this naive belief that indiscriminately releasing thousands of documents and cables is automatically going to make the world a better place is totally out-of-touch with reality. My theory (and sorry if this sounds mean) is that the same personality traits that make geeks great at visualizing logic and data comes at the expense of being able to understand nuance. You see it with the tech press' bizarre, highlanderistic insistence on everything being a something killer, you see it in the anti-government streak that is rampant on HN, and I think you're seeing it here.

gintas 16y ago
I'm not sure it's just personality traits though, the technical professions may be influential as well. In technical matters, things do tend to be much more black-or-white, and if something is "subtle and nuanced", chances are it's a bug. Arts majors have been going on for ages about Aristotelian/Boolean logic being coarse and artificially compartmentalizing, there might be a grain of truth there.
dpatru 16y ago
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." — Brian W. Kernighan. I think good programmers value simplicity and clarity more than the average person because they have more experience with and a better understanding of complexity and nuance. It's easy to build incomprehensible software: just don't make an effort to keep it simple. I would think the same is true of diplomacy. Without a strict policy of honesty and open dealing, national embarrassment is practically inevitable. It's unreasonable to believe that you can build sound foreign relations on lies and deceit. Diplomats, like lawyers, are effective because they are persuasive. Not because they are good liars.

plinkplonk 16y ago

I wonder how much outrage there would be if the exposed documents were not diplomatic records of the USA. As a thought experiment, assume these documents were from (say), Iran, China or Russia (miraculously translated to English , hey this is a thought experiment)- fundamentally any power opposed to the United States. For even more fun, throw in Pakistan, North Korea or (really stretching here, because they don't do formal nation state like diplomacy or maintain records thereof) the Taliban or Al Quaeda. I suspect a good portion of the people who decry WikiLeaks today would be analysing this data, or otherwise using it to draw insights to further US interests and lauding Assange as a hero, while the Chinese (or whoever) would be making the "this endangers our people/troops" and "Wikileaks is irresponsible" argument. I doubt US citizens would be doubting Assange's "agenda" or saying things like "many of the documents being leaked contain information that was exchanged under the assumption of privacy." and so they shouldn't be public and so on. I suspect people would laud Assange as some kind of heroic figure for exposing an enemy regime at great personal risk. Is Assange a US citizen? If not why should he care about the impact on the USA? Would an American care about the impact on say Chinese diplomacy before he exposed any records he had on their thinking? Nothing wrong with being nationalistic/patriotic as long as you are aware of your biases (if any) therefrom. Most HNers are Americans and the discussion here is somewhat biased in that direction of whether this is good or bad for the USA. That is just one possible perspective of many and hardly universal. Just something to be aware of. As an outsider (not a USA citizen though largely pro American), I think this is all to the good in the long term.

yason 16y ago

So, before talking about whys and why-nots, what is there that has leaked? Obviously someone has to feel morally equipped to analyze the data before any sane discussion can take place of whether it should have been leaked or not. Now, if I had to form an opinion about something related to this (but that I don't exactly know anything about), I might consider my baseline the fact that any nation that continuously exerts offensive military activity outside its own borders should not in the first place have the slightest expectation of any "rights" to remain private. It's indeed the U.S. whose "secrets" on the stake here; however, I'm not pointing particularly to the U.S.