4 ms·

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

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.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Those are good points. I'd probably respond by saying: Government secrecy has always been weakened by potential leakers, etc., so I think the main difference here is that Wikileaks' technology has provided a buffer to allow journalists to write about things they had previously been afraid to write about. As a corollary, an organization of a particular size can only obtain a finite amount of secrecy. When the organization's size is > 5 people, the amount of secrecy is quite low and has always been so.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Yeah, that's a really insightful point actually. Open secrets become fair game once another organization has published them.. and importantly, wikileaks doesn't have any "access" to lose by doing so.

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.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Those are good points. I'd probably respond by saying: Government secrecy has always been weakened by potential leakers, etc., so I think the main difference here is that Wikileaks' technology has provided a buffer to allow journalists to write about things they had previously been afraid to write about. As a corollary, an organization of a particular size can only obtain a finite amount of secrecy. When the organization's size is > 5 people, the amount of secrecy is quite low and has always been so.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Yeah, that's a really insightful point actually. Open secrets become fair game once another organization has published them.. and importantly, wikileaks doesn't have any "access" to lose by doing so.