35 ms·

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

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.
potatolicious 16y ago
I'm inclined to agree. There are some things that the cables have revealed that IMHO are worth leaking (e.g., the US using its diplomats in the UN as effectively spies, conspiring to acquire biometrics for top UN officials, and violating the Vienna Convention by conspiring to spy on diplomatic communiques). The rest of the stuff is mundane, uncontroversial, and honestly, should not have been leaked. Governments desire and need privacy for a great many reasons, and IMHO unless this privacy is used to abuse governmental power or commit a gross injustice, the government ought to be entitled to it, just as we are entitled to our privacy unless a crime (legal or moral) is suspected. Don't get me wrong, I think whistleblowing organizations are a fundamental part of a healthy democratic process, but this indiscriminate "the US is not allowed to have secrets" thing is unproductive, nor is it fighting any injustice or abuse of power.

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.

potatolicious 16y ago

I'm inclined to agree. There are some things that the cables have revealed that IMHO are worth leaking (e.g., the US using its diplomats in the UN as effectively spies, conspiring to acquire biometrics for top UN officials, and violating the Vienna Convention by conspiring to spy on diplomatic communiques). The rest of the stuff is mundane, uncontroversial, and honestly, should not have been leaked. Governments desire and need privacy for a great many reasons, and IMHO unless this privacy is used to abuse governmental power or commit a gross injustice, the government ought to be entitled to it, just as we are entitled to our privacy unless a crime (legal or moral) is suspected. Don't get me wrong, I think whistleblowing organizations are a fundamental part of a healthy democratic process, but this indiscriminate "the US is not allowed to have secrets" thing is unproductive, nor is it fighting any injustice or abuse of power.