5 ms·

Can someone who support this release care to explain this. I seriously don't understand how can publishing someone's conversations be good. 1) How should commu

by vgurgov 16y ago

Can someone who support this release care to explain this. I seriously don't understand how can publishing someone's conversations be good. 1) How should communication with foreign embassies be done? Publicly via twitter? 2) Do you think that absolutely all information that gov has and exchange should be public? If not who should decide which info can be published? 3) What if somebody from Google get all you gmail conversations and publish it? If you dont like this idea, please explain why you support somebody publishing gov conversations then? Thank you.

rorrr 16y ago
Transparency. There's a lot of important shit going on without public's approval. Do you want to live in a world where important things are decided by a bunch of corrupt politicians with no oversight?
- alnayyir 16y ago
  Of course not, but Wikileaks is an adversary with an agenda, not an independent government oversight organization with the peoples' interests in mind. Certainly not that of residents of the US. We need oversight and transparency concerning policy, prevention of the violation of constitutional and human rights, and any actions that violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends. Not transparency of every communique between our embassies.
  - GFischer 16y ago
    Remember as well that some of us in "foreign countries" want some oversight of the U.S. as well. I sometimes joke that we're second-class citizens, much like in Rome (1) - we're affected by what the U.S. decides (as a kind of "world government"), but we cannot vote on it. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
    - alnayyir 16y ago
      The "[don't] violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends." clause covers your concerns. I'm not advocating US unilateralism. Your comment was apropos of nothing in what I said. Your rhetoric is misplaced.
      - GFischer 16y ago
        Sorry, I didn't want to sound that way. What I wanted to convey is that Wikileaks is interesting for people outside the U.S. that are not necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don't know which organization should provide some oversight, I guess the United Nations would be the closest (despite it being a bloated bureaucracy, it does manage some useful activities sometimes)
        alnayyir 16y ago
        I'd rather see that kind of oversight facility independent of the United Nations. Interesting is a pretty shallow rationale for what's being done. They have an agenda and I'm not going to pretend Wikileaks is some kind of openness nerd savior. I had hoped they were the counter-balance I was seeking, but it's clear from the manipulation of releases and footage that Wikileaks is hellbent on attacking the US and its allies.

by vgurgov 16y ago

rorrr 16y ago

Transparency. There's a lot of important shit going on without public's approval. Do you want to live in a world where important things are decided by a bunch of corrupt politicians with no oversight?

alnayyir 16y ago
Of course not, but Wikileaks is an adversary with an agenda, not an independent government oversight organization with the peoples' interests in mind. Certainly not that of residents of the US. We need oversight and transparency concerning policy, prevention of the violation of constitutional and human rights, and any actions that violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends. Not transparency of every communique between our embassies.
- GFischer 16y ago
  Remember as well that some of us in "foreign countries" want some oversight of the U.S. as well. I sometimes joke that we're second-class citizens, much like in Rome (1) - we're affected by what the U.S. decides (as a kind of "world government"), but we cannot vote on it. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship
  - alnayyir 16y ago
    The "[don't] violate the sovereignty of our allies and friends." clause covers your concerns. I'm not advocating US unilateralism. Your comment was apropos of nothing in what I said. Your rhetoric is misplaced.
    - GFischer 16y ago
      Sorry, I didn't want to sound that way. What I wanted to convey is that Wikileaks is interesting for people outside the U.S. that are not necessarily enemies of the U.S. I don't know which organization should provide some oversight, I guess the United Nations would be the closest (despite it being a bloated bureaucracy, it does manage some useful activities sometimes)
      - alnayyir 16y ago
        I'd rather see that kind of oversight facility independent of the United Nations. Interesting is a pretty shallow rationale for what's being done. They have an agenda and I'm not going to pretend Wikileaks is some kind of openness nerd savior. I had hoped they were the counter-balance I was seeking, but it's clear from the manipulation of releases and footage that Wikileaks is hellbent on attacking the US and its allies.