3 ms·

I think most of us who support the wikileaks stuff are indeed following a general rule -- large organizations that spend billions/trillions of dollars and kill

by jbooth 16y ago

I think most of us who support the wikileaks stuff are indeed following a general rule -- large organizations that spend billions/trillions of dollars and kill people on our behalf deserve scrutiny. Individual human beings deserve privacy. Protect the little guys from the big guys, let freedom ring, we hold these truths self-evident and all of that. This is basic stuff -- it all hinges on individual privacy and the individual right to know what is being done with our money and our flag.

hugh3 16y ago
High-profile wikileaks leaks which don't fit your pattern include: "On 25 November 2009, WikiLeaks released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the September 11 attacks." Clearly a gross invasion of privacy for many individuals involved. "In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks" An astoundingly clear violation of an individual's privacy. One gives up a certain level of privacy when entering public life, but that was ridiculous. "After briefly appearing on a blog, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks on 18 November 2008." If anyone's the "little guy", it's the British National Party, a hard-working group of political idealists fighting for what they believe in against tremendous odds. Of course they also happen to be a bunch of openly racist jerks, but they're also an oppressed minority.
- jbooth 16y ago
  So, are you with me here on the principle?
  - hugh3 16y ago
    No, not really. I'm not one for protecting the little guy from the big guy, I'm one for treating the little guy and the big guy equally.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Well, then, I'll have to assume you're a libertarian. How on earth do you square that with opposing what wikileaks does? Liber-authoritarian? Is it just because they published Sarah Palin's email? (BTW, it's illegal to conduct public business over private email, that's why the leak was noteworthy).

by jbooth 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

High-profile wikileaks leaks which don't fit your pattern include: "On 25 November 2009, WikiLeaks released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the September 11 attacks." Clearly a gross invasion of privacy for many individuals involved. "In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks" An astoundingly clear violation of an individual's privacy. One gives up a certain level of privacy when entering public life, but that was ridiculous. "After briefly appearing on a blog, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks on 18 November 2008." If anyone's the "little guy", it's the British National Party, a hard-working group of political idealists fighting for what they believe in against tremendous odds. Of course they also happen to be a bunch of openly racist jerks, but they're also an oppressed minority.

jbooth 16y ago
So, are you with me here on the principle?
- hugh3 16y ago
  No, not really. I'm not one for protecting the little guy from the big guy, I'm one for treating the little guy and the big guy equally.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Well, then, I'll have to assume you're a libertarian. How on earth do you square that with opposing what wikileaks does? Liber-authoritarian? Is it just because they published Sarah Palin's email? (BTW, it's illegal to conduct public business over private email, that's why the leak was noteworthy).