4 ms·

Are they keeping secrets that have been leaked? The Pentagon has insisted so far that none of it really mattered that much. It's not like there has been act

Are they keeping secrets that have been leaked? The Pentagon has insisted so far that none of it really mattered that much. It's not like there has been action for war crimes or something. Seems like the only action that will be taken is the leakers will be prosecuted for violating security classification laws but most of this stuff shouldn't have been classified in the first place. Or perhaps should have been classified differently. There is a different kind of "secret" that appears to be what has been compromised so far. You ever write code and maybe you're fast and furious and you've got some vulgarities in the comments but you're just hacking it out, then once it's working you start to button it up and maybe clean some of that stuff out? Face to face I might call and idea "fucked" but I rarely call it that in an email, I try to be a little bit more reserved, that email might live for a long time where as the face to face conversation sort of ends and disappears. It seems like the current wikileaks shows some of the unfiltered information that hasn't been processed for mass consumption yet but I have yet to hear about real lack of transparency or corruption. That's not exactly a lack of transparency or secrecy though. It's the same reason they don't put the slaughter house right there inside the grocery store... You could do that, and offer the freshest of the freshest meat, it's a great design if freshness of meat is your only and primary goal. It's a terrible design if you're goal is to get protein to the masses though. Technically in a very black and white sense, it's a lack of transparency but not seeing how the sausage is made isn't always a bad thing.

troutwine 16y ago
I rather think quinoa is a more effecient method of delivering protein through a population, but that's neither here nor there. I do not suggest any avarice or corruption on the part of my or any government. Please do not read my questions in that light. Consider them, instead, as a matter of political philosophy. Now, while the Pentagon has certainly insisted that--and a definite case can be made that the data WikiLeaks delivers is novel often only in its source--the sources with leaked data do seem to view it as harmful a priori. I may simply be ignorant, but I know of publicly available source of the various data related to the day-to-day internal functioning of any world government. That which is released is done so after decades, the bones of a system to be picked over by historians; hardly within the window of opportunity for a populace make informed voting decisions. Now, I do not disagree with your assessment of the data WikiLeaks provides. That is granted without objection. I question, merely, the assumption that providing unfiltered information is a bad thing. I might filter my communication, but I am not a public official accountable to the collected process of a voting public who are supposed to be able to make an informed vote based on my actions. For example--and here again I may simply be ignorant--but I have no idea how I might go about discovering how the Treasury Department makes its choices. What data does it have access to? What people make which choices that affect the lives of every US citizen? Clearly, I don't need this data in everyday life. However, why do I not have the possibility of having it? I'm sure if I called the Treasury Department they would simply laugh at me. The communications of elected officials are now collected and archived, but I know first-hand that the communication of thousands of bureaucrat--every bit as essential to the functioning of the government as the elected official--are not. Technology makes this possible. Why is it not done? Note. Please excuse any spelling mistakes or grammar errors. I have a nasty cold and thought it best to prioritize promptness over polish.
rbranson 16y ago
So let me get this right: what you're asserting is that it's necessary for government officials to protect us by concealing or spinning information so it's only presented to us in the best light, for our own good? Imagine if, for a second, that the slaughterhouse WAS in the grocery store. As civilized humans, some of whom think of ourselves as compassionate and caring, we would have to come face to face with the billions of animals we slaughter every year and make personal decisions as to if we thought it was right or not. In the current state of affairs, the source is abstracted so far from the final product that it's nearly completely obscured. If we were faced with the reality of our government on a daily basis, perhaps a much larger number of people would be compelled to get involved in the process.
- TheCondor 16y ago
  I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm saying it happens. And I'm not saying it's presenting it in the best light or anything like that. It's more a kin to proof reading. I'm asserting that the leaks are closer to unedited rough drafts than any evidence of misconduct or wrong-doing. At least, so far as I've read and heard, it's more embarrassing than it is anything else.
  - troutwine 16y ago
    Often it is the word spoken in private that carries the true intent of its speaker.
    - giardini 16y ago
      But more likely not. More likely that word is exaggeration, lying, etrapolating beyond one's knowledge, or a product of a myriad of other human errors. But let both be heard: the unedited and the edited.
- malkia 16y ago
  Slaughterhouse right to the store was the norm many many years ago. There is nothing bad about killing an animal, if it's for eating. Humans need meat to survive. For a lot of people vegetarian style works, but not for everyone.

troutwine 16y ago

I rather think quinoa is a more effecient method of delivering protein through a population, but that's neither here nor there. I do not suggest any avarice or corruption on the part of my or any government. Please do not read my questions in that light. Consider them, instead, as a matter of political philosophy. Now, while the Pentagon has certainly insisted that--and a definite case can be made that the data WikiLeaks delivers is novel often only in its source--the sources with leaked data do seem to view it as harmful a priori. I may simply be ignorant, but I know of publicly available source of the various data related to the day-to-day internal functioning of any world government. That which is released is done so after decades, the bones of a system to be picked over by historians; hardly within the window of opportunity for a populace make informed voting decisions. Now, I do not disagree with your assessment of the data WikiLeaks provides. That is granted without objection. I question, merely, the assumption that providing unfiltered information is a bad thing. I might filter my communication, but I am not a public official accountable to the collected process of a voting public who are supposed to be able to make an informed vote based on my actions. For example--and here again I may simply be ignorant--but I have no idea how I might go about discovering how the Treasury Department makes its choices. What data does it have access to? What people make which choices that affect the lives of every US citizen? Clearly, I don't need this data in everyday life. However, why do I not have the possibility of having it? I'm sure if I called the Treasury Department they would simply laugh at me. The communications of elected officials are now collected and archived, but I know first-hand that the communication of thousands of bureaucrat--every bit as essential to the functioning of the government as the elected official--are not. Technology makes this possible. Why is it not done? Note. Please excuse any spelling mistakes or grammar errors. I have a nasty cold and thought it best to prioritize promptness over polish.

rbranson 16y ago

So let me get this right: what you're asserting is that it's necessary for government officials to protect us by concealing or spinning information so it's only presented to us in the best light, for our own good? Imagine if, for a second, that the slaughterhouse WAS in the grocery store. As civilized humans, some of whom think of ourselves as compassionate and caring, we would have to come face to face with the billions of animals we slaughter every year and make personal decisions as to if we thought it was right or not. In the current state of affairs, the source is abstracted so far from the final product that it's nearly completely obscured. If we were faced with the reality of our government on a daily basis, perhaps a much larger number of people would be compelled to get involved in the process.

TheCondor 16y ago
I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm saying it happens. And I'm not saying it's presenting it in the best light or anything like that. It's more a kin to proof reading. I'm asserting that the leaks are closer to unedited rough drafts than any evidence of misconduct or wrong-doing. At least, so far as I've read and heard, it's more embarrassing than it is anything else.
- troutwine 16y ago
  Often it is the word spoken in private that carries the true intent of its speaker.
  - giardini 16y ago
    But more likely not. More likely that word is exaggeration, lying, etrapolating beyond one's knowledge, or a product of a myriad of other human errors. But let both be heard: the unedited and the edited.
malkia 16y ago
Slaughterhouse right to the store was the norm many many years ago. There is nothing bad about killing an animal, if it's for eating. Humans need meat to survive. For a lot of people vegetarian style works, but not for everyone.