4 ms·

Yes, exactly. And if the expectation of secrecy is nonexistent, Assange claims, those in power will act with de facto integrity because the probability of being

Yes, exactly. And if the expectation of secrecy is nonexistent, Assange claims, those in power will act with de facto integrity because the probability of being caught committing a crime (even a boring one) is so palpable. Hence the claim that the purpose of WikiLeaks is to make WikiLeaks obsolete.

dkarl 16y ago
Crime? This is international politics. If Steve Ballmer says to Steve Jobs, "It's time to cut off the head of the snake," and Steve Jobs goes and kills Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer can be charged with a crime. If the Saudis say the same thing to the U.S. and the U.S. invades Iran, who is going to get charged with a crime? The word and the deed would be popular in the United States and in Saudi Arabia. If he was revealing truly sensitive information, it might force people to be a little more honest. For example, it has been claimed that Saddam Hussein was concerned that his invasion of Kuwait might upset the United States, so he went through the British and got assurances -- or perhaps merely thought he got assurances -- that the United States and Britain might respond with harsh rhetoric but would ultimately look the other way. He thought he had de facto permission to invade Kuwait, in other words. Something like that would be worth revealing. But hundreds of thousands of documents and nothing scandalous? C'mon. There is no way he could have published hundreds of thousands of cables and not a single scandal unless he is revealing information that by its nature never contains anything scandalous. Keep in mind that this information was already available to many people inside the United States government, and so there was already good reason for it not to include information that would threaten anybody's career. Even government bureaucracies have Boy Scouts, and of course they have internal rivalries galore.
nl 16y ago
He's not claiming anything about the probability of being caught committing a crime. He claims that the probability of leaks will force government to lock down information sharing increasingly tightly, and this lock-down will make secret policies impossible (because other arms of the government will not know those policies exist).

dkarl 16y ago

Crime? This is international politics. If Steve Ballmer says to Steve Jobs, "It's time to cut off the head of the snake," and Steve Jobs goes and kills Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer can be charged with a crime. If the Saudis say the same thing to the U.S. and the U.S. invades Iran, who is going to get charged with a crime? The word and the deed would be popular in the United States and in Saudi Arabia. If he was revealing truly sensitive information, it might force people to be a little more honest. For example, it has been claimed that Saddam Hussein was concerned that his invasion of Kuwait might upset the United States, so he went through the British and got assurances -- or perhaps merely thought he got assurances -- that the United States and Britain might respond with harsh rhetoric but would ultimately look the other way. He thought he had de facto permission to invade Kuwait, in other words. Something like that would be worth revealing. But hundreds of thousands of documents and nothing scandalous? C'mon. There is no way he could have published hundreds of thousands of cables and not a single scandal unless he is revealing information that by its nature never contains anything scandalous. Keep in mind that this information was already available to many people inside the United States government, and so there was already good reason for it not to include information that would threaten anybody's career. Even government bureaucracies have Boy Scouts, and of course they have internal rivalries galore.

nl 16y ago

He's not claiming anything about the probability of being caught committing a crime. He claims that the probability of leaks will force government to lock down information sharing increasingly tightly, and this lock-down will make secret policies impossible (because other arms of the government will not know those policies exist).