3 ms·
"I see a lot of potential benefits for people currently being murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan." 1. Expose internal documents. 2. ???? 3. Fewer people being mu
by bonaldi 16y ago
"I see a lot of potential benefits for people currently being murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan."
1. Expose internal documents.
2. ????
3. Fewer people being murdered in Iraq.
Going to need to spell out 2 here, because nothing wikileaks has done so far has done anything to stop those deaths, and isn't likely to. Assange's, yours and Winer's stances all assume that the states involved won't change their methods in response to informational insecurity, and will instead continue business as usual. This is a strange assumption.
"Do you think Africa is a country? How is it splitting hairs to be aware that "Eastern Europe" isn't a single place?"
It was you who took my allusion to Litvinenko and turned into it something exclusively exclusively about Russia. My point was, and remains, that tyrannies murder to protect themselves, and high-minded rhetoric about bringing them down comes to naught when you just pick on the soft targets.
- sedachv 16y ago"Assange's, yours and Winer's stances all assume that the states involved won't change their methods in response to informational insecurity, and will instead continue business as usual. This is a strange assumption." Please read Assange's manifesto, I posted the link for a reason. The whole point of Wikileaks is to force states to "change their methods in response to informational insecurity" and make their functioning less efficient. Armed revolution isn't popular these days, and this is a bloodless, scalable, and morally unassailable (well, for normal people's morals, anyway) way to attack the functioning of a government. ------ Also, I just learned about this: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/03/wikileaks-cables-rev.html http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/03/wikileaks-cables-rev.ht... Let's see what the outcome will be.
- bonaldi 16y agoI read the manifesto; it's troubling for people who, like me, are in support of the general principle of greater transparency but don't support an ideological reading of the US as an authoritarian conspiracy. As for "morally unassailable", that's a ridiculous assertion. HN can't even decide whether or not TechCrunch was right to publish the Twitter emails; this is at a much more morally complicated level. The potential to put people in harm's way is being used by politicians as a stick to beat WikiLeaks, but nonetheless there's something to it. When Amnesty International says you're putting people in danger, there's more than just hype to it.