4 ms·
"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 c
by 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.