3 ms·

I disagree with him here. I'm all for truths that serve the public good and I support most whistle blowers. The problem with this recent Wikileaks release is

I disagree with him here. I'm all for truths that serve the public good and I support most whistle blowers. The problem with this recent Wikileaks release is there was data in it that did a lot of damage while providing no public good. The fact that Hilary Clinton's staff thinks certain world leaders are crazy really doesn't do anything for me as a citizen. But it does hurt the State Department's ability to negotiate with those world leaders. Truth is an important value but it's not an absolute one. Put it in real terms. You might hate your mother-in-law but it does no good to tell her that. Same here. Also note this release is already causing knee jerk reaction laws to be passed that will hurt whistle blowers in the future. The reason that's possible is because the information is so trivial (no politician would be brave enough to pass a law against a whistle blower that revealed important information for the public good)

tptacek 16y ago
In a similar vein: Daniel Ellsberg knew the contents of the Pentagon Papers and knew exactly what the public interest was in having that particular information leaked. Mark Felt had a thesis about the public benefit in leaking Watergate. Jeffery Wigand knew what and why he was leaking tobacco documents. Mark Klein knew what & why about NSA surveillance. Those were purposeful leaks. These leaks are indiscriminate. Does anyone believe that Bradley Manning had any idea what he was handing off to WL? Remember, WL themselves claim to have redacted those documents to protect innocents (the belief that they couldn't possibly have done so adequately animates much of the flak they're taking). If WL had to redact them, then the actual leaker (presumed to be Manning) had to have disclosed them unredacted --- to complete strangers.
quanticle 16y ago
I disagree with every one of your points. I don't think this leak did a lot of damage. After reading through the memorandums, all I see is a bunch of meeting minutes describing the routine actions that embassy personnel took. Very little of this should have been classified in the first place, and releasing this data is a good thing, in that it gives historians and researchers an inside look into how government personnel go about their day-to-day jobs, and how those day-to-day actions are affected by decisions made at the top. The government's reaction to the leak is doing far more damage than the leak itself. By trumping up the significance of the data released, the government is harming its own image in the eyes of its own citizens and the eyes of foreign leaders. >No politician would be brave enough to pass a law against a whistle blower that revealed important information for the public good. I think that's an incredibly naive world-view. Politicians work first and foremost to secure their own power. If a politician thought that their power base was under threat by a leak, they'd seek to stop the leak by any means necessary. We've already seen this reaction with the Pentagon Papers. There, the New York Times was definitely publishing something in the public interest, but the Defense Department worked to suppress it for exactly the same reason the State Department is working to suppress this publication. Finally, I question your standing to judge what the public interest is. The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Reporters Without Borders all say that the leaked State Department memos are in the public interest.

tptacek 16y ago

In a similar vein: Daniel Ellsberg knew the contents of the Pentagon Papers and knew exactly what the public interest was in having that particular information leaked. Mark Felt had a thesis about the public benefit in leaking Watergate. Jeffery Wigand knew what and why he was leaking tobacco documents. Mark Klein knew what & why about NSA surveillance. Those were purposeful leaks. These leaks are indiscriminate. Does anyone believe that Bradley Manning had any idea what he was handing off to WL? Remember, WL themselves claim to have redacted those documents to protect innocents (the belief that they couldn't possibly have done so adequately animates much of the flak they're taking). If WL had to redact them, then the actual leaker (presumed to be Manning) had to have disclosed them unredacted --- to complete strangers.

quanticle 16y ago

I disagree with every one of your points. I don't think this leak did a lot of damage. After reading through the memorandums, all I see is a bunch of meeting minutes describing the routine actions that embassy personnel took. Very little of this should have been classified in the first place, and releasing this data is a good thing, in that it gives historians and researchers an inside look into how government personnel go about their day-to-day jobs, and how those day-to-day actions are affected by decisions made at the top. The government's reaction to the leak is doing far more damage than the leak itself. By trumping up the significance of the data released, the government is harming its own image in the eyes of its own citizens and the eyes of foreign leaders. >No politician would be brave enough to pass a law against a whistle blower that revealed important information for the public good. I think that's an incredibly naive world-view. Politicians work first and foremost to secure their own power. If a politician thought that their power base was under threat by a leak, they'd seek to stop the leak by any means necessary. We've already seen this reaction with the Pentagon Papers. There, the New York Times was definitely publishing something in the public interest, but the Defense Department worked to suppress it for exactly the same reason the State Department is working to suppress this publication. Finally, I question your standing to judge what the public interest is. The New York Times, The Guardian of London, and Reporters Without Borders all say that the leaked State Department memos are in the public interest.