5 ms·

I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. At least leaks related to violations of human rights and international law have legs to stand

by poet 16y ago

I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. At least leaks related to violations of human rights and international law have legs to stand on.

civilian 16y ago
The real leaked material is that the US embassy have the opinion/analysis that X factories & mines are vital to the U.S. I think that a small team of economists could have figured out what plants are vital to national security. It's not like this data is secret- it's just the embassy's thoughts that are secret. (So... thank god Jihadists don't know economics! Let's hope Julian doesn't leak any textbooks.)
- natrius 16y ago
  I agree that the data isn't particularly secret, but I also agree that there doesn't seem to be any possible public good served by leaking this information.
  - gasull 16y ago
    We learn what our Government is spending our money on.
    - natrius 16y ago
      Are you talking about the money spent compiling the lists or the money spent on the things in the list? The former is trivial, and the latter isn't actually provided by the list. It isn't limited to U.S. assets. The only information this list provides is what the list says it provides: facilities that are vital to U.S. security. I can't think of a beneficial use of this data, but I can think of plenty of harmful uses. The list isn't hard to figure out, so I don't think its release is a huge loss, but there is no gain, so I can only wish that it were never leaked.
  - civilian 16y ago
    This leak Does serve the public good, if the public surrounding these vital targets learn that these locations are vital. Instead of being ignorant bystanders who think it's "just a factory"; they'll know that it is a Vital factory, and that suspicious activity around it should be reported. Whenever I'm in a train station I hear about how important I am, as a civilian, to security and that I should report suspicious bags. Couldn't the government take that attitude to the next level?
    - natrius 16y ago
      You're assuming that the benefit from the public knowing about the facilities is greater than the detriment. That isn't necessarily the case, and it's unlikely to be the case in my opinion. The train station analogy is flawed. Train stations are targets because they're train stations. Security through obscurity isn't possible. If this leak is somehow beneficial, how would you feel about a leak of the identities of all covert agents? The public would know who they're paying to do certain kinds of work, but I'm sure we can agree that it would have a negative effect overall. I think this situation is similar, although the information is easier to deduce.
    - krschultz 16y ago
      I think you have made the only solid argument backing the leak of this specific document that I've seen, so thank you for that. I do agree that can be helpful. I just wonder how many things that weren't targets yesterday are now targets today. I live near a nuclear powerplant, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a target because it is just one of hundreds, why target this one? I'm sure there is security on it, but I don't worry about it much. But what if it was on the list and it said that it was critical for the distribution of power in the whole northeast region because there is a flaw in the power distribution system. Now this relatively obscure nuclear plant is high on the list of targets and its security has to be increased a lot. The same goes for chemical plants, oil refineries, etc. Can you tell me which one of the hundreds of DuPont factories manufactures chemicals for weapon systems and which ones manufactur nylon for disposable table clothes? Probably not before this leak, but I bet you can guess it now. I don't see why that is helpful to anybody. I would have been suspicious of people snooping around any chemical factory, but now all of a sudden the terrorists can hit the most valuable one. To me, that is pretty lame.
- tibbon 16y ago
  I know HN isn't the place for jokes but- this just popped into my head due to your textbooks comment What if Wikileaks leaked the text of all the bills from congress to the press from the past year? If senators and the press actually read them fully, it would be the first time any of them had actually read the full contents!
  - civilian 16y ago
    :) "Read the Bills Act" http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws #offtopic
- waterlesscloud 16y ago
  It's a fascinating list for that reason. What's listed, and why, and what isn't, and why. Lots to think through (though certainly not to share on a public forum). It's an extremely interesting way to look at the world.
- tzs 16y ago
  Some are obvious--oil production facilities are important, so your hypothetical team of economists would have no trouble there. But how about the insulin manufacturer in Denmark or the rabies vaccine manufacturer in France? I wouldn't be surprised if those are raising eyebrows, with people thinking "it would never even have occurred to us that there may be a problem with the insulin supply!".
tibbon 16y ago
I don't think any of this information was terribly secret though. I think any other nation's government that wanted this and had any intelligence service would be able to figure them out too. We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Without those things are we really unsafe, or is the simple perception of safety gone (but no one is actually harmed).
- endtime 16y ago
  The US isn't really under threat from governments so much as distributed guerrilla/terrorist organizations which might benefit materially from this intel.
  - danilocampos 16y ago
    Any government with change in its couch cushions can buy the services of such organizations, either directly, or through proxies. Any government with the cash to directly train and fund even a mediocre group of operatives can do plenty more. Anyone with an axe to grind against the US can find something of value with a map indicating every testicle kick site on earth, I'd think.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  It's worth pointing out that while this may not have been truly secret, the work of pulling together this intelligence would have been significant for anyone seeking to act against US interests. It's one thing to take a guess at what might be valuable. It's quite another to, right from the horse's mouth, have a definite listing of everything that is valuable. Let's use a familiar comparison: MVC is hardly a secret design pattern. Still, it's a lot cheaper for me to get crackin' with Rails today than it would have been for me to roll my own MVC code ten years ago. That's a lot of legwork out of the way. In the same way, Wikileaks has democratized intelligence gathering, at least with regard to these targets. This multiplier could be significant, in that it lowers barriers to entry for coordinating attacks. I don't have a dog in this hunt – I don't side with Wikileaks but I'm also realistic enough to grasp that this is a post-secrecy world we're entering. Foreign policy, national security and government are going to have to learn, very quickly, how to exist here.
okaramian 16y ago
I would say that leaks like: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-ab... http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/01/john-perry/yes-it-was-a-coup/ http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/01/john-perry/yes-it-was-a... Are positive things. The only reason those are getting less coverage than the leak in the OP is to delegitimize the leaks that have occurred and sweep the violations of day to day governance under the rug.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > The only reason those are getting less coverage than the leak in the OP is to delegitimize the leaks that have occurred and sweep the violations of day to day governance under the rug. Wikileaks clearly makes it's most dangerous, least-helpful, almost indefensible leak, and your argument is that the media are covering it as a favor to the U.S. government? Think this through a little. The world media all works for the U.S. governmment? No. The reason they're covering this is because it's the most dangerous, least potentially good thing Wikileaks has done. Inventing some media conspiracy that it's all a smear? C'mon, man, think a little more. Regardless of what team you're on, this one is clearly, indefensibly bad. What rationale on Earth could you have for releasing a list of places the U.S. government would feel destabalize the world if they're destroyed? Terrorists - real terrorists that really do exist - are going over those lists right now as we speak. Edit: I get downvoted for saying that an international press conspiracy is an absurd idea? Really?
  - okaramian 16y ago
    It is to every established power's advantage to make leaking government information seem dangerous and wrong because states in general do bad things and would prefer to not be held accountable for their actions. Yeah, good and bad things get leaked. That's what happens when governments use their secrecy to cover up some pretty dirty stuff that's happened. I feel accountability is more important than safety from some shadow threat that will always exist. Also, those terrorists that are (supposedly) going to use this intelligence to do bad things, they probably wouldn't exist if states weren't busy terrorizing civilians.
dejb 16y ago
> I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. Some possible ways it could be useful are - Stop the reliance on 'security by obscurity' - Motivate cooperation on how to secure these facilities or decentralize their function where possible. - Inform public discussion on these issues which may possibly lead to new ideas / solutions I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a net benefit but it certainly is possible.

by poet 16y ago

I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. At least leaks related to violations of human rights and international law have legs to stand on.

civilian 16y ago

The real leaked material is that the US embassy have the opinion/analysis that X factories & mines are vital to the U.S. I think that a small team of economists could have figured out what plants are vital to national security. It's not like this data is secret- it's just the embassy's thoughts that are secret. (So... thank god Jihadists don't know economics! Let's hope Julian doesn't leak any textbooks.)

natrius 16y ago
I agree that the data isn't particularly secret, but I also agree that there doesn't seem to be any possible public good served by leaking this information.
- gasull 16y ago
  We learn what our Government is spending our money on.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Are you talking about the money spent compiling the lists or the money spent on the things in the list? The former is trivial, and the latter isn't actually provided by the list. It isn't limited to U.S. assets. The only information this list provides is what the list says it provides: facilities that are vital to U.S. security. I can't think of a beneficial use of this data, but I can think of plenty of harmful uses. The list isn't hard to figure out, so I don't think its release is a huge loss, but there is no gain, so I can only wish that it were never leaked.
- civilian 16y ago
  This leak Does serve the public good, if the public surrounding these vital targets learn that these locations are vital. Instead of being ignorant bystanders who think it's "just a factory"; they'll know that it is a Vital factory, and that suspicious activity around it should be reported. Whenever I'm in a train station I hear about how important I am, as a civilian, to security and that I should report suspicious bags. Couldn't the government take that attitude to the next level?
  - natrius 16y ago
    You're assuming that the benefit from the public knowing about the facilities is greater than the detriment. That isn't necessarily the case, and it's unlikely to be the case in my opinion. The train station analogy is flawed. Train stations are targets because they're train stations. Security through obscurity isn't possible. If this leak is somehow beneficial, how would you feel about a leak of the identities of all covert agents? The public would know who they're paying to do certain kinds of work, but I'm sure we can agree that it would have a negative effect overall. I think this situation is similar, although the information is easier to deduce.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    I think you have made the only solid argument backing the leak of this specific document that I've seen, so thank you for that. I do agree that can be helpful. I just wonder how many things that weren't targets yesterday are now targets today. I live near a nuclear powerplant, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a target because it is just one of hundreds, why target this one? I'm sure there is security on it, but I don't worry about it much. But what if it was on the list and it said that it was critical for the distribution of power in the whole northeast region because there is a flaw in the power distribution system. Now this relatively obscure nuclear plant is high on the list of targets and its security has to be increased a lot. The same goes for chemical plants, oil refineries, etc. Can you tell me which one of the hundreds of DuPont factories manufactures chemicals for weapon systems and which ones manufactur nylon for disposable table clothes? Probably not before this leak, but I bet you can guess it now. I don't see why that is helpful to anybody. I would have been suspicious of people snooping around any chemical factory, but now all of a sudden the terrorists can hit the most valuable one. To me, that is pretty lame.
tibbon 16y ago
I know HN isn't the place for jokes but- this just popped into my head due to your textbooks comment What if Wikileaks leaked the text of all the bills from congress to the press from the past year? If senators and the press actually read them fully, it would be the first time any of them had actually read the full contents!
- civilian 16y ago
  :) "Read the Bills Act" http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws #offtopic
waterlesscloud 16y ago
It's a fascinating list for that reason. What's listed, and why, and what isn't, and why. Lots to think through (though certainly not to share on a public forum). It's an extremely interesting way to look at the world.
tzs 16y ago
Some are obvious--oil production facilities are important, so your hypothetical team of economists would have no trouble there. But how about the insulin manufacturer in Denmark or the rabies vaccine manufacturer in France? I wouldn't be surprised if those are raising eyebrows, with people thinking "it would never even have occurred to us that there may be a problem with the insulin supply!".

tibbon 16y ago

I don't think any of this information was terribly secret though. I think any other nation's government that wanted this and had any intelligence service would be able to figure them out too. We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Without those things are we really unsafe, or is the simple perception of safety gone (but no one is actually harmed).

endtime 16y ago
The US isn't really under threat from governments so much as distributed guerrilla/terrorist organizations which might benefit materially from this intel.
- danilocampos 16y ago
  Any government with change in its couch cushions can buy the services of such organizations, either directly, or through proxies. Any government with the cash to directly train and fund even a mediocre group of operatives can do plenty more. Anyone with an axe to grind against the US can find something of value with a map indicating every testicle kick site on earth, I'd think.
danilocampos 16y ago
It's worth pointing out that while this may not have been truly secret, the work of pulling together this intelligence would have been significant for anyone seeking to act against US interests. It's one thing to take a guess at what might be valuable. It's quite another to, right from the horse's mouth, have a definite listing of everything that is valuable. Let's use a familiar comparison: MVC is hardly a secret design pattern. Still, it's a lot cheaper for me to get crackin' with Rails today than it would have been for me to roll my own MVC code ten years ago. That's a lot of legwork out of the way. In the same way, Wikileaks has democratized intelligence gathering, at least with regard to these targets. This multiplier could be significant, in that it lowers barriers to entry for coordinating attacks. I don't have a dog in this hunt – I don't side with Wikileaks but I'm also realistic enough to grasp that this is a post-secrecy world we're entering. Foreign policy, national security and government are going to have to learn, very quickly, how to exist here.

okaramian 16y ago

I would say that leaks like: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-ab... http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836 http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/01/john-perry/yes-it-was-a-coup/ http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/01/john-perry/yes-it-was-a... Are positive things. The only reason those are getting less coverage than the leak in the OP is to delegitimize the leaks that have occurred and sweep the violations of day to day governance under the rug.

lionhearted 16y ago
> The only reason those are getting less coverage than the leak in the OP is to delegitimize the leaks that have occurred and sweep the violations of day to day governance under the rug. Wikileaks clearly makes it's most dangerous, least-helpful, almost indefensible leak, and your argument is that the media are covering it as a favor to the U.S. government? Think this through a little. The world media all works for the U.S. governmment? No. The reason they're covering this is because it's the most dangerous, least potentially good thing Wikileaks has done. Inventing some media conspiracy that it's all a smear? C'mon, man, think a little more. Regardless of what team you're on, this one is clearly, indefensibly bad. What rationale on Earth could you have for releasing a list of places the U.S. government would feel destabalize the world if they're destroyed? Terrorists - real terrorists that really do exist - are going over those lists right now as we speak. Edit: I get downvoted for saying that an international press conspiracy is an absurd idea? Really?
- okaramian 16y ago
  It is to every established power's advantage to make leaking government information seem dangerous and wrong because states in general do bad things and would prefer to not be held accountable for their actions. Yeah, good and bad things get leaked. That's what happens when governments use their secrecy to cover up some pretty dirty stuff that's happened. I feel accountability is more important than safety from some shadow threat that will always exist. Also, those terrorists that are (supposedly) going to use this intelligence to do bad things, they probably wouldn't exist if states weren't busy terrorizing civilians.

dejb 16y ago

> I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. Some possible ways it could be useful are - Stop the reliance on 'security by obscurity' - Motivate cooperation on how to secure these facilities or decentralize their function where possible. - Inform public discussion on these issues which may possibly lead to new ideas / solutions I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a net benefit but it certainly is possible.