4 ms·

"it's too hard to coordinate all of these efforts." 3 MILLION people have access to the docs Bradley Manning leaked. ONE leaked it. I think you're overstating

"it's too hard to coordinate all of these efforts." 3 MILLION people have access to the docs Bradley Manning leaked. ONE leaked it. I think you're overstating the difficulty of coordinating activities.

lftl 16y ago
The documents Manning leaked weren't really conspiracies. Nothing that I've seen so far is illegal, and most of it isn't even interesting. 3 million people didn't leak it because there was no compelling reason to leak them.
- forwardslash 16y ago
  There was the revelation that the US and China worked together, or one might say conspired, to derail the Copenhagen Climate talks: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.h...
  - lftl 16y ago
    I'll say that I dislike this, but I don't see anything illegal, or even unusual about this. This is absolutely politics as usual, and goes on every day in every country across the world. Every country lies to further their current interests.
    - forwardslash 16y ago
      I was more pointing my comment towards the notion that there was no conspiracy revealed. I do agree that everything thus far revealed by the cables hasn't been illegal in-and-of-itself nor is it all that surprising to those who have a non-romantic view of international diplomacy. It is an unfortunate truth that lying is a natural state of politics.
    - cscheid 16y ago
      Not every conspiracy is illegal or unusual. They're still _wrong_, especially when perpetrated by governments against their people's will.
      - smallblacksun 16y ago
        If it isn't illegal, it isn't a conspiracy.
  - geden 16y ago
    I read about that particular collusion yesterday and it chilled me to the bone. It's the biggest thing to drop so far.
- larrywright 16y ago
  That's really an excellent point. Wikileaks is scandalous because it was leaked, not because of the content. There are a handful of embarrassing things in there, but that's it. The best analogy I could come up with is if someone leaked all the private Facebook messages from all the students at a high school. Sure, feelings would be hurt, but at the end of the day it's really no big deal.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    There was shocking information in the leaks -- that the government deliberately classified information that would simply make for bad PR and not to save lives or anything else. To argue otherwise is anti-democratic.
    - bmastenbrook 16y ago
      Not really. I was not shocked. Were you shocked? If so, have you gotten all the sand out of your ears yet?
      - grandalf 16y ago
        Well, I suspected it but in my opinion the public in general should be outraged by it. It's also a significant violation of the laws that prohibit the government from propagandizing the American people.
  - crocowhile 16y ago
    Kind of. The cablegate is scandalous because it shows that wikileaks is serious and efficient. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain why virtually every country and major corporation in the world is shitting their pants now and want Assange's head on a silver plate. They figured they may be the next ones.
    - xentronium 16y ago
      I'm not sure how trustworthy the following is, but they say that Medvedev's office unofficially recommends NGO to nominate Assange for a Nobel Peace Prize. My guess it's because the cables regarding Russia are ridiculous beyond any recognition, they don't have ANY hard data and consist mostly of hoax and whatnot, there isn't anything there what you couldn't read in opposition media. Public reaction here is more like: Cable: Russian government is mafia Russian citizen: ha-ha, oh wow
- binaryfinery 16y ago
  "Boy-play" parties (and it aint Legos). They're even illegal in Afghanistan where they happened. Paid for by our tax dollars. And that's just a start. If you haven't seen anything illegal, you might want to open your eyes. While we're at it: here's the legal definition of conspiracy: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm WikiLeaks documents many such conspiracies.
  - lftl 16y ago
    So I looked around for the cable you mention, and as best I can tell, government contractor Dyncorp was involved (I haven't seen a cable that says how exactly) in boy-play parties. The cable details how the Afghanis involved in the party were arrested and put on trial, and asks for help in quashing an article about the event. Is that accurate? I'll admit this is probably the closest item I've seen to passing the test of something that might actually be worth whistle-blowing on. To fully pass the test, I'd need to see something that detailed who from Dyncorp was involved and to what extent. My main complaint with the leaked cables, and the reason I have zero qualms about Manning being court marshaled (or even tried for treason) is that he in no way was discriminant about what he released. A whistle-blower needs clear concise evidence of real wrongdoing. Manning lazily dumped a huge archive of classified information without any real item to point to say this is wrong.
    - binaryfinery 16y ago
      "To fully pass the test, I'd need to see something that detailed who from Dyncorp was involved and to what extent." Yes, thats where the "conspiracy" bit comes in. We know these things are happening. We know they are being funded by Dynocorp which is itself funded 95% by US tax dollars. But who exactly organized it, well, gosh, nobody actually wrote it down. Yet we are to believe that nobody knew. Like, "who could have imagined people would fly planes into buildings?", as our Secretary of State blathered. (Answer: NORAD. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.h...)
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "3 million people didn't leak it because there was no compelling reason to leak them." Or more likely dozens of people leaked them, but they weren't made publicly available until WikiLeaks got them.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Extensive oil corporation involvement in the Nigerian government doesn't pique your interest? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991406 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991406
  - JoachimSchipper 16y ago
    That's not all that new, though.
bryanallen22 16y ago
Consider how many people were part of stuxnet, and no leaks have come out. This seems far more manageable. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-breakthrough http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-breakthrough

lftl 16y ago

The documents Manning leaked weren't really conspiracies. Nothing that I've seen so far is illegal, and most of it isn't even interesting. 3 million people didn't leak it because there was no compelling reason to leak them.

forwardslash 16y ago
There was the revelation that the US and China worked together, or one might say conspired, to derail the Copenhagen Climate talks: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.h...
- lftl 16y ago
  I'll say that I dislike this, but I don't see anything illegal, or even unusual about this. This is absolutely politics as usual, and goes on every day in every country across the world. Every country lies to further their current interests.
  - forwardslash 16y ago
    I was more pointing my comment towards the notion that there was no conspiracy revealed. I do agree that everything thus far revealed by the cables hasn't been illegal in-and-of-itself nor is it all that surprising to those who have a non-romantic view of international diplomacy. It is an unfortunate truth that lying is a natural state of politics.
  - cscheid 16y ago
    Not every conspiracy is illegal or unusual. They're still _wrong_, especially when perpetrated by governments against their people's will.
    - smallblacksun 16y ago
      If it isn't illegal, it isn't a conspiracy.
- geden 16y ago
  I read about that particular collusion yesterday and it chilled me to the bone. It's the biggest thing to drop so far.
larrywright 16y ago
That's really an excellent point. Wikileaks is scandalous because it was leaked, not because of the content. There are a handful of embarrassing things in there, but that's it. The best analogy I could come up with is if someone leaked all the private Facebook messages from all the students at a high school. Sure, feelings would be hurt, but at the end of the day it's really no big deal.
- grandalf 16y ago
  There was shocking information in the leaks -- that the government deliberately classified information that would simply make for bad PR and not to save lives or anything else. To argue otherwise is anti-democratic.
  - bmastenbrook 16y ago
    Not really. I was not shocked. Were you shocked? If so, have you gotten all the sand out of your ears yet?
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Well, I suspected it but in my opinion the public in general should be outraged by it. It's also a significant violation of the laws that prohibit the government from propagandizing the American people.
- crocowhile 16y ago
  Kind of. The cablegate is scandalous because it shows that wikileaks is serious and efficient. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain why virtually every country and major corporation in the world is shitting their pants now and want Assange's head on a silver plate. They figured they may be the next ones.
  - xentronium 16y ago
    I'm not sure how trustworthy the following is, but they say that Medvedev's office unofficially recommends NGO to nominate Assange for a Nobel Peace Prize. My guess it's because the cables regarding Russia are ridiculous beyond any recognition, they don't have ANY hard data and consist mostly of hoax and whatnot, there isn't anything there what you couldn't read in opposition media. Public reaction here is more like: Cable: Russian government is mafia Russian citizen: ha-ha, oh wow
binaryfinery 16y ago
"Boy-play" parties (and it aint Legos). They're even illegal in Afghanistan where they happened. Paid for by our tax dollars. And that's just a start. If you haven't seen anything illegal, you might want to open your eyes. While we're at it: here's the legal definition of conspiracy: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c103.htm WikiLeaks documents many such conspiracies.
- lftl 16y ago
  So I looked around for the cable you mention, and as best I can tell, government contractor Dyncorp was involved (I haven't seen a cable that says how exactly) in boy-play parties. The cable details how the Afghanis involved in the party were arrested and put on trial, and asks for help in quashing an article about the event. Is that accurate? I'll admit this is probably the closest item I've seen to passing the test of something that might actually be worth whistle-blowing on. To fully pass the test, I'd need to see something that detailed who from Dyncorp was involved and to what extent. My main complaint with the leaked cables, and the reason I have zero qualms about Manning being court marshaled (or even tried for treason) is that he in no way was discriminant about what he released. A whistle-blower needs clear concise evidence of real wrongdoing. Manning lazily dumped a huge archive of classified information without any real item to point to say this is wrong.
  - binaryfinery 16y ago
    "To fully pass the test, I'd need to see something that detailed who from Dyncorp was involved and to what extent." Yes, thats where the "conspiracy" bit comes in. We know these things are happening. We know they are being funded by Dynocorp which is itself funded 95% by US tax dollars. But who exactly organized it, well, gosh, nobody actually wrote it down. Yet we are to believe that nobody knew. Like, "who could have imagined people would fly planes into buildings?", as our Secretary of State blathered. (Answer: NORAD. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.h...)
Alex3917 16y ago
"3 million people didn't leak it because there was no compelling reason to leak them." Or more likely dozens of people leaked them, but they weren't made publicly available until WikiLeaks got them.
nitrogen 16y ago
Extensive oil corporation involvement in the Nigerian government doesn't pique your interest? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991406 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1991406
- JoachimSchipper 16y ago
  That's not all that new, though.

bryanallen22 16y ago

Consider how many people were part of stuxnet, and no leaks have come out. This seems far more manageable. http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-breakthrough http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/stuxnet-breakthrough