7 ms·

I think Assange's interview at TED was a much more concrete discussion of Wikileaks and its role in politics -- there were real examples in the interview: http

I think Assange's interview at TED was a much more concrete discussion of Wikileaks and its role in politics -- there were real examples in the interview: http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_... I feel like Maher hinted at a lot of different things, but never actually went in-depth. The discussion was very vague. I would have loved to learn about more cases where Wikileaks was able to provide information that was able to influence a government's actions.

pacomerh 14y ago
My guess is that they probably didn't go that deep because of the network not wanting to get too controversial for the sake of the viewers? idk, something around that area pobably, otherwise Maher would have asked all kinds of things, I mean he's that kind of person.
mikevm 14y ago
I feel that Assange dodged a few very serious questions posed by Maher. What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?
- Kim_Bruning 14y ago
  I have a feeling that if you leak-analyze-report (aka, do solid journalism) early and often, that on balance more conflicts are prevented than are caused.
- dlss 14y ago
  I think this is a wrong question. The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. From this sort of logic you can make the case that Google shouldn't support all possible queries -- what if some of the people using Google use the results to cause harm? This is a wrong way of looking at things because although some of the help Google provides people will cause the world to be a worse place, the vast majority of its effects are positive... for every person who looks up movie showtimes so they can go shoot people hundreds of millions of people are using google to have a fun family afternoon. Just because a tool can be used poorly doesn't mean it is wrong that it exists. WikiLeaks is a tool for whistle blowers. It's a tool for people with access to information they feel a moral obligation to share with the world. It's designed to let them do that without throwing their life away in the process. Some of these whistle blowers will be doing things you or I disagree with, some will be doing things we do agree with. That, in balance, this is a good tool to have exist seems straightforward to me. As for conflict vs non-conflict, I think that conflict often is the first step toward long term improvement. If your government has been lying to you about why it's doing what it's doing, telling everyone the truth is virtually guaranteed to create conflict. Conflict of this sort is good. Look at the huge escalation of conflict in the middle east brought about by the cable leaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring is the least biased link I can find, and a reasonable place to start). I completely agree that there are a lot of bad outcomes from these conflicts so far (60,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, etc)... I'm just optimistic that we'll get some real governmental reforms in the long run (either from successful revolutions, or from other dictators being wary of betraying their people).
  - mikevm 14y ago
    I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published. I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out. Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.
      - gaius 14y ago
        We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
        betterunix 14y ago
        First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- foobarqux 14y ago
  A newspaper has the same problem. What is the difference?
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    We know newspapers have made the decision - every so often, they delay reporting on sensitive matters. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing.
    - foobarqux 14y ago
      Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. One would think that everything reported by Wikileaks is a "sensitive matter". If a report reveals the corruption and war crimes of a dictator that spurs a revolution where life is lost is that a "sensitive matter" whose reporting should be delayed? It seems "sensitive matter" is a euphemism for something that harms the interests of the US/UK.
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        > Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. Not always. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikil...
        foobarqux 14y ago
        I don't know what specifically what releases the article is referring to do but I assume it is those caused by John Ball (a Guardian newspaper liaison) when he knowingly released the encryption keys for the insurance file. Please correct me if I am wrong. That said there is always a risk in news reporting that you put someone in harm's way. The goal is to minimize that risk while still being able to report the news.
    - freshhawk 14y ago
      Did you watch the video? They address this exact question. It's right at the beginning of their about page as well (http://wikileaks.org/About.html http://wikileaks.org/About.html). So yes, I agree with you completely. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing. So we can both be happy that they are willing, have always been willing, and do say that they will do the same thing. In fact they go even further in stating that they do not do this for political reasons.
- betterunix 14y ago
  "What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?" First of all, keep in mind that Wikileaks itself does not leak anything, they just publish information leaked by others. That being said, there is already a case of Wikileaks publishing information that escalated a conflict: the Arab Spring. Wikileaks was not the sole cause of those revolutions or protests, but the material published by Wikileaks did contribute to the anger that drove people into the streets. It is likely that over the next few decades, there will be continued conflict stemming from the Arab Spring, and that a large number of people will die or be driven from their homes as a result. Of course, Wikileaks is not the first organization to publish information that caused or escalated a conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_telegram#Effect_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_telegram#Effect_in_t...
  - analog 14y ago
    You see the Arab Spring as a bad thing?
    - betterunix 14y ago
      No, and that is precisely the point: the question is meant to suggest that if the result of publishing documents is an escalation in a conflict, it must be that publishing the documents was bad. Most people in America seem to agree that the Arab Spring was a good thing; I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate.
      - illuminate 14y ago
        "I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate." The other assumption also requires that the former stability is not predicated on existing harm.

pacomerh 14y ago

My guess is that they probably didn't go that deep because of the network not wanting to get too controversial for the sake of the viewers? idk, something around that area pobably, otherwise Maher would have asked all kinds of things, I mean he's that kind of person.

mikevm 14y ago

I feel that Assange dodged a few very serious questions posed by Maher. What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?

Kim_Bruning 14y ago
I have a feeling that if you leak-analyze-report (aka, do solid journalism) early and often, that on balance more conflicts are prevented than are caused.
dlss 14y ago
I think this is a wrong question. The premise is that by picking and choosing which stories to cover you can make the world better for your world view. From this sort of logic you can make the case that Google shouldn't support all possible queries -- what if some of the people using Google use the results to cause harm? This is a wrong way of looking at things because although some of the help Google provides people will cause the world to be a worse place, the vast majority of its effects are positive... for every person who looks up movie showtimes so they can go shoot people hundreds of millions of people are using google to have a fun family afternoon. Just because a tool can be used poorly doesn't mean it is wrong that it exists. WikiLeaks is a tool for whistle blowers. It's a tool for people with access to information they feel a moral obligation to share with the world. It's designed to let them do that without throwing their life away in the process. Some of these whistle blowers will be doing things you or I disagree with, some will be doing things we do agree with. That, in balance, this is a good tool to have exist seems straightforward to me. As for conflict vs non-conflict, I think that conflict often is the first step toward long term improvement. If your government has been lying to you about why it's doing what it's doing, telling everyone the truth is virtually guaranteed to create conflict. Conflict of this sort is good. Look at the huge escalation of conflict in the middle east brought about by the cable leaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring is the least biased link I can find, and a reasonable place to start). I completely agree that there are a lot of bad outcomes from these conflicts so far (60,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, etc)... I'm just optimistic that we'll get some real governmental reforms in the long run (either from successful revolutions, or from other dictators being wary of betraying their people).
- mikevm 14y ago
  I'm not sure whether the analogy to Google applies here, as leaks are private information, not to be shared with third parties and Google search queries merely search what is already published. I was alluding to Bill Maher's example of the Cold War stand-off between the US and Russia. I thought it was a proper example where leaking something out could've caused WW3. But you are right in a sense that this is a hypothetical and we're not really sure how things would really turn out. Btw, here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't: http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=259954
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "here's an interesting leak that if it was not released, then Israel and US forces might've had some advantage over the Iranians (in case of a war), but now they probably don't:" We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. If that is really the worst leak you can find, I think we are pretty safe in a world with Wikileaks.
    - gaius 14y ago
      We don't have a military advantage of Iran? Really? I am not sure if you've noticed, but the US and Israel have some of the most advanced militaries in the world. If the US were at war with Iran, the Iranians would need the help of some other powerful nation to have anything that even resembles a chance of winning. Hate to break it to you, but technology isn't everything. Just ask the Taliban.
      - betterunix 14y ago
        First of all, the leak I was talking about was about technology, supposedly robbing Israel and the US of a particular technical advantage over the Iranian military. If technology is not everything, then the importance of that leak was greatly overstated; if technology matters, the importance of the leak is still greatly overstated. That being said, while it is true that coordination, tactics, and strategy can outweigh technical advantages, better technology confers a tactical advantage to an army. The greater the difference in two armies technologies, the more pronounced the tactical advantage is. The Taliban did not see anything resembling a victory when the US attacked Afghanistan; they survive now by hiding in caves, and their overall strategy is based on intimidating civilians. If you want to point to a case where superior technology did not result in victory, you should have pointed to Nazi Germany. There can be little question that the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine had better technology than the Allies, but ultimately Germany lost. I do not think Iran is really in the same position as the Allies were in...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
foobarqux 14y ago
A newspaper has the same problem. What is the difference?
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  We know newspapers have made the decision - every so often, they delay reporting on sensitive matters. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing.
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. One would think that everything reported by Wikileaks is a "sensitive matter". If a report reveals the corruption and war crimes of a dictator that spurs a revolution where life is lost is that a "sensitive matter" whose reporting should be delayed? It seems "sensitive matter" is a euphemism for something that harms the interests of the US/UK.
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      > Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. Not always. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikil...
      - foobarqux 14y ago
        I don't know what specifically what releases the article is referring to do but I assume it is those caused by John Ball (a Guardian newspaper liaison) when he knowingly released the encryption keys for the insurance file. Please correct me if I am wrong. That said there is always a risk in news reporting that you put someone in harm's way. The goal is to minimize that risk while still being able to report the news.
  - freshhawk 14y ago
    Did you watch the video? They address this exact question. It's right at the beginning of their about page as well (http://wikileaks.org/About.html http://wikileaks.org/About.html). So yes, I agree with you completely. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing. So we can both be happy that they are willing, have always been willing, and do say that they will do the same thing. In fact they go even further in stating that they do not do this for political reasons.
betterunix 14y ago
"What if Wikileaks does leak out documents that could escalate a conflict?" First of all, keep in mind that Wikileaks itself does not leak anything, they just publish information leaked by others. That being said, there is already a case of Wikileaks publishing information that escalated a conflict: the Arab Spring. Wikileaks was not the sole cause of those revolutions or protests, but the material published by Wikileaks did contribute to the anger that drove people into the streets. It is likely that over the next few decades, there will be continued conflict stemming from the Arab Spring, and that a large number of people will die or be driven from their homes as a result. Of course, Wikileaks is not the first organization to publish information that caused or escalated a conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_telegram#Effect_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmerman_telegram#Effect_in_t...
- analog 14y ago
  You see the Arab Spring as a bad thing?
  - betterunix 14y ago
    No, and that is precisely the point: the question is meant to suggest that if the result of publishing documents is an escalation in a conflict, it must be that publishing the documents was bad. Most people in America seem to agree that the Arab Spring was a good thing; I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate.
    - illuminate 14y ago
      "I think it is therefore safe to conclude that it is not always bad to reveal information that causes a conflict to escalate." The other assumption also requires that the former stability is not predicated on existing harm.