5 ms·

I just did the exercise of substitution in your post, Iran for the Rhineland, and the USA for Nazi Germany. That gives: -Mein Furher! We can't possibly remilit

by ucee054 14y ago

I just did the exercise of substitution in your post, Iran for the Rhineland, and the USA for Nazi Germany. That gives: -Mein Furher! We can't possibly remilitarize the Rhineland! =Why not? -Those Wikileaks schweinehunds have revealed our contingency plans! I wish we had Wikileaks in 1936. It would have made Hitler's career much shorter.

philwelch 14y ago
Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer. Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb. The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.
- foobarqux 14y ago
  Wikileaks doesn't just publish something because it is a secret. "Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance." Most of your examples clearly don't meet that criteria and it would be a stretch for any of them.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential. Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".
    - foobarqux 14y ago
      The cables were selectively published until the point that the encryption keys were disclosed. There was a front page story every week at least for several weeks. Locations of radar installations have no political significance in themselves. Obviously where exactly the line should be drawn is up for debate but I see no one claiming the line is where you say they are claiming it is.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  That's all predicated on there being a whistleblower that leaks that particular data. It's a stretch to assume that all information would be leaked all the time. That doesn't seem to be born out by the evidence to date.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      > Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. I don't believe that is true. Every secret under the sun could be leaked tomorrow morning. The fact that that isn't the case is not because of ability but because people tend to self-select into job slots where they are dealing with things that they support. The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks. So the best way to avoid leaks is to operate within parameter that will guarantee that you have extremely wide support amongst the people that you are working with. Stay away from killing innocents, don't break in to your political opponents offices and so on. Leaks are infrequent for a good reason: most people believe in the causes they work for. Leaks by themselves are symptomatic of problems in an organization. > People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that. > Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people. But there are almost no documented cases where that that did not work out well for anybody. You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad. Ok, from Nixons point of view Watergate was bad, so it's relative to the viewpoint of the persons involved but if we look at the 'greater good' then the whistleblowers find themselves on that side much more often than not.
- ucee054 14y ago
  You have your facts wrong. Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler. Unlike the case of the Soviet Union, which the Manhattan scientists did think it was whistleblowing, and did leak the nuclear bomb secrets, Wikileaks or no. Also unlike the case of the German military, which was riddled with anti-Hitler resistance who leaked what they could to the Allies, again Wikileaks or no. So if Wikileaks existed in 1940, it would have made easier the life of Schulze-Boysen acting against Hitler, not Bomber Harris acting against Churchill. Example references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris The French Resistance was useless. Besides, traitors amongst them could easily have dropped off an anonymous tip to the Gestapo or even turned double agent. Wikileaks would have been a lot less decisive in this case. Finally, the Germans already had lots of evidence about their enigma code being broken, and about the British radar system. Hitler himself told the generals the attack would come at Normandy. However, the German generals could not bring themselves to believe it. They had too much hubris to believe that their codes had been cracked. And they could not believe that the British would use such shitty old fashioned radar. The German counter measures were designed to work against good radars such as their own, and no one had thought of building counter measures against the British crap. This gave British airpower the advantage. Sadly I don't have references on me for these, but I do have a reference for the Normandy landings. The German generals refused to believe Hitler because landing at Normandy would be insanely expensive in Allied blood. Only a complete idiot would decide to land at Normandy. The fact that Hitler told the generals is made a point of in Shirer's book: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/14516... So World War 2 is a really lousy example for you to use. Besides, to protect against this sort of thing, Wikileaks have a disclosure policy. For example, when they released the diplomatic cables, they tried to go through the newspapers first: anything the newspapers redacted, they redacted too. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure" and later stated "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest." References: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8067907/Pentagon-says-Wikileaks-did-not-compromise-sources.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks So frankly, Wikileaks are mitigating your fictitious Hitler-in-1940 scenario anyway. And I trust them way more than I trust the politicians telling me what I don't need to know.

by ucee054 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer. Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb. The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.

foobarqux 14y ago
Wikileaks doesn't just publish something because it is a secret. "Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or historical significance." Most of your examples clearly don't meet that criteria and it would be a stretch for any of them.
- philwelch 14y ago
  That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential. Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".
  - foobarqux 14y ago
    The cables were selectively published until the point that the encryption keys were disclosed. There was a front page story every week at least for several weeks. Locations of radar installations have no political significance in themselves. Obviously where exactly the line should be drawn is up for debate but I see no one claiming the line is where you say they are claiming it is.
jacquesm 14y ago
That's all predicated on there being a whistleblower that leaks that particular data. It's a stretch to assume that all information would be leaked all the time. That doesn't seem to be born out by the evidence to date.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. I don't believe that is true. Every secret under the sun could be leaked tomorrow morning. The fact that that isn't the case is not because of ability but because people tend to self-select into job slots where they are dealing with things that they support. The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks. So the best way to avoid leaks is to operate within parameter that will guarantee that you have extremely wide support amongst the people that you are working with. Stay away from killing innocents, don't break in to your political opponents offices and so on. Leaks are infrequent for a good reason: most people believe in the causes they work for. Leaks by themselves are symptomatic of problems in an organization. > People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that. > Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people. But there are almost no documented cases where that that did not work out well for anybody. You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad. Ok, from Nixons point of view Watergate was bad, so it's relative to the viewpoint of the persons involved but if we look at the 'greater good' then the whistleblowers find themselves on that side much more often than not.
ucee054 14y ago
You have your facts wrong. Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler. Unlike the case of the Soviet Union, which the Manhattan scientists did think it was whistleblowing, and did leak the nuclear bomb secrets, Wikileaks or no. Also unlike the case of the German military, which was riddled with anti-Hitler resistance who leaked what they could to the Allies, again Wikileaks or no. So if Wikileaks existed in 1940, it would have made easier the life of Schulze-Boysen acting against Hitler, not Bomber Harris acting against Churchill. Example references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris The French Resistance was useless. Besides, traitors amongst them could easily have dropped off an anonymous tip to the Gestapo or even turned double agent. Wikileaks would have been a lot less decisive in this case. Finally, the Germans already had lots of evidence about their enigma code being broken, and about the British radar system. Hitler himself told the generals the attack would come at Normandy. However, the German generals could not bring themselves to believe it. They had too much hubris to believe that their codes had been cracked. And they could not believe that the British would use such shitty old fashioned radar. The German counter measures were designed to work against good radars such as their own, and no one had thought of building counter measures against the British crap. This gave British airpower the advantage. Sadly I don't have references on me for these, but I do have a reference for the Normandy landings. The German generals refused to believe Hitler because landing at Normandy would be insanely expensive in Allied blood. Only a complete idiot would decide to land at Normandy. The fact that Hitler told the generals is made a point of in Shirer's book: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/1451651686 http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Third-Reich-History/dp/14516... So World War 2 is a really lousy example for you to use. Besides, to protect against this sort of thing, Wikileaks have a disclosure policy. For example, when they released the diplomatic cables, they tried to go through the newspapers first: anything the newspapers redacted, they redacted too. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure" and later stated "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest." References: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8067907/Pentagon-says-Wikileaks-did-not-compromise-sources.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks So frankly, Wikileaks are mitigating your fictitious Hitler-in-1940 scenario anyway. And I trust them way more than I trust the politicians telling me what I don't need to know.