3 ms·

Those are topics that could be discussed in a newspaper article without releasing the original documents, which contain all sorts of potentially problematic mat

Those are topics that could be discussed in a newspaper article without releasing the original documents, which contain all sorts of potentially problematic material. Here's a sample from the report: "In an operation to screen for Hizballah members traveling from Venezuela, the Mexican Center for Investigation and National Security (CISEN) planned to take into secondary screening Venezuelan passport holders without a mastery of Spanish." Casually disclosing what airport security officials know about the travel patterns of terrorist groups, and how they intend to watch for those groups is very troubling.

spacefight 12y ago
Troubling? Why? The docs are multiple years old.
furyg3 12y ago
Screening for people who do not have mastery of the primary language of their nationality seems like something so obvious that leaking it is of little consequence.
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  It identifies Hezbollah operatives as using a specific country's passport (Venezuela) to travel to a third country (Mexico). It also says that Mexican security officials are on the lookout for Hezbollah operatives. Maybe these are obvious facts. I'm not sure that people on the Internet are in a position to assess that.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    If you don't think we're in a position to assess that, why did you start the discussion? This sure looks like you presented your amateur assessment, the when presented with disagreement you threw up your hands, did a 180, and declared it off limits.
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      Because of the precautionary principle. It's plausible that releasing information about what airport security knows about the movement of members of terrorist groups could cause significant problems in detecting members of these groups. Given that risk, the burden should be on Wikileaks to demonstrate that releasing this information will not cause harm before they release it.
      - mikeash 12y ago
        It's also plausible that not releasing this information could cause problems, so the burden should be on the CIA to demonstrate that the info must be kept secret. How do you choose between your statement and mine?
        GabrielF00 12y ago
        Is it plausible that someone could be harmed by releasing the information (as opposed to not releasing it)? I don't see anything in this specific document where I could plausibly say that the public could be harmed if the information was NOT publicly available. I can see instances where its plausible that the public could be harmed if the information WAS available. It's also worth considering that there is a legal process for determining what should or should not be classified and that there is oversight of this process by elected officials. It's a flawed process, but there is accountability and oversight. Who is Julian Assange accountable to? He seems to make decisions on an ad hoc basis and then disassociates himself with people who question him.
        amirmc 12y ago
        You can only make an amateur assessment because you can actually see the document. If this had not been released, you only have the word of the gov/three-letter-agency/etc that it really really does need to be secret. Since we've seen members of this group repeatedly caught lying (even to their overseers) how much can we trust the system? This isn't an argument for leaks but I'm trying to point out that the system doesn't work as advertised.

spacefight 12y ago

Troubling? Why? The docs are multiple years old.

furyg3 12y ago

Screening for people who do not have mastery of the primary language of their nationality seems like something so obvious that leaking it is of little consequence.

GabrielF00 12y ago
It identifies Hezbollah operatives as using a specific country's passport (Venezuela) to travel to a third country (Mexico). It also says that Mexican security officials are on the lookout for Hezbollah operatives. Maybe these are obvious facts. I'm not sure that people on the Internet are in a position to assess that.
- mikeash 12y ago
  If you don't think we're in a position to assess that, why did you start the discussion? This sure looks like you presented your amateur assessment, the when presented with disagreement you threw up your hands, did a 180, and declared it off limits.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    Because of the precautionary principle. It's plausible that releasing information about what airport security knows about the movement of members of terrorist groups could cause significant problems in detecting members of these groups. Given that risk, the burden should be on Wikileaks to demonstrate that releasing this information will not cause harm before they release it.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      It's also plausible that not releasing this information could cause problems, so the burden should be on the CIA to demonstrate that the info must be kept secret. How do you choose between your statement and mine?
      - GabrielF00 12y ago
        Is it plausible that someone could be harmed by releasing the information (as opposed to not releasing it)? I don't see anything in this specific document where I could plausibly say that the public could be harmed if the information was NOT publicly available. I can see instances where its plausible that the public could be harmed if the information WAS available. It's also worth considering that there is a legal process for determining what should or should not be classified and that there is oversight of this process by elected officials. It's a flawed process, but there is accountability and oversight. Who is Julian Assange accountable to? He seems to make decisions on an ad hoc basis and then disassociates himself with people who question him.
        amirmc 12y ago
        You can only make an amateur assessment because you can actually see the document. If this had not been released, you only have the word of the gov/three-letter-agency/etc that it really really does need to be secret. Since we've seen members of this group repeatedly caught lying (even to their overseers) how much can we trust the system? This isn't an argument for leaks but I'm trying to point out that the system doesn't work as advertised.