3 ms·

Because of the precautionary principle. It's plausible that releasing information about what airport security knows about the movement of members of terrorist g

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.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    And again you seem to be taking the implicit stance that you're in a position to assess these documents, but people arguing against your position aren't. I just want a little consistency. Are we able to discuss these, or not? If not, why are you doing 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.
- mikeash 12y ago
  And again you seem to be taking the implicit stance that you're in a position to assess these documents, but people arguing against your position aren't. I just want a little consistency. Are we able to discuss these, or not? If not, why are you doing it?