7 ms·

An individual holds information that is in the public good to be released. Said individual is threatened with significant harm by states if the information is

by kauffj 11y ago

An individual holds information that is in the public good to be released. Said individual is threatened with significant harm by states if the information is released. Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that. Financial compensation shifts the balance to make dangerous humanitarian disclosures more self-interested. It means that more information that should be public becomes public. What's wrong with that?

jpwagner 11y ago
What's wrong with that? In the past, Wikileaks has not been the moral arbiter. If a whistleblower decides that exposing information is in the public interest, that is on them, Wikileaks provides a medium. Here, whether or not information should remain secret, there is an incentive to expose it. Wikileaks has decided what deserves to be public -- it's irrelevant if I, personally, agree with that judgment when I say: this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium.
- evgen 11y ago
  If this is the first thing that has made you question Wikileaks as a trusted medium then you have not been paying attention.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    I have not been paying attention, would you care to enlighten me?
    - tedunangst 11y ago
      After months of talking up the BofA files, "oops, they're all gone."
      - StavrosK 11y ago
        Oh wow. What do people supposed happened?
      - misterbishop 11y ago
        It's open to interpretation whether you want to blame this on "Wikileaks" or question their integrity over it. But it should be acknowledged that Daniel Domscheit-Berg 'stole' 5GB of Bank of America documents from Wikileaks servers as well as their submission system, which he used to launch openleaks. So you can definitely question their internal security, but it should not be presented as an affirmative decision on the part of the organization.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Please give sources for this statement.
- alokdhari 11y ago
  I very much agree with you. It should be up to the person who has the information to decide whether it should be made public or not. Morally speaking, it could cause outage and even war, who knows.. but it should be up to that person to decide. Monetary incentives dilute the idea of moral responsibility and also gives some people an opportunity to shout : "Oh! They did it for the money". What next .. will the information be put on auction !!
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    it's still up to the person though. It's an incentive not an imperative.
    - richmarr 11y ago
      I wouldn't even call it an incentive, it's more the balancing out of a strong negative incentive that already exists. Considering that Wikileaks exists to make conspiracies harder/smaller I think this totally fits with their purpose. The only question being why it applies to this, but not to other leaks.
- liquidise 11y ago
  While i agree that this is unusually activist of wikileaks, i have a hard time arguing this move as worse than the status quo. I would rather see governments be actively transparent than actively secretive. Thought experiment: if governments knew that any decision made had a chance of becoming public, would their behavior shift for the better?
- jarradhope 11y ago
  Well, isn't the bounty is crowdfunded? So it's the public asking for this, via WikiLeaks. The press value of this move puts the issue in the media spotlight which also good for the issue in public favour, WikiLeaks using it's name makes more sense from a media perspective as opposed to "some random assortment of people". Really, the TPP should be public, shouldn't we be questioning the trust of the Governments?
- DSMan195276 11y ago
  I agree with you on pretty much everything. However, I think it's worth noting that Wikileaks isn't actually the one paying $100,000, in that way the title is misleading IMO. What Wikileaks is doing is holding a funding goal of $100,000, with the funding currently around $35,000. So, while it was Wikileaks' idea, ultimately it's the general public (Or, at-least, a few people who would like this to be leaked) who are offering this money as a bounty. So I wouldn't consider it exactly the same as Wikileaks just flat-out offering $100,000 - This bounty won't happen unless there are a decent amount of people which support this decision and fund it. It still does change the dynamic like you've said though.
  - vinceguidry 11y ago
    Organizing and coordinating a fundraising goal isn't all that different than giving it yourself. Wikileaks already subsists substantially off of donations.
- yAnonymous 11y ago
  Not true. They usually redact information they find unsuited for public release.
- DominikR 11y ago
  > this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium. Aren't you overreacting? There are many possibilities why Wikileaks needs the money. For one it might be that they had to pay the informant to get the information. Also they probably don't get their infrastructure (including legal) for free. Last but not least I have to ask you this: Do you equally question every medium that charges for its services? I mean sure, the New York Times and Washington Post uses a different business model, but they charge nonetheless. Edit: I also have to say that I doubt, Wikileaks wouldn't leak the data in any case.
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    Do the Times and Post pay their government sources?
    - DominikR 11y ago
      What makes you think they never did? Maybe its are rare thing to do in the US, but with foreign governments, especially those where corruption is rampant I'd imagine this is nothing unheard of. By the way, TPP is circulating within many governments. For example it could have been leaked by a Vietnamese government official.
worklogin 11y ago
> Only those with tremendous conscientious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that. Good. Look how beneficial Snowden's leaks have been to the cause of civil liberties in the past two years, and because he went Hong Kong and Moscow, many think he MUST be a traitor. Now imagine if Snowden said "Eh, I wouldn't have done it, but $100,000 was nice." > Financial compensation shifts the balance to make conscientious disclosure more self-interested. That's bad; now you've eroded the moral grounds. Even offering legal funds up to $100k would be more ethical than cash payouts.
- mordae 11y ago
  On the other hand, it's in my personal interest for to have someone supply my favorite activists with details of that agreement, which is why I pledged. We are talking about a possibility of giving immense control over governments to for-profit corporations that don't lose time pondering morality. And paying out? Someone who leaks TPP will need some protection and 100k is barely enough to move somewhere safe.
- teekert 11y ago
  God damn it I just want to see that document, I want to know whether I have to watch my food for 31 oestrogenic insecticides that decrease my kid's fertility(1). Why do I have to f-ing pay some outlaw(!) to get information that concerns me! It pisses me off to no end. If raising this 100.000 is the only way, then so be it! (1 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...)
  - noelsusman 11y ago
    It will be fully public for 60 days before Congress votes on it.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      "Fully public", for 60 whole days! I can't wait, also, "Beware of the Leopard."
karmacondon 11y ago
The problem is that there is no clear definition of "the public good". The current system isn't perfect, but it's more empowering to the common person than incentivizing anyone who has access to any information to sell it to the highest bidder, or to make unilateral decisions that affect everyone in society. At least I get to vote for someone I trust to make the right decisions. There are plenty of people, especially in red states, who have complete faith in elected and appointed officials to decide what information should be public and what should be private. The personal beliefs of any given government employee aren't any more valid than anyone else's. I don't want to live in a society where any one person gets to decide what's in the public good and what isn't. If you think the system should be changed so that anyone who has access to classified information can make it public on a whim, then vote for people who will implement that as policy. I don't agree with that idea, but it's a valid political belief and it's at least worthy of debate. But it isn't up to me, you or any other individual to make the final decision. Everyone should get a vote.
- pyre 11y ago
  How can we vote on something that the government says we aren't allowed to see?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    The vote happens after you're allowed to see it.
    - zo1 11y ago
      No, they have to pass it so that you can find out what's in it! </sarcasm>
    - pyre 11y ago
      You're allowed to see it only after the President has agreed to the terms, and works are greasing the wheels of Congress to update the laws.
- resu_nimda 11y ago
cookiecaper 11y ago
>Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that. It's unfair to group Snowden and Manning together. Snowden made a very serious, calculated ethical decision to release specific documentation that he felt needed to be in the public forum as reliable, confirmed information of governmental surveillance activity (not speculation or navel-gazing). Manning dumped as much confidential data as he could download because he didn't like the Army anymore. Snowden was motivated by "tremendous conscience" and Manning was motivated by petty revenge.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  > Snowden was motivated by "tremendous conscience" and Manning was motivated by petty revenge. I put it to you that Snowden remained a free(ish) man who was able to communicate his story with the world whilst Manning was locked in isolation and was unable to make public appearances or give interviews. Therefore the 'message' (as the PR people think of it) during the critical time period following leaks and naming of the whistle-blower was controlled by the US government. I put it to you that this may have influenced your and my and others opinions of them both.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    That's definitely a valid point.
    - calgoo 11y ago
      From someone in Europe who don't follow mainline news, there was never any issues with what Manning did, at least not from me and the people i talked to. The amount of war crimes that were and are committed by individuals in the military and are covered up and almost encouraged are worse then a few undercover personnel in danger and some failed missions. I actually see that as a good outcome, if that actually happened. That this trade agreement is classified as secret, is just a huge joke. I understand why they are trying to do so... The idea that Corp. Lawyer A is in a lawsuit today against Corp. Lawyer B, and with Corp. Lawyer C acting as judge (who yesterday was in a suit against Corp. Lawyer A). Who even thinks of this?????? Was this a bet by a few drunk 0.1% guys to see if we are stupid enough to let it pass? Im amazed at the audacity of even trying to claim that this is even reasonable or needed. And that is just the process... With these rules, you could basically eliminate ANY worker rights, ANY nature protection law, and ANY laws that are created to keep corporations in check. Its scary thinking of what legal BS could be added to these laws that we are not even allowed to see until 2 years after it has been completed.

by kauffj 11y ago

jpwagner 11y ago

What's wrong with that? In the past, Wikileaks has not been the moral arbiter. If a whistleblower decides that exposing information is in the public interest, that is on them, Wikileaks provides a medium. Here, whether or not information should remain secret, there is an incentive to expose it. Wikileaks has decided what deserves to be public -- it's irrelevant if I, personally, agree with that judgment when I say: this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium.

evgen 11y ago
If this is the first thing that has made you question Wikileaks as a trusted medium then you have not been paying attention.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  I have not been paying attention, would you care to enlighten me?
  - tedunangst 11y ago
    After months of talking up the BofA files, "oops, they're all gone."
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      Oh wow. What do people supposed happened?
    - misterbishop 11y ago
      It's open to interpretation whether you want to blame this on "Wikileaks" or question their integrity over it. But it should be acknowledged that Daniel Domscheit-Berg 'stole' 5GB of Bank of America documents from Wikileaks servers as well as their submission system, which he used to launch openleaks. So you can definitely question their internal security, but it should not be presented as an affirmative decision on the part of the organization.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Please give sources for this statement.
alokdhari 11y ago
I very much agree with you. It should be up to the person who has the information to decide whether it should be made public or not. Morally speaking, it could cause outage and even war, who knows.. but it should be up to that person to decide. Monetary incentives dilute the idea of moral responsibility and also gives some people an opportunity to shout : "Oh! They did it for the money". What next .. will the information be put on auction !!
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  it's still up to the person though. It's an incentive not an imperative.
  - richmarr 11y ago
    I wouldn't even call it an incentive, it's more the balancing out of a strong negative incentive that already exists. Considering that Wikileaks exists to make conspiracies harder/smaller I think this totally fits with their purpose. The only question being why it applies to this, but not to other leaks.
liquidise 11y ago
While i agree that this is unusually activist of wikileaks, i have a hard time arguing this move as worse than the status quo. I would rather see governments be actively transparent than actively secretive. Thought experiment: if governments knew that any decision made had a chance of becoming public, would their behavior shift for the better?
jarradhope 11y ago
Well, isn't the bounty is crowdfunded? So it's the public asking for this, via WikiLeaks. The press value of this move puts the issue in the media spotlight which also good for the issue in public favour, WikiLeaks using it's name makes more sense from a media perspective as opposed to "some random assortment of people". Really, the TPP should be public, shouldn't we be questioning the trust of the Governments?
DSMan195276 11y ago
I agree with you on pretty much everything. However, I think it's worth noting that Wikileaks isn't actually the one paying $100,000, in that way the title is misleading IMO. What Wikileaks is doing is holding a funding goal of $100,000, with the funding currently around $35,000. So, while it was Wikileaks' idea, ultimately it's the general public (Or, at-least, a few people who would like this to be leaked) who are offering this money as a bounty. So I wouldn't consider it exactly the same as Wikileaks just flat-out offering $100,000 - This bounty won't happen unless there are a decent amount of people which support this decision and fund it. It still does change the dynamic like you've said though.
- vinceguidry 11y ago
  Organizing and coordinating a fundraising goal isn't all that different than giving it yourself. Wikileaks already subsists substantially off of donations.
yAnonymous 11y ago
Not true. They usually redact information they find unsuited for public release.
DominikR 11y ago
> this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium. Aren't you overreacting? There are many possibilities why Wikileaks needs the money. For one it might be that they had to pay the informant to get the information. Also they probably don't get their infrastructure (including legal) for free. Last but not least I have to ask you this: Do you equally question every medium that charges for its services? I mean sure, the New York Times and Washington Post uses a different business model, but they charge nonetheless. Edit: I also have to say that I doubt, Wikileaks wouldn't leak the data in any case.
- tedunangst 11y ago
  Do the Times and Post pay their government sources?
  - DominikR 11y ago
    What makes you think they never did? Maybe its are rare thing to do in the US, but with foreign governments, especially those where corruption is rampant I'd imagine this is nothing unheard of. By the way, TPP is circulating within many governments. For example it could have been leaked by a Vietnamese government official.

worklogin 11y ago

> Only those with tremendous conscientious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that. Good. Look how beneficial Snowden's leaks have been to the cause of civil liberties in the past two years, and because he went Hong Kong and Moscow, many think he MUST be a traitor. Now imagine if Snowden said "Eh, I wouldn't have done it, but $100,000 was nice." > Financial compensation shifts the balance to make conscientious disclosure more self-interested. That's bad; now you've eroded the moral grounds. Even offering legal funds up to $100k would be more ethical than cash payouts.

mordae 11y ago
On the other hand, it's in my personal interest for to have someone supply my favorite activists with details of that agreement, which is why I pledged. We are talking about a possibility of giving immense control over governments to for-profit corporations that don't lose time pondering morality. And paying out? Someone who leaks TPP will need some protection and 100k is barely enough to move somewhere safe.
teekert 11y ago
God damn it I just want to see that document, I want to know whether I have to watch my food for 31 oestrogenic insecticides that decrease my kid's fertility(1). Why do I have to f-ing pay some outlaw(!) to get information that concerns me! It pisses me off to no end. If raising this 100.000 is the only way, then so be it! (1 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...)
- noelsusman 11y ago
  It will be fully public for 60 days before Congress votes on it.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    "Fully public", for 60 whole days! I can't wait, also, "Beware of the Leopard."

karmacondon 11y ago

The problem is that there is no clear definition of "the public good". The current system isn't perfect, but it's more empowering to the common person than incentivizing anyone who has access to any information to sell it to the highest bidder, or to make unilateral decisions that affect everyone in society. At least I get to vote for someone I trust to make the right decisions. There are plenty of people, especially in red states, who have complete faith in elected and appointed officials to decide what information should be public and what should be private. The personal beliefs of any given government employee aren't any more valid than anyone else's. I don't want to live in a society where any one person gets to decide what's in the public good and what isn't. If you think the system should be changed so that anyone who has access to classified information can make it public on a whim, then vote for people who will implement that as policy. I don't agree with that idea, but it's a valid political belief and it's at least worthy of debate. But it isn't up to me, you or any other individual to make the final decision. Everyone should get a vote.

pyre 11y ago
How can we vote on something that the government says we aren't allowed to see?
- tedunangst 11y ago
  The vote happens after you're allowed to see it.
  - zo1 11y ago
    No, they have to pass it so that you can find out what's in it! </sarcasm>
  - pyre 11y ago
    You're allowed to see it only after the President has agreed to the terms, and works are greasing the wheels of Congress to update the laws.
resu_nimda 11y ago

cookiecaper 11y ago

>Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that. It's unfair to group Snowden and Manning together. Snowden made a very serious, calculated ethical decision to release specific documentation that he felt needed to be in the public forum as reliable, confirmed information of governmental surveillance activity (not speculation or navel-gazing). Manning dumped as much confidential data as he could download because he didn't like the Army anymore. Snowden was motivated by "tremendous conscience" and Manning was motivated by petty revenge.

JupiterMoon 11y ago
> Snowden was motivated by "tremendous conscience" and Manning was motivated by petty revenge. I put it to you that Snowden remained a free(ish) man who was able to communicate his story with the world whilst Manning was locked in isolation and was unable to make public appearances or give interviews. Therefore the 'message' (as the PR people think of it) during the critical time period following leaks and naming of the whistle-blower was controlled by the US government. I put it to you that this may have influenced your and my and others opinions of them both.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  That's definitely a valid point.
  - calgoo 11y ago
    From someone in Europe who don't follow mainline news, there was never any issues with what Manning did, at least not from me and the people i talked to. The amount of war crimes that were and are committed by individuals in the military and are covered up and almost encouraged are worse then a few undercover personnel in danger and some failed missions. I actually see that as a good outcome, if that actually happened. That this trade agreement is classified as secret, is just a huge joke. I understand why they are trying to do so... The idea that Corp. Lawyer A is in a lawsuit today against Corp. Lawyer B, and with Corp. Lawyer C acting as judge (who yesterday was in a suit against Corp. Lawyer A). Who even thinks of this?????? Was this a bet by a few drunk 0.1% guys to see if we are stupid enough to let it pass? Im amazed at the audacity of even trying to claim that this is even reasonable or needed. And that is just the process... With these rules, you could basically eliminate ANY worker rights, ANY nature protection law, and ANY laws that are created to keep corporations in check. Its scary thinking of what legal BS could be added to these laws that we are not even allowed to see until 2 years after it has been completed.