For all you lefty WIkileaks supporters...

[mrplunkey]

It entertains me to watch people claim it's such a flawed analogy but can logically spell-out why.

 

[jackangel]

no, but seriously, content is important. crucial, even.

content speaks to motive and consequences.

if wikischmucks want to expose government shit because it potentially impacts all our lives in some way, or because their actions are ostensibly in our ultimate best interest, or because government is ultimately meant to work for us and belong to us (not just a shady entity unto itself with its own aims), and because we have no other way of learning this truth...that's not necessarily a bad thing. no one (i hope) wants to endanger lives or compromise national security in doing so, but if there were no other way to learn a truth that we should know, so that we could someday act upon it...then it may be necessary.

we're talking about the fate of nations, and eventually the world. this is but one very, very minor drama in the history of our species and that big picture is an abstraction which no single human being can truly comprehend, even though we may feel it necessary to act on its behalf because we believe a principle is involved (that of truth, for example). in that context, the lives of a few people do not add up to much. those with the power to act (be they leaders or mere individuals) have to make those kinds of decisions every single day, and they will always be condemned for their choices by someone. always.

however, i see no such gravity in your planned parenthood example. others will disagree for their own reasons.

my response is a generalization which is not informed by the specifics of this case, so i could be missing a lot.

 

[jnevin]

Still invasion of privacy/libel-ish to broadcast the info like that and framed as if it were a sex offender list. It always reads something to the effect of "For everyones safety we thought youd like to know who is carrying a gun near you". Also the whole purpose of a chl is thats its concealed, meaning people dont know you are carrying, or have a license to carry. Thats the law in texas anyhow.

Just your perception broldilocks, not reality.

 

[75th]

no, but seriously, content is important. crucial, even.

content speaks to motive and consequences.

if wikischmucks want to expose government shit because it potentially impacts all our lives in some way, or because their actions are ostensibly in our ultimate best interest, or because government is ultimately meant to work for us and belong to us (not just a shady entity unto itself with its own aims), and because we have no other way of learning this truth...that's not necessarily a bad thing. no one (i hope) wants to endanger lives or compromise national security in doing so, but if there were no other way to learn a truth that we should know, so that we could someday act upon it...then it may be necessary.

we're talking about the fate of nations, and eventually the world. this is but one very, very minor drama in the history of our species and that big picture is an abstraction which no single human being can truly comprehend, even though we may feel it necessary to act on its behalf because we believe a principle is involved (that of truth, for example). in that context, the lives of a few people do not add up to much. those with the power to act (be they leaders or mere individuals) have to make those kinds of decisions every single day, and they will always be condemned for their choices by someone. always.

however, i see no such gravity in your planned parenthood example. others will disagree for their own reasons.

my response is a generalization which is not informed by the specifics of this case, so i could be missing a lot.

 

[75th]

Also, I agree with Jack. As I alluded to above, outing confidential informants aside, I have no problem with the info being released.

 

[EnderJE]

It entertains me to watch people claim it's such a flawed analogy but can logically spell-out why.

Take a second gander at my post.

My comments was meant to portray it.

If PP leaked that it was being pressured by the no sex before marriage (something we all likely know), I would be fine with it.

When they leaked that US and China worked together to bring down the anti - global warming summit (because they are biggest polluters), I am fine with it.

If they said that Joe Schmoe (name specificity) was the one causing it, then I would have some concerns. In the same way, when Plame was outed, I have some concerns and feel that justice hasn't prevailed.

I still love you.

 

[mrplunkey]

Take a second gander at my post.

My comments was meant to portray it.

If PP leaked that it was being pressured by the no sex before marriage (something we all likely know), I would be fine with it.

When they leaked that US and China worked together to bring down the anti - global warming summit (because they are biggest polluters), I am fine with it.

If they said that Joe Schmoe (name specificity) was the one causing it, then I would have some concerns. In the same way, when Plame was outed, I have some concerns and feel that justice hasn't prevailed.

I still love you.

Wikileaks trades in specific documents and specific documents are going to identify specific people.

So comparing our examples, a leaked diplomatic cable that might cost someone their job, career, freedom or even life (outside the US) is ok. But leaking a woman's name and DoB which might cause her embarrassment is unacceptable?

 

[EnderJE]

Wikileaks trades in specific documents and specific documents are going to identify specific people.

So comparing our examples, a leaked diplomatic cable that might cost someone their job, career, freedom or even life (outside the US) is ok. But leaking a woman's name and DoB which might cause her embarrassment is unacceptable?

I can see you viewpoint. I guess it would depend on which leaks would cause embarrassment vs which ones would have more drastic outcomes.

I think we can agree that drastic outcomes are not a good thing, but not all outcomes are drastic. That said, there is something still to be said about leaking items that would prevent larger problems (see Iraq War and Pentagon papers). It guess it depends on the person viewing the situation, the leak and the potential outcome.

For example, I don't have a problem if it's leaked how much I make in a year or if a person has an abortion. That said, I can understand that others may feel that it's a vast invasion of privacy.

 

[-SD-]

Just your perception broldilocks, not reality.

the whole argument of what the thread is about is different perceptions of what information should or should not be known. Im just giving yet another example.

 

[mrplunkey]

I can see you viewpoint. I guess it would depend on which leaks would cause embarrassment vs which ones would have more drastic outcomes.

I think we can agree that drastic outcomes are not a good thing, but not all outcomes are drastic. That said, there is something still to be said about leaking items that would prevent larger problems (see Iraq War and Pentagon papers). It guess it depends on the person viewing the situation, the leak and the potential outcome.

For example, I don't have a problem if it's leaked how much I make in a year or if a person has an abortion. That said, I can understand that others may feel that it's a vast invasion of privacy.

The possibility of leaks can and has been an interesting check-and-balance on government. It's not that I'm 100% against leaks, but I am 100% against sources that solicit and bulk publish illegally-obtained data.

For example, the Hillary spy stuff is fair game. But do it the traditional way: Verify the source, ask the state department for comment and then run the story. Dumping hundreds or thousands of confidential documents on the Internet isn't constructive.