Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
For all you lefty WIkileaks supporters...
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
Isnt that just a smidgen different than revealing backdoor deals between nations, proving that our Secretary of State instructed folks to spy on UN reps (which I believe is a crime...or at least breaks some of the UN rules), or showing that countries like China would actually support a South-led Korea?
I'm not saying I support it, but just saying...you may want to come up with a more apt comparison. Its easy to make the argument that the information from Wikileaks kind of affects us all and therefore gives us a right to know.
I'm not saying I support it, but just saying...you may want to come up with a more apt comparison. Its easy to make the argument that the information from Wikileaks kind of affects us all and therefore gives us a right to know.
mrplunkey
New member
I consider stolen secret documents regarding the military as far more important then the names and DoB's of people who have had a.medical procedure.
And don't I have a right to know if my prospective wife or girlfriend has been using planned parenthood like a convenience store? I'd sure want to know.that before I knew the names of afghans cooperating with the US military.
calveless wonder
New member
That's an awful analogy.
mrplunkey
New member
Odd how the content changes a "hero" into a villan, huh?
And to think I've been hearing so much lately about how more iformation isalways better.
Names of folks cooperating with the US on a clandestine level should not be revealed. Our secretary of state ordering other Americans to break the law is something we should know.
mrplunkey
New member
Clinton ordering the collection of information on diplomats is 0.0000001% of the leaks. That story could have easily been broken via conventional news methods.
I'm concerned about the other 99.999999%
mrplunkey
New member
I shall respond to your feeble attempt to MO-up this thread with a serious response.
Consider the circumstances:
1) Information is illegally obtained
2) That information being widely disseminated over the Internet
3) The purveyors of said information hiding behind first amendment rights.
Now imagine how many circumstances that could apply to:
1) Names and DoB's of abortion patients
2) Diplomatic cables
3) Lists of everyone who is taking Valtrax (teh pick3 drug)
4) Names, DoB's and SS#'s of credit card holders
5) Lists of everyone who has ever sought substance abuse rehab
6) People who surf geigh pr0n sites (also a pick3 issue)
7) Names and addresses of every EF poster
8) Names of informants in Afghanistan and Iraq
Fair-minded people are going to see all those situations as inappropriate. But to some people, they believe the end justifies the means simply because they don't like the victim of the publication. Guess what? I bet the right-to-life crazies would think they are saving millions of lives by publishing their list too. I can see it now... www.wikiabortionleaks.org
bakemeacookie
New member
Imagine is WikiLeaks existed in 2003 and showed how WMD's was a scam.
or the 80s when Osama Bin Laden and Hussein were on the govermnment payroll.
or during that whole Iran Contra thing that everyone conveniently forgot.
Or the 1940's when the US made deals with Japan to let all the barbarians and butchers go in exchange for surrender, even after they had already surrendered after the bombs.
or during Vietnam when it was realized that the communist threat from north korea was NO threat to housewives in alabama. That this wasn't our war.
Previuos generations have alwasy been kept int he dark about everything. At least now there's an outlet besides the 6pm government sponsored news.
c
or the 80s when Osama Bin Laden and Hussein were on the govermnment payroll.
or during that whole Iran Contra thing that everyone conveniently forgot.
Or the 1940's when the US made deals with Japan to let all the barbarians and butchers go in exchange for surrender, even after they had already surrendered after the bombs.
or during Vietnam when it was realized that the communist threat from north korea was NO threat to housewives in alabama. That this wasn't our war.
Previuos generations have alwasy been kept int he dark about everything. At least now there's an outlet besides the 6pm government sponsored news.
c
jnevin
New member
Public record there rob.
jnevin
New member
It really is.
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.
No, it's because you aren't make a decent comparison. Just like you claimed of me.
However, if Planned Parenthood cables leaked how they are being pushed down by the "no sex before marriage" movement. Then I would see your point.
Besides, you already know that hero / villain or terrorist / freedom fighter are on the same sides of the coin. See America's release from British tyranny and other examples of terrorist acts.
So you're saying that it's okay for America to break the law and keep it's people in the dark?
who the fuck are you?
jackangel
New member
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.
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
New member
Just your perception broldilocks, not reality.
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
New member
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.
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
New member
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.
Damn you and your rational / civil disagreements. I'm getting you this for XMas.
Vibram Five Fingers: Discover the Barefooting Alternative
mrplunkey
New member
Those slippers are gayer than pick3 jerking-off to a video of Siegfried felching Roy.
Just sayin'
b0und
New member
What razorguns said.
Also, the US doesn't just come off all evil in the cables anyway.
Some of that info is pretty useful to come out this way. Like that all the Arab states want the US and Israel to really fuck up Iran's nuclear weapons program. No diplomat could ever say that out loud.
Besides plunkey, you're crying over spilt milk. The cat is out of the bag now. What has become known cannot become unknown again.
In this age there will be whistle blowers like Bradley Manning and leakers like Julian Assange that is now a fact.
I can't wait for them to dish the dirt on Goldman/Sachs.
b0und (hah!)
Also, the US doesn't just come off all evil in the cables anyway.
Some of that info is pretty useful to come out this way. Like that all the Arab states want the US and Israel to really fuck up Iran's nuclear weapons program. No diplomat could ever say that out loud.
Besides plunkey, you're crying over spilt milk. The cat is out of the bag now. What has become known cannot become unknown again.
In this age there will be whistle blowers like Bradley Manning and leakers like Julian Assange that is now a fact.
I can't wait for them to dish the dirt on Goldman/Sachs.
b0und (hah!)
mrplunkey
New member
And like I said in the original premise of this thread. If this has been the names/DoB's of abortion patients stolen from planned parenthood, I seriously doubt you'd be talking about spilt milk and ending a post with "hah".
nimbus
New member
the crime should be hacking, not providing an outlet to disseminate information
mrplunkey
New member
That's a huge crime as well. If Bradley Manning did leak that information, he needs to face a firing squad.
But just because someone stole it for you means you can freely use the information. If one of my competitor's employees steals a bunch of proprietary documents, that doesn't mean I get to freely use them simply because I didn't do the stealing.
No, it would not be a good thing. People have the right to privacy-especially in health matters.
Wikileaks really burns me. Information is not always meant for the masses because they don't see the big picture. Regular joes are not meant to run the country and undertake sensitive diplomatic workings. They have no idea how to manage proper protocol between different countries. Hell, I'd be impressed if the majority of people who have got on the Wikileaks bandwagon could manage their own households properly. It is all too easy to sit back and demand that your government explain itself on certain matters when you are watching from the sidelines with nothing to lose. Perhaps Julien Assange should run for, and win, political leadership somewhere, and then he could release as much sensitive information about his political decisions as he wishes.
digimon7068
New member
or if wikileaks leaked the names of all of the sources for every compelling story written by the press...would that be a good thing? no secrets for anyone? no protection for whistleblowers? just throw'em all to the wolves! would that be a good thing???
If we actually still had investigative journalists in this country that may work.
The part that's funny about your post is that I generally agree, but people reduce things to sound bites and short views and over - generalizations (like your post did).
True, but we don't so we do what we can.
mrplunkey
New member
I generally agree with this. They investigate, but it's usually agenda-driven.
The problem is, trading in stolen documents and mass-publishing them isn't a substitute for journalism any more than vigilante lynch mobs are a substitute for police patrols.
nimbus
New member
wikileaks doesnt use the info, they just publish it. and don't charge money
it's just like a bulletin board that a lot more people read. and that people post fucked up shit on.
but imo the only people who are really fucking up here are the people leaking info, and governments who aren't protecting their information well enough
do you think you have a right to stop an abortion of your unborn son/daughter??
right now you don't..
mrplunkey
New member
Then let's try this: One of my competitor's employees gets canned and it pisses him off. He then emails me a list of everything they sell by customer, item number, quantity sold and price for the current year. Can I publish it on my SalesForce.com website? It's just a bulletin board that my sales reps read. Or better yet, can I just post everything up on a website and let everyone jump-in on the info?
nimbus
New member
yes. the employee is at fault, not you. you are just disseminating truthful information, which you never agreed to keep confidential. the employee, however, probably is bound by some sort of confidentiality agreement. and if he isn't, it's the company's fault.
mrplunkey
New member
And yet I would be sued to hell and back.
And I would lose.
Do a little research on the subject. Just because someone hands you a stolen apple means you get to eat it. Consider the consequences of the system working any other way -- it would be anarchy.
mrplunkey
New member
Wow... maybe I should reserve the name: "www.Wikiabortionleaks.org". I bet I could make some serious dough on the click-through advertising.
Please don't lose your zeal for dishing-out "tough lucks" when people scream.
I shall call this Plunkey and RS2.
nimbus
New member
who decides what is too confidential to be posted online and what isn't?
mrplunkey
New member
It doesn't just apply to posting. Working with stolen data (or stolen items) simply isn't allowed. It exposes you to criminal and civil penalties which should apply to Assange.
nimbus
New member
how is Assange working with it in any way other than publishing the content on his website?
mrplunkey
New member
First of all, he's openly soliciting and using stolen information. The name "WikiLeaks" says it all.
Second, he's not a legitimate news source. Simply owning a printing press or a web site doesn't make you a first-amendment protected publisher.
nimbus
New member
what is he using it for?
the bottom here for me is that Assange is not creating an extra incentive to leak information, so there is no point in going after his operation. A billion people can publish and republish stolen data, but only a select few can actually steal it. It seems pretty obvious to me where the efficient place to focus prosecution efforts is
mrplunkey
New member
He's using it for fame. I'm sure he's got a plan for monitoring it as well. Perhaps advertising or speaking fees.
And don't get me wrong. I want those who steal the information shot. But this is something that has to be addresed on multiple fronts.
nimbus
New member
i don't see how that's much worse than news outlets writing stories about wikileaks and drawing attention to the site.
as a fellow engineer i'm sure you are familiar with root cause analysis. the crux of the problem here is people willing to leak confidential information. If you eliminate that, there is no more problem. Like you said earlier, charge the sources of the leaks with treason. Get serious about keeping government information secure and Wikileaks becomes a lame ass site that if it's lucky gets to post colonel sanders' secret herbs and spices. Going after 3rd parties who publish content is going to achieve almost nothing, because there are a zillion other ways to disseminate stolen information
mrplunkey
New member
The only way this can stopped solely at the source is to make the information unavailable. That makes the world a much more dangerous place.
The lesson learned from assange is to never put anything in writing -- a technique adopted by much of corporate America many years ago. As soon as you know you're dealing with a sensitive subject, the emails, vmails and letters have to stop and telephone conversations are exclusively used. The only problem with this approach is it makes corrupt and illegal activities much easier as well. When real disaster strikes, it's much harder to find the real villain. That's assange's ultimate contribution to the world -- making it more dangerous.
PICK3
New member
One dutch bag to another:
Michael Moore Pledges $20,000 Towards Julian Assange's Bail - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Michael Moore Pledges $20,000 Towards Julian Assange's Bail - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Julian Assange, chosen as Time Magazine Person of the year by its readers. Mark Z, I'm really happy for you, and I'm gonna let you finish... but Julian had the biggest effect on the world this year. AND the world's best known feminist Naomi Wolf says with Sweden's horrible record on actual rapes, the case against him is clearly driven by politics. She's very offended that they're using "protecting women" as an excuse.
mrplunkey
New member
Wow... You sound just like kanye!
