Anonymous and others start leaking

  On 12/15/2010 at 5:16 AM, luke viia said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 4:31 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this. it blows my mind how some in here are against total transparency...isn't that the entire point of elected government, to be completely 100% transparent and beholden to its electorate?

 

? The point of elected government is that you elect the officials.

 

  Quote

I mean, lets settle the double standard. Either you are for a legitimate and total idea of republicanism/democracy and therefore complete transparency, or you are bullshitting and don't want to be concerned with these matters on a daily basis, let the government choose for you, and better yet, keep it from you so that you aren't even bothered.

 

Again, ?

 

Where are you getting this? Since when does democracy = total transparency?

 

  Quote

Am I making sense?

 

Not really.

 

  Quote

Christ. Ill just facepalm myself.

 

 

OK then.

wow you are a bit of a dick, aren't ya.

I'm going off of Enlightenment ideals of democracy, not Plato or Hobbes. Tocqueville, Paine, many others. It is there. I didn't make this shit up.

The 18th Century ideal of Republicanism was that they did elect officials, but as INFORMED and educated civilians. You can't be informed about what your elected officials are doing if they don't have to tell you what they are doing. Hence, the exercise is worthless.

also, since when did democracy=total transparency?

ask the officials that say just that. they didn't pull the concept out of their ass. theres a reason they trot that line out for the public to eat up.

breaking news, still developing: Is Bradley Manning being tortured?

  On 12/15/2010 at 6:54 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 5:16 AM, luke viia said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 4:31 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this. it blows my mind how some in here are against total transparency...isn't that the entire point of elected government, to be completely 100% transparent and beholden to its electorate?

 

? The point of elected government is that you elect the officials.

 

  Quote

I mean, lets settle the double standard. Either you are for a legitimate and total idea of republicanism/democracy and therefore complete transparency, or you are bullshitting and don't want to be concerned with these matters on a daily basis, let the government choose for you, and better yet, keep it from you so that you aren't even bothered.

 

Again, ?

 

Where are you getting this? Since when does democracy = total transparency?

 

  Quote

Am I making sense?

 

Not really.

 

  Quote

Christ. Ill just facepalm myself.

 

 

OK then.

 

 

wow you are a bit of a dick, aren't ya.

 

 

I'm going off of Enlightenment ideals of democracy, not Plato or Hobbes. Tocqueville, Paine, many others. It is there. I didn't make this shit up.

 

The 18th Century ideal of Republicanism was that they did elect officials, but as INFORMED and educated civilians. You can't be informed about what your elected officials are doing if they don't have to tell you what they are doing. Hence, the exercise is worthless.

 

 

also, since when did democracy=total transparency?

 

ask the officials that say just that. they didn't pull the concept out of their ass. theres a reason they trot that line out for the public to eat up.

Not going to get into whether or not a Republic should be transparent, or in which specific areas, but I do believe that diplomacy needs to be able to operate "in secret" to a fair degree. You can't make deals with the media and interest groups breathing down your neck. I agree that those in the elected govt with the proper clearance should get access to this info, and I agree there should be limits to secrecy - I like the freedom of information act and in general approve of things needing to be brought out in the open after enough time has passed.

I think breaking this secrecy should only be done if there is sufficient cause, such as significant, widespread corruption (eg. Watergate). However I'm not sure what I've read so far (admittedly skimmed) warrants the leaks. It's interesting, sure, to know that people are worried about Iran, Karzai is unreliable etc but does it rise to the level of a smoking gun regarding corruption? I read a lot of stuff that sounded like it was written by well-meaning diplomats, which was nice to see. There was the lurid story of the (Afghani?) boys being used by some company for sex, ok that's bad, and can be chucked in the "fucked up shit" bin along with Blackwater, Abu Ghraib etc , but not sure how much of it was sanctioned by higher-ups in the US?

I'm most interested in the larger issue of net neutrality, of which I'm a strong advocate. I think the concentration of power, whether it be in governments or corporations, is fucking scary. Frankly I think it's the responsibility of companies and the govt. to hide their own shit - if it leaks, and someone publishes it, they might be able to prosecute the leaker if he violated an NDA or contract, but not the media/messenger. Seeing what's happening to Assange is disturbing. I'm also still unclear on how much info was directly hacked by Wikileaks (a crime) or how much was simply disseminated by Wikileaks (not a crime imo).

not to get in the middle of this current philosophical debate, but i'm fairly certain that wikileaks hasn't been involved in any of the 'hacking' or methods used to obtain the leaked documents, if actual members of wikileaks theoretically have, they have remained anonymous. you could try to make some kind of legal argument that wikileaks is facilitating a crime by 'encouraging' people to leak classified information, but then you'd probably have to use some sort of Charlie Manson style prosecution of coercion.

  On 12/15/2010 at 11:10 AM, Awepittance said:

not to get in the middle of this current philosophical debate, but i'm fairly certain that wikileaks hasn't been involved in any of the 'hacking' or methods used to obtain the leaked documents, if actual members of wikileaks theoretically have, they have remained anonymous. you could try to make some kind of legal argument that wikileaks is facilitating a crime by 'encouraging' people to leak classified information, but then you'd probably have to use some sort of Charlie Manson style prosecution of coercion.

the main problem is that WL is currently doing the same as the big news. I mean what's so different in hosting the stuff and quoting it word by word?

  On 12/15/2010 at 10:36 AM, lumpenprol said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 6:54 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 5:16 AM, luke viia said:

  On 12/15/2010 at 4:31 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

this. it blows my mind how some in here are against total transparency...isn't that the entire point of elected government, to be completely 100% transparent and beholden to its electorate?

 

? The point of elected government is that you elect the officials.

 

  Quote

I mean, lets settle the double standard. Either you are for a legitimate and total idea of republicanism/democracy and therefore complete transparency, or you are bullshitting and don't want to be concerned with these matters on a daily basis, let the government choose for you, and better yet, keep it from you so that you aren't even bothered.

 

Again, ?

 

Where are you getting this? Since when does democracy = total transparency?

 

  Quote

Am I making sense?

 

Not really.

 

  Quote

Christ. Ill just facepalm myself.

 

 

OK then.

 

 

wow you are a bit of a dick, aren't ya.

 

 

I'm going off of Enlightenment ideals of democracy, not Plato or Hobbes. Tocqueville, Paine, many others. It is there. I didn't make this shit up.

 

The 18th Century ideal of Republicanism was that they did elect officials, but as INFORMED and educated civilians. You can't be informed about what your elected officials are doing if they don't have to tell you what they are doing. Hence, the exercise is worthless.

 

 

also, since when did democracy=total transparency?

 

ask the officials that say just that. they didn't pull the concept out of their ass. theres a reason they trot that line out for the public to eat up.

 

Not going to get into whether or not a Republic should be transparent, or in which specific areas, but I do believe that diplomacy needs to be able to operate "in secret" to a fair degree. You can't make deals with the media and interest groups breathing down your neck. I agree that those in the elected govt with the proper clearance should get access to this info, and I agree there should be limits to secrecy - I like the freedom of information act and in general approve of things needing to be brought out in the open after enough time has passed.

 

I think breaking this secrecy should only be done if there is sufficient cause, such as significant, widespread corruption (eg. Watergate). However I'm not sure what I've read so far (admittedly skimmed) warrants the leaks. It's interesting, sure, to know that people are worried about Iran, Karzai is unreliable etc but does it rise to the level of a smoking gun regarding corruption? I read a lot of stuff that sounded like it was written by well-meaning diplomats, which was nice to see. There was the lurid story of the (Afghani?) boys being used by some company for sex, ok that's bad, and can be chucked in the "fucked up shit" bin along with Blackwater, Abu Ghraib etc , but not sure how much of it was sanctioned by higher-ups in the US?

 

I'm most interested in the larger issue of net neutrality, of which I'm a strong advocate. I think the concentration of power, whether it be in governments or corporations, is fucking scary. Frankly I think it's the responsibility of companies and the govt. to hide their own shit - if it leaks, and someone publishes it, they might be able to prosecute the leaker if he violated an NDA or contract, but not the media/messenger. Seeing what's happening to Assange is disturbing. I'm also still unclear on how much info was directly hacked by Wikileaks (a crime) or how much was simply disseminated by Wikileaks (not a crime imo).

stop being reasonable this is the wikileaks thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpwVfl3m32w

I am not yet sure what to think about this.

  On 12/15/2010 at 1:05 PM, o00o said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpwVfl3m32w

 

I am not yet sure what to think about this.

i think it's some seriously fagged-out shit and whoever made it should be ashamed

This is a very interesting time to be alive, that is for sure...

Dont know if it has been posted yet:

US air force blocks staff from websites carrying WikiLeaks cables

  Quote

The US air force has blocked employees from accessing the websites of the Guardian, the New York Times and other news organisations carrying the WikiLeaks US embassy cables.

 

At least 25 sites that have posted WikiLeaks files had been barred, said Major Toni Tones of the US air force's space command in Colorado. Tones said the action was taken in accordance with a policy that "routinely blocks air force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials".

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, staff who attempt to access the blocked sites instead see an on-screen message saying: "Access denied. Internet usage is logged and monitored."

 

While the US defence department has issued orders against visiting WikiLeaks or downloading classified documents from the site, it has not ordered a blanket ban on visiting news organisations reporting on the contents of the classified cables. The army, navy and marines have not sought to block access to any websites.

 

The air force's move follows instructions by the government that staff should not access the cables, with the Library of Congress instituting a bar on accessing WikiLeaks's website.

 

One member of the US armed forces could be celebrated for his part in the WikiLeaks drama. Berkeley city council is considering a resolution in support Bradley Manning, the army private accused of releasing the documents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force?INTCMP=SRCH

welcome to China

Boring.

Assange's arrest and trials are the most interesting thing about these leaks so far. If nothing else, WikiLeaks will change the world for ever (by allowing Tweets from live court).

Where's the juicy shit? I'm getting really bored of sitting behind my desk, man. Where's the revolution?

  On 12/15/2010 at 1:35 PM, Gary C said:

Where's the juicy shit? I'm getting really bored of sitting behind my desk, man. Where's the revolution?

talk to me on gchat you swaggering haunted cock i'm having a slow day

America: the poor man's China

All the censorship, none of the fun

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40665998/ns/today-today_celebrates_2010/

LOL

  Quote

Referring to a poll of Time readers as to who should have been chosen, Stengel told Lauer and Vieira: “Assange won our poll by a great margin — but of course, Lady Gaga was No. 2. We take all that into account.”

well at least they also picked someone who has brought us a lot closer to general transparency

Apparently the founder of Facebook won Time's Person of the Year. Did they not use the online vote at all? What a load of bollocks.

they made the safe choice, but I don't blame them. Facebook is more important than Wikileaks/Assange, at this moment, imo.

xkcd, on the money as usual

wikileaks.org is back online

fascinating article about assange, domscheit-berg, and the birth of wikileaks: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BB1LG20101213?pageNumber=1