wikileaks: friend or foe?

[benzyme]

so why are smear campaigns being run, and why are politicians acting like this is a real threat?
if this were just gossip like tabloids, you'd think they'd just blow it off as such

but apparently, these allegedly sensitive documents aren't fodder for gossip, eh?

whistleblowers "commit suicide" and get into freak accidents all the time, not because they kept sources anonymous.

you don't necessarily need to agree with the consensus here, but your pragmatic view is seriously flawed; it doesn't reflect what actually goes on. bureaucrats are white-collar gangsters, they have no reservations of having you and your family killed if they find out you exposed them.

 

[jbark]

I need to do a little more research before I delve further into this before My shoesize is measured between my teeth, but in the meantime consider this:

Are you espousing the idea, which is the necessary conclusion inferred by the very existence of wikileaks, that the world's intelligence agencies, being part of their governments, should be transparent as well? The Cia, FBI, MI5, MI6, CSIS, ASIS, ABIN, AISI etc. ?? That is absolute folly, with all due respect.

Imagine a scenario: all the terrorists all over the world know EXACTLY what every government knows about them, almost the instant these agencies know themselves. This would make you feel safer? This would be an improvement to your much maligned "status quo"? This is one very simple example that I think most will follow, and i really hope, agree with. The depth of this problem begins here and mines all the way to proverbial china.

Make no mistake, this is the ideological extrapolation of wikileaks - and it is undoubtedly the most dangerous thing we have encountered on the internet thusfar.

The other problem is that unsourced, anyone (under the scrutiny of those in charge of wikileaks, whose agenda no one really knows) can post anything, plant any crazy information to achieve any goal or any economic or political aim or misdirection - all they have to do is convince the powers-that-be at wikileaks. That is not a reliable or safe stopgap, and possibly, given the potential of wikileaks, the worst checks and balances mechanism in the history of information.

I will research it more, but my first impressions are this is a terrible and potentially catastrophic game changer.

JBArk the occasional hyperbolist

 

[jbark]

so why are smear campaigns being run, and why are politicians acting like this is a real threat?
if this were just gossip like tabloids, you'd think they'd just blow it off as such

but apparently, these allegedly sensitive documents aren't fodder for gossip, eh?

You really want me to answer that? ok. Because people read tabloids as truth. A REAL threat is what people perceive it to be. Whether it is a threat or not. Reality, as any politician knows, is what people (are led to) believe. Doesn't need to be "true" for it to be dangerous.

JBArk

 

[gibran2]

so why are smear campaigns being run, and why are politicians acting like this is a real threat?
if this were just gossip like tabloids, you'd think they'd just blow it off as such

but apparently, these allegedly sensitive documents aren't fodder for gossip, eh?

whistleblowers "commit suicide" and get into freak accidents all the time, not because they kept sources anonymous.

you don't necessarily need to agree with the consensus here, but your pragmatic view is seriously flawed; it doesn't reflect what actually goes on. bureaucrats are white-collar gangsters, they have no reservations of having you and your family killed if they find out you exposed them.

How can you be so sure that the US government didn’t want the leaks leaked?

 

[jbark]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WHO IS WIKILEAKS. Don't pretend/presume to know.


PS - i am enjoying this. It is challenging to define and defend one's views particulrly knowing they will be unpopular. PLEASE anyone have the sense to stop before it gets personal or someone gets offended. That is canadian diplomacy, right there.

 

[benzyme]

the problem isn't China, at least not the source of it. The western world created the problem by opening free trade with the largest communist country run by its military. Our country got China addicted to capitalism, so to speak.

but it runs much deeper than that...there are US military bases all over the world, and 'terrorism' is just a buzz word for people who dissent against the status quo. I don't feel unsafe because of terrorists, I pose no threat to them. As far as I'm concerned, I'm opposed
to the same sinister forces at work as they, the bureaucratic system that wastes tax money on protecting their capital and expanding their empire. World Bank, Interpol, CIA, etc. etc.

How can you be so sure that the US government didn’t want the leaks leaked?

not to counter a question with a question, but
why would they waste their time exposing the people that scratch their backs?
why are they in a scramble to find the site founder?

 

[jbark]

not to counter a question with a question, but
why would they waste their time exposing the people that scratch their backs?
why are they in a scramble to find the site founder?

Again, you presume to understand their agenda. Things are never so simple.

Simple question backatcha:

DO YOU TRUST ANONYMOUS, UNSOURCED INTEL?


cause really, that is ALL this argument boils down to...

 

[benzyme]

i do if it's particularly sensitive, and makes sense; especially
when the reaction supports the theory.

to one who's oblivious to such travesties, of course it will seem far-fetched.
then again, i wasn't born yesterday. i've developed pretty good bullshit filters over the past 15 years.

 

[jbark]

i do if it's particularly sensitive, and makes sense; especially
when the reaction supports the theory.

to one who's oblivious to such travesties, of course it will seem far-fetched.
then again, i wasn't born yesterday. i've developed pretty good bullshit filters over the past 15 years.

By "makes sense", benzyme, you mean "fits into my worldview". Do you not see the flaw in this?

EDIT: as a scientist, I have see n you rail against exactly this kind of illogic, demanding sources when people make claims that "make sense" to them but are outrageous to you because of very divergent worldviews. This is why sourcing is essential. But I don't need to lecture you, you've probably heard this a hundred times in your courses...

 

[benzyme]

we can go into circular arguments all day

my worldview reflects what i've noticed, objectively. it has nothing to do with my opinion of it. I won't pretend it doesn't happen, and I don't think others should either.

I am a proponent for full exposure of tyrannical forces and socioeconomic discrepancies perpetuated by corporate conglomerates working in close association with global governments.
wikileaks is one source, polidics is another. inevitably, there will be more, and that's a good thing.

 

[jbark]

^^^ read the edit above. I posted at the same time as you.

JBArk

Ergo, unsourced intel is unreliable and potentially inflammatory.

 

[gibran2]

i do if it's particularly sensitive, and makes sense; especially
when the reaction supports the theory.
...

The leaks are not particularly sensitive. The latest batch was all classified “Secret”, which is much less sensitive than “Top Secret” (and I think there’s at least one other level above top secret).

The reaction may support your theory precisely because they want it to. If the government wanted the leaks leaked, they obviously aren’t going to react as if they wanted the leaks leaked!

 

[benzyme]

lol

jbark, you don't get it

they more than likely don't cite their sources for their own protection.
as endless pointed out, politicians want to give them the death penalty

the US is not like canada.
you guys protest everyday, and the gov't doesn't even spank you.

The reaction may support your theory precisely because they want it to. If the government wanted the leaks leaked, they obviously aren’t going to react as if they wanted the leaks leaked!

perhaps

but I don't think they're trying to find Assange to sit him down on Oprah.
he's obviously ruffled a lot of feathers, with hackers attacking his site, China banning it, etc. It certainly seems to be waking people up, more entertaining than Dancing with the Stars.

 

[jbark]

lol

jbark, you don't get it

they more than likely don't cite their sources for their own protection.
as endless pointed out, politicians want to give them the death penalty

the US is not like canada.
you guys protest everyday, and the gov't doesn't even spank you.

I do get it. And I have lived in the states as you have lived in Canada. Bottom line is, for whatever reasons, the information is scrutinized by people's agendas you do not know, and remain anonymous and unsourced. You can justify it any way you want, as those who justify crackpot theories without scientific proof or sourcing do, irritating you.

I just severely burned my hand with hot fry oil. I may have to take a break from typing. Teaches me to multitask with hot oil!

...or maybe hubris?

JBArk the handicapped

 

[benzyme]

if only politics worked like science
then everything would be cut and dry, now, wouldn't it?
but when money and political reputations are on the line, the dark nature of humans becomes more apparent.

let's say for a minute that this guy is just doing this for the fame...then governments are giving him what he wants... why?

 

[Saidin]

I'm completely in favor of Wikileaks. They are doing what the non-objective media stopped doing a long time ago. They are bringing things to the surface that we all have a right to know...that we have to know in order to properly elect individuals and set governance for ourselves. If the media was properly doing their job, then there would be no need for an organization like wikileaks.

The old paradigm is crumbling, you can see the cracks getting bigger by the day. Its collapse is inevitable, and I'd rather get it done with so that we can move onto something better.

Anything that helps to wake the sheeple up is a good thing in my opinion.

 

[Saidin]

The leaks are not particularly sensitive. The latest batch was all classified “Secret”, which is much less sensitive than “Top Secret” (and I think there’s at least one other level above top secret).

In an interview over the past couple days, Assange said that there were conversations about UFO's and Extraterresterials contained in the Cablegate Docs that haven't been released yet...those would be earth changing depending on what they contain.

From my understanding, there are 20+ levels above Top Secret.

 

[vovin]

The leaks are not particularly sensitive. The latest batch was all classified “Secret”, which is much less sensitive than “Top Secret” (and I think there’s at least one other level above top secret).

In an interview over the past couple days, Assange said that there were conversations about UFO's and Extraterresterials contained in the Cablegate Docs that haven't been released yet...those would be earth changing depending on what they contain.

From my understanding, there are 20+ levels above Top Secret.

Any intelligent person would have lead with those documents if they existed knowing full well that every government on the planet would be pushing to shut you down as quickly as possible. When exposing something this big the best tactic is to get it out there as soon as possible so it cannot be shut down. I have no doubt the US govt and other govts will shut down wikileaks soon it is a big thorn in their side as of now. Much of what they claim to have wil never make it to the public shouldnt the best be put out there first to beat this inevitable shutdown?

 

[Saidin]

^ or they believe that ultimately they can't be shut down and all attempts to do so just play into wikileaks hands. In that case, you would build your credibility (which they have over a period of years) which would be given further creedence by governments and corporations trying to shut you down.

Like a good suspense novel, you don't want to know who the killer is in the first couple pages. I think they may be playing right into his hands...

 

[polytrip]

I see a problem here: I don't think any reasonable person here still has doubts about the lack of morality our governments posses.
But how do you know that the medicine aint worse than what it's supposed to cure? Stalin was at least as nasty as hitler, communism at least as nasty as capitalism, national socialism at least as nasty as the versailes treaty, american occupation at least as nasty as saddam's regime, etc...

And some things DO need to be kept secret: like how much kidnappers in afghanistan or jemen get paid in ransom by our governments when they release a western hostage..for the obvious reason that if anybody knows how profitable the kidnapping busines is it get's worse.
Or the names of informants in organisations such as al-qaida.. for the reason that this would sabotage the sabotage of terror attacks, or the fact that maybe the US government is negotiating with the taliban.. for the reason that the american public won't accept it, but that it may be necessary to establish peace, or the fact that the US is negotiating with pakistan about it's stock of nuclear material..for the reason the pakistani public won't accept it but that it may be nessecary to prevent it falling into the wrong hands, etc.

I don't trust wikileaks that much. I think they're driven by hate against the government, wich is understandable. But it's not a good basis for acting.

I don't think they consider the greater picture and the consequences of their actions. They just want to sabotage the machinery because they don't like the people behind it and their motives.

But the sabotage of evil machinery's has most of the time lead to more evil machinery's replacing them.

I don't think a world without secrets is such a good idea. It's as naive as communism. To think the public is able to understand what's going on is a fiction. The public would never accept it for instance if they knew obama and clinton would negotiate with al-qaida, with teheran, with north-korea..They want their leaders to be firm and tough like they pretent to be. So those negotiations have to take place in secrecy.