WikiLeaks is at it again-this time, State Department in "contigency" mode.

I see your point, but:

1) Who controls those who publish the leaks? I know, nobody, which makes sense, because otherwise there would be sort of an implied censorship. But what if the leak-publisher hates company A, has stock in company B and even though he has more dirt on company B, decides to only publish the negative stuff on company A?

2) The threat of leaking does not necessarily reward those who act more ethically, but it certainly rewards those who are better at preventing leakage. Now, who will put more emphasis on preventing leaks? Right, the more unethical ones, because they have more to hide.

I am not saying I do not see your point or am opposed to it, I am just saying it is not as crystal-clear that the outcome of forced transparency will always be a net positive.

But the more I think about it, the more torn I am on the issue. I was first firmly against what he does, but obviously there might also be positives that come from it. It is a difficult, but fascinating issue, I think.

 

This is purely a trust thing. Do you trust Julian Assange (and WikiLeaks) to be impartial?

I do, given his responses and apparent ideals in interviews.

This is addressed somewhat in the interview in questions about the guy Assange knows (a fellow hacker) that is now working for the US government making software/protocols that prevent leaks.

I agree, nothing is straightforward or crystal-clear. The way I feel is that Assange and WikiLeaks' information seems to be good (as no one has denied it and it has been used in various ways already for reforms/changes in governments and corporations), so I trust them. I don't think they'll succumb to outside influences because they're not really out for monetary gain right now (I believe they're quoted as being "non-profit"), but purely for ideological transparency. I support that.

In the interview, they did discuss other websites popping up claiming to do what WikiLeaks does, but Assange warns that most of them probably aren't trustworthy and could EASILY be used in the wrong way (for profit, to slam other companies, etc. as you mentioned). I don't believe WikiLeaks is going about it the wrong way. Again, it boils down to trust.

 

Hero of democracy? Maybe - that depends on a myriad of factors unrelated to his groups' efforts. Moreover, it's hard for me to make that judgement without a more in depth view of his politic a la Chomsky.

I will say this though, he is certainly far more vested in the interests of the citizenry (as a worldwide collective, not US-centric) than any government entity.

Speaking of Chomsky, he spoke with democracy now regarding the leaks today.

 

I'm curious - where are those "patriots" who like to give the "if you have nothing to hide, you should not mind searches" arguments now? Isn't this a perfect case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

Props to wikileaks. Release more.

 

Assange claims to have info on a major US bank that would bring it down, you still want more?

 

For the hardcore pro-Assangers out there, do you really honestly believe that, all intra-state department communiques should be made public, no matter how mundane, in what amounts to near-real time, rather than 15-20 years or whatever the rule is now?

I think there's an overriding interest in keeping some communications secret/privileged, at least in the short to medium ter, I mean it's basically impossible for the state department to carry out its function otherwise.

I'd be more on Assange's side here if he was whistle-blowing on something major, like the lies in the run-up to the Iraq War, rather than revealing routine department communciations for no purpose other than what appears to be his own ego and of no consequence other than embarrassment and what will certainly lead to even less communcation and his holy grail of transparency in the future. Not helpful.

 

This Assange guy deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. He is setting a great example for freedom of speech and whistle blowing to reveal government's dirty tricks and secrets. He is upholding a key pillar of democracy - freedom. Freedom to do anything you want, including going against the most powerful (currently) country in the world.

Julia Assange will be the prime example that the United States can use against China to promote freedom of speech and democracy there.

Julian Assange for Nobel Peace Prize 2011!!!

 

I know and yes, absolutely.

 

"$26 million fer bob wahr? That'll do 'er."

 

There definitely is some truth to this. On the other hand, the releases are hardly all of no consequence unless you just don't care (~98% of the American public). So yes, some of the revelations are mundane or inconsequential as far as these things go, but others are not.

Read it how you will that they were released en masse instead of in a selective fashion.

 

More wonderful insight from Greenwald:

 

Most of them however, ARE mundane (example, I read an incredibly long, detail-rich account from a diplomat with too much time on his hands of a state wedding in the breakaway Russian Republic of Dagestan, which had all manner of background info on local customs, dances, etc and read more like a magazine article from the New Yorker). It was enjoyable, but there's no reason I had to read it now instead of in 15 years when it was slated for declassification.

Even the ones that aren't mundane break into two categories, interesting things that are probably better left unsaid and are only debilitating when made public (e.g, Qatar distrusting Iran, or the U.S distrusting Putin - they shouldn't trust Putin, despite GWB's assurances, lol...) and scandals. Even the scandals are pretty minor and not unexpected. BUt if scandal busting was his idea, then he could have just released those docs.

The problem with the en masse release is that such a large stash of data basically reinforces to the rest of the world that they can't say anything in confidence ot the US....ever. That's a bad thing, and makes both the rest of the world and the US worse off.

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html

Dissatisfaction with Assange
Former WikiLeaks Activists to Launch New Whistleblowing Site


A group of former members of WikiLeaks is planning to launch its own whistleblowing platform in mid-December, according to a German newspaper. The activists criticize WikiLeaks for concentrating too much on the US and want to take a broader approach.

Julian Assange is the public face of the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, and Sunday's publication of the leaked US diplomatic cables will have raised his profile even higher. In fact, the former hacker is now a leading candidate for Time magazine's "2010 Person of the Year."

But former members of the organization have criticized his supposedly autocratic leadership style. "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, piss off," Assange famously wrote to one internal critic.
Now a group of former WikiLeaks activists are planning to launch a whistleblowing platform of their own in mid-December, according to a report in the Wednesday edition of the German newspaper Die Tageszeitung. The group stresses that the as-yet-unnamed platform should not be seen as a competitor to WikiLeaks but as a different approach, the newspaper wrote.

"As many people as possible should have access to as many documents as possible," the former Germany spokesman for WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, told the newspaper.

Domscheit-Berg criticized WikiLeaks for concentrating on publishing material about the US while other information was neglected. "There was a lack of transparency about how decisions had been reached," he told the newspaper. "That's why I trust this organization as little as I would trust another organization with similar problems."

Domscheit-Berg has written a tell-all book about his experiences with WikiLeaks, titled "Inside WikiLeaks," which will be published in German by the Berlin-based publisher Econ Verlag in January 2011. A spokeswoman for the publisher told SPIEGEL ONLINE that there were no immediate plans to publish an English version, but that it was "entirely possible" that the book might be translated.

'We Wish Them Luck'

Back in September, Domscheit-Berg, at the time the second-best known member of WikiLeaks, announced in a SPIEGEL interview that he was leaving the organization out of dissatisfaction with how Assange was running the project. "Unfortunately we've reached a dead end," he said. "Julian Assange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project."
For its part, WikiLeaks has said it would welcome rivals. "There is some indication that Daniel and some others are setting up a similar venue, and we wish them luck," said Kristinn Hrafnsson, a WikiLeaks spokesman, in an interview quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early November. "It would be good to have more organizations like WikiLeaks."

Meanwhile pressure is increasing on Julian Assange in relation to an alleged sex offence. Interpol announced early on Wednesday that it had issued a "Red Notice" asking people to contact the authorities if they had information on his location, which is currently unknown. Assange is wanted for questioning in Sweden over the alleged crime, which he denies. Interpol stressed that the "Red Notice" is not an international arrest warrant.

----------------------

I read that Assange acted like a total dictator when it came to deciding what would get published and what would not. Can't say I feel sorry for him that Wikileaks now has a leak itself.

 

It's a pretty neat ploy to attack the leader and ignore the contents of wikileaks, but it's swell that we have another leak site.

People interested in this will only care about the results.

 

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks is amazingly divisive. Even among similar-ideological groups (conservatives, liberals, etc.), there is still a division amongst them as to whether WikiLeaks is a good or bad thing. It's really amazing what it has done already.

 

I said it in the other thread, we need it for FIFA!!!!

 

embarrass FIFA???

is that even possible?