Wikileaks

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

29th November 2010, 22:59
Roamy

so far this is way overrated. Who gives a craps - we should be more concerned about the EU bailout
29th November 2010, 23:41
Ghostwalker

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...129-18e12.html

isn't this the same attourneygeneral that was revealed by WL when he tried to impose a very biased website block list?
Isn't this type of ordering a way more serious offense then the actual leaks?

and what anout this then?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/jul...ge_lander.html
30th November 2010, 00:48
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hondo

The Wikileaks files were downloaded by a US enlisted soldier that either had access, or figured out how to get access to the data. He turned the data over to Wikileaks. The soldier has been arrested but has not been put on trial yet. I can easily see where some of these leaks could have rather severe implications, especially at the local or national levels. It is one thing to suspect that something is going on but it becomes an entirely different matter once confirmed in print.

Amongst other things, al-Qaeda will become larger, stronger, and more powerful once their potential recruits learn the big Arab names behind their financing and that certain governments won't crack down on them out of fear of reprisal.

It's not going to be good and it will have a terrible effect.

Afraid of the truth? Living in denial? Brainwashed?
I guess this is what describes today's 'democracies'.
30th November 2010, 00:54
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostwalker

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...129-18e12.html

isn't this the same attourneygeneral that was revealed by WL when he tried to impose a very biased website block list?
Isn't this type of ordering a way more serious offense then the actual leaks?

and what anout this then?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/jul...ge_lander.html

The leaks are not an offense IMO, unless someone has something to hide in the closet, and public persons should be squeaky clean with nothing to hide!

As far as I am concerned transparency is the only way to save the paranoid society we are living in before we start throwing nukes on each others.
30th November 2010, 01:48
Bob Riebe

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Afraid of the truth? Living in denial? Brainwashed?
I guess this is what describes today's 'democracies'.

You seem so ignorant.
These leaks are harmless, maybe even for the better, but if any causes someone to be killed, your rhetoric will sound as not only ignorant bur obtuse.
30th November 2010, 07:56
Mark in Oshawa

This stuff is embarassing and just pointless. The guy who was the source of the leaks however was in Iraq, and was apparently a troubled guy who had run in's with the military over his being involved in an assault and his loss of rank. In short, this guy had an axe to grind.

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another. They do however do their share of damage....

For me personally, I think this is going to be much ado about nothing. Hillary Clinton said it best, an unnamed country had her counter part phone her up and tell her that they were glad their cables were not hacked, since some of the stuff said there was worse! It is human nature....we unload and say nasty stuff behind closed doors with friends but in the end, it is much ado about nothing.

Julian Assange isn't as honest as a porn peddler. Unlike the guy selling the dirty mags, this guy really thinks he is doing something noble.....he isn't...he is just taking anything he thinks is a secret and dumping it in the public domain.
30th November 2010, 09:29
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

You seem so ignorant.
These leaks are harmless, maybe even for the better, but if any causes someone to be killed, your rhetoric will sound as not only ignorant bur obtuse.

It is fanciful to suggest that the death of one individual could ever be put down to these leaks. And even if it could, the good that you rightly suggest could come out of them may well cancel that out by saving other lives.

Oh, by the way, obtuse is not the right word to use in this situation.
30th November 2010, 09:40
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

This stuff is embarassing and just pointless. The guy who was the source of the leaks however was in Iraq, and was apparently a troubled guy who had run in's with the military over his being involved in an assault and his loss of rank. In short, this guy had an axe to grind.

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another. They do however do their share of damage....

True, but there are plenty of other whistleblowers — whether in public or private — who do so for more, shall we say, genuine reasons. And I don't think there's anything petty or moronic about the releasing into the public domain of embarrassing classified information. It is an important thing to be doing, though the significance of that information beyond some short-term embarrassment does vary. When it's done by means of genuine investigation, research or Freedom of Information requests, no-one has a problem with it except those who are embarrassed or exposed as a result. I therefore don't quite understand the fuss being made about this information being leaked in this manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

For me personally, I think this is going to be much ado about nothing. Hillary Clinton said it best, an unnamed country had her counter part phone her up and tell her that they were glad their cables were not hacked, since some of the stuff said there was worse! It is human nature....we unload and say nasty stuff behind closed doors with friends but in the end, it is much ado about nothing.

This is my sole problem with the Wikileaks 'revelations'. A lot of them are little more than, basically, internal e-mails between work colleagues. I would not want all my private thoughts and comments in e-mails or other forms of communication to be brought into the public domain, purely in the name of good personal relations. Of course, the level of importance of the matters under discussion is a bit different in the case of international diplomacy, but the principle still holds. So I would question the merit of releasing some of the comments made by ambassadors, etc, about the leaders of the countries in which they work. We have learned little from them, though they are unquestionably interesting and sometimes amusing. The details of torture, deals over prisoners and so on are a different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Julian Assange isn't as honest as a porn peddler. Unlike the guy selling the dirty mags, this guy really thinks he is doing something noble.....he isn't...he is just taking anything he thinks is a secret and dumping it in the public domain.

How is this different from making Freedom of Information requests which end up with that information being placed in the public domain? After all, the end result is the same, except that via Wikileaks we have gained access to much that those responsible for handling FoI disclosures would never have allowed out. I think this is a good thing, given the levels of paranoia about classified information.
30th November 2010, 09:45
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another.

In the old Soviet Union and other communist countries, those were called dissidents.
30th November 2010, 09:50
Azumanga Davo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

dissidents

The Russian word for "deceased".

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page