Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

WikiLleaks Part 2; Threat or Menace?

BigG · Guru

Just wait until "the cloud" becomes the standard IT medium. Get ready for a world with ALL business, technical and personal information known by all

.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

There's a documentary on CNN right now about this. I don't know if anyone has mentioned that...

winchester · Guru

Short answer: Menace.

All involved in Wikileaks are taking the law and/or the "public good" into their own hands.

It's extra-legal vigilantism, and thus a menace.

Any discussion about the content of what was realeased, the motivations of the individuals who released it, or whether there has been a net gain or loss to "society" is competely beside the point.

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

I do think the media is doing exactly that. They are not reporting the news; they are making them.

Tiananmen was tragic on many levels. The real story was China's move away from socialism, which put many workers' jobs in peril. Many of these workers were poorly educated, thanks to the Cultural Revolution, and were ill-prepared to face a capitalistic future and they knew it.

Secondly the Chinese government did not know how to deal with huge crowds. The initial attempt at crowd control had unarmed soldiers making their way into the crowd and were swarmed. The second wave of soldiers out to rescue them were armed, but made the same mistake of wading into the crowd where they were badly out-numbered. In short, the only way to get them out was to start shooting...

I got much of the information from oversea Chinese newspapers, and I know my sources are incomplete. My command of the language, written and oral, are also limited. I do believe I have the gist of the story right.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Are you suggesting that the media might not give us the whole story? That they create facts or change them?

Regardless of if the majority of the events happened in the square or a few miles away, it was heart wrenching to watch on live tv as it unfolded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGJoaHr2QdM

Canuckguy · Veteran Member

I came across this Wikileaks the other day:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

It seems like the Chinese were telling the truth and our reporters were not, as the following seems to suggest:

Leaders of the protest, including Liu Xiaobo, the winner of last year's Nobel Peace prize, urged the students to depart the square, and the Chilean diplomat relayed that "once agreement was reached for the students to withdraw, linking hands to form a column, the students left the square through the south east corner." The testimony contradicts the reports of several journalists who were in Beijing at the time, who described soldiers "charging" into unarmed civilians and suggests the death toll on the night may be far lower than the thousands previously thought.

In 2009, James Miles, who was the BBC correspondent in Beijing at the time, admitted that he had "conveyed the wrong impression" and that "there was no massacre on Tiananmen Square. Protesters who were still in the square when the army reached it were allowed to leave after negotiations with martial law troops [ ...] There was no Tiananmen Square massacre, but there was a Beijing massacre".

Interesting, isn't it?

poetgrl · Senior Member

I wish this guy would go and get to the bottom of what the US government is doing with various wall street firms, personally. evileye

The "real" issue I see with the information leaked, this time around, aside from the very important fact that he is leaking information which gets people killed, for one thing, is that these leaks seriously damage our ablity to work diplomatically with other nations to bring about peace.

That is the greatest loss, imho.

On the other hand, I have serious misgivings about becoming the kind of country that goes after the information outlets. If somebody takes an oath and commits treason, or if somebody is caught in espionage? This is one thing. But, in the US, one of the things which really does keep us free is the freedom to diseminate information. Take that away and the government, which seems to be getting increasingly large amounts of control over our lives, these days, has the ability to keep all sorts of people quiet.....I find that somewhat alarming.

creaturely · Veteran Member

I think the net impact of Wikileaks over its 4 years of existence has been positive, yes.

Wildwood · In exile

^I will answer that for me, yes, in the grand scheme of things. I believe that from a neutral global perspective this is more likely to be an overall positive. If it helps people understand the phoniness of some diplomacy, makes officials in any country more afraid to use double-speak for fear of being exposed, reveals honest assessments of the difficult situations on the world scene, and brings to light pressures governments put on each other to act in ways that would not be supported by the public (Yemen, Spain), this is a good thing.

I'm sorry there may be some negative consequences for particular individuals, but Americans never seem to worry about "collateral damage" when they think there is a bigger interest at stake, so why should others?

pima · Guru

So in your belief, Assange did something good for the world? That he did not hurt the relationships or Terrorists caught a glimpse of how to work the system.

Just asking for a straight out response of yes or no!

.

-- Edited by pima on Friday 3rd of December 2010 01:45:54 PM

creaturely · Veteran Member

I really admire your hope that the world is on the road to hugs and lollipops because each country should be willing to play nice with each other if we just all talk honestly.

Much as I admire your confidence-- so well justified in the light of recent history-- in the good judgment and benevolent intentions of our national security state, which obviously functions most efficiently and ethically in the absence of checks; though I, likewise, do not share it. Or else, we could both refrain from embarrassing parodies of each others' positions.

What has the release of these documents done? It has hampered our ability to achieve cooperation with those we deal with on the world stage.

Assange's goal in hosting leaks is not primarily to embarrass America (indeed, it is not just American information that is hosted); nor is it to stop some particular set of diplomatic practices. Nor is it even to "make the world a better place through honest communication." It is, rather, to create an environment in which the porousness of government secrecy makes it harder for governments to create internal networks of conspiracy that devour the intentions, however good, of any individual actor: to make government smaller and less authoritarian.

-- Edited by creaturely on Friday 3rd of December 2010 01:00:02 PM

Bullet · Senior Member

There is sometimes a reason why classified information is classified. Or, rather, to put it differently, there is sometimes a reason why classified information is classified.

Absolutely. Are we willing to let the American public decide the reason, or those we’ve tasked to ensure our National security?

But more often, as these by-and-large innocuous cables prove, classified information is classified because our government has outrageously expanded the reflexive umbrella of secrecy under which it conducts business to the point where secrecy is the default, rather than the exception-- with the effect of making it increasingly difficult for citizens to have any idea what business is being conducted in our name, without any scrutiny or check.

Not exactly. Our intelligence infrastructure and the requirement to label more and more information as classified has increased primarily for one reason and one reason alone: the amount of data, particularly electronic data such as computer and communications networks traffic, that we are able to collect and need to analyze has grown EXPONENTIALLY over the past 20 years. We needed a significantly larger intelligence infrastructure just to handle all that new data. Perhaps we’ve created a behemoth with an ever increasing appetite for more data, but the need to make this infrastructure was immediate.

And secrecy is the default in this case for this type of data for a reason you have chosen to ignore: this data was honest and open assessment by our government agencies on the cultural, political, and social environments of other nations we deal with, be they friend or foe. The purpose of our government should be to protect OUR interests, first and foremost. I WANT that to remain, where our Government focuses first on OUR priorities and equities over the rest of the world’s. Quite frankly, I feel it is extremely naïve and very foolish to feel that we should do otherwise.

Wikileaks is not the perfect check one could wish for-- there is no doubt that it has published and probably will again publish information that was classified for legitimate reasons. But in the absence of a media that shows any inclination to question our government's insistence on classifying information crucial to making informed judgments of its actions; and in the presence of a crowd of right wing pundits longing for an increasingly draconian secrecy and security regime, I'll be grateful for it all the same.

I really admire your hope that the world is on the road to hugs and lollipops because each country should be willing to play nice with each other if we just all talk honestly. I don’t share your sentiment, however.

What has the release of these documents done? It has hampered our ability to achieve cooperation with those we deal with on the world stage. They now know how we truthfully feel about them and how we prepare to engage with them. I’m sure if YOUR companies business strategy was publish for all your competitors to see it would impact your company’s bottom line, which would in turn impact YOUR bottom line. Are you willing to allow that?
Bottom Line: Why do YOU need to know what our government is doing and how it does it when it comes to its assessments of other nations and how they should interact with them? So you can feel good that we are fair and honest brokers? I’d prefer we are focused first on what is right for this country, and usually this requires that you need to hold back what you’re really feeling and thinking when engaging on the world stage, or you’re just letting the opponent see your cards before you make your raise.

You may see him as a hero. I certainly don’t. To me, he’s just a misguided, naïve, and delusional fool if he thinks his intent is to make the world a better place through honest communication. His actions have placed American lives in danger, hurt our credibility, reduced cooperation with our friends while empowering our enemies, and placed our national security at risk. A fool, and a dangerous fool at that. Do I think we should do something about HIM? Hard to say. I DEFINETLY think we should do something about the person who supplied him the information. Long nights in a cold cell shared with a large and amorous prison cell mate come to mind.

-- Edited by Bullet on Friday 3rd of December 2010 09:24:39 AM

creaturely · Veteran Member

There is sometimes a reason why classified information is classified. Or, rather, to put it differently, there is sometimes a reason why classified information is classified. But more often, as these by-and-large innocuous cables prove, classified information is classified because our government has outrageously expanded the reflexive umbrella of secrecy under which it conducts business to the point where secrecy is the default, rather than the exception-- with the effect of making it increasingly difficult for citizens to have any idea what business is being conducted in our name, without any scrutiny or check.

Wikileaks is not the perfect check one could wish for-- there is no doubt that it has published and probably will again publish information that was classified for legitimate reasons. But in the absence of a media that shows any inclination to question our government's insistence on classifying information crucial to making informed judgments of its actions; and in the presence of a crowd of right wing pundits longing for an increasingly draconian secrecy and security regime, I'll be grateful for it all the same.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Wildwood- I liked your 3 posts here. I think you got to the heart of the matter and your analysis is right on.

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

In Soccerguy's universe, a non-US citizen (like the Australian Julian Assange) can get charged with treason against the US.

in nbachris's universe, members of the US military should not be held accountable for actions detrimental to US national security?

obviously Assange is not guilty of treason. use your brain man.

My mistake. There's an entire Greek chorus of right-wing idiots out there calling Assange a traitor that I thought you were one of them.

haha. I don't care what the wikileaks guy is doing... except he is making himself an enemy of a lot of powerful people, so that might not be in his best interest.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Wednesday 1st of December 2010 10:26:11 PM

Wildwood · In exile

No, Mr. Assuage simply wanted to embarrass the big, bad, American government, whom he believes needs to be knocked down a peg or two for their actions over the past decade or so.

Well, yes, of course. And why not? I've been reading and listening to American commentators on this subject and I'm surprised out how egocentric they are in their thinking. Of course, this may damage the U.S. in some ways, but when one country loses another one gains. Assange does not put U.S. interests ahead of other countries', why should he? He's certainly not the only person in the world who thinks that the U.S. being taken down a notch is a good thing for international relations. And Wikileaks doesn't just go after the U.S. It has released numerous documents from other countries, from scandals in Peru to an Iranian nuclear accident to toxic dumping in Africa. Oh yes, and the climate change emails over which conservatives made such a hullabaloo.

Wikileaks' non-profit mission has been praised and defended by an array of media outlets and organizations as well as censored in China and other countries. If it had been the diplomatic communications from Russia or Iran, which it could have been and may someday be, would the U.S. be complaining and threatening? Of course not, they would be combing through the material to find all the useful information. So whether this document dump is a good or bad thing is completely in the eyes of the beholder. U.S. officials should realize this and worry about making their info more secure, not going after the messenger, which will make the government look weaker if it fails, or like more of a hypocritical bully if it succeeds in silencing Assange.

Bullet · Senior Member

I don't even know what treason means. Can someone tell me what a "nation" is?

Fair enough. I'll give it a shot.

Here’s my hack at a definition of “a nation”:
A collective populace in control of a geographic portion of the World, with a recognizable and acknowledged form of government that oversees the populace’s collective interests or daily lives.

Of course there are a few (very few) exceptions to the rule above. But it covers about 95% of the world population. It’s where they live, how they interact with their neighbors and the rest of the world, and whom they collectively go to in times of trouble.

Now, what is “treason”. Simply when a member of that collective nation takes intentional actions that they know are against the interests or detrimental to that nation. Obviously, in this case Mr. Assauge is NOT committing treason; he is not a US citizen.

However, his actions can be taken as ESPIONAGE against the US government. The intentional collection and dissemination of information from a member of one nation against another nation. Simply stated, this guy is a SPY. Not for a particular nation per se, but the information he is wantonly distributing for all to see is intended to hurt the American government’s current methodology of interacting with the rest of the world, and that information is disseminated in a way that all other nations can profit politically from this information.

Now,is this a harsh assessment of Mr. Assauge’s actions, labeling him a “Spy”? Certainly, and quite frankly I wouldn’t use it. I prefer to think of this fool as a very misguided and naïve idiot who actually believes his own rhetoric that the world is better off if governments ONLY interact with open and honest communications and intent. No, governments should ONLY act with their OWN (or their populace’s) interests when interacting with other nations, and they do ALL THE TIME. I’m sure if wikileaks were to post the classified assessments and diplomatic messages of other nations (Great Britain, for example), the information provided would demonstrate the same: information on honest assessments from one nation on another, and those honest assessments would be just as embarrassing for the nation whose information was leaked.

No, Mr. Assuage simply wanted to embarrass the big, bad, American government, whom he believes needs to be knocked down a peg or two for their actions over the past decade or so.

My question to all of you: Do you feel it is right to provide only open and honest information with the people YOU interact with everyday. People who may be your friends, family, or colleagues? Do you REALLY tell your sister that you completely disagree with the way she is raising her kids to her face, or do you keep your opinion to yourself and perhaps your spouse? Do you actually go up to your neighbor and tell them how stupid they dress sometimes, or that you think they drink too much in public?

Honest and open communication is a nice and niave pipe-dream for very obvious reasons. And if you really want your National Security based on a Koom-Bye-Ah, let’s all be friends, even as you punch me and take my property manner; well, you’re a better person than I. Foolish to think it would work, but I admire your faith in mankind and your hope that other nations would act in EVERYONE’s interests and not their own. Mine is just a little less…

And note I didn' resort to labeling anyone "left-wing moonbats" in my assessment of their naivete...

BigG · Guru

There are a lot of right wing nutjobs that wonder why we don't pass a law against communism.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

In Soccerguy's universe, a non-US citizen (like the Australian Julian Assange) can get charged with treason against the US.

in nbachris's universe, members of the US military should not be held accountable for actions detrimental to US national security?

obviously Assange is not guilty of treason. use your brain man.

My mistake. There's an entire Greek chorus of right-wing idiots out there calling Assange a traitor that I thought you were one of them.

Abyss · Senior Member

amazing wrote:

Abyss wrote:

Your point is self refuting. There aren't thousands of those sites even now. Why not?

The answer seems obvious to me...

Actually, there are, quite literally, thousands of sources currently hosting the content. http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks/0/99/0

See the column on the right hand side of the screen that says "se" (stands for seeding)? That number represents the amount of people that have a FULL copy of the content and allowing anyone who wants to to download it.

Yes, I'm familiar with torrents. You didn't respond to what I said though. You phrased your response carefully.

soccerguy315 · Guru

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

In Soccerguy's universe, a non-US citizen (like the Australian Julian Assange) can get charged with treason against the US.

in nbachris's universe, members of the US military should not be held accountable for actions detrimental to US national security?

obviously Assange is not guilty of treason. use your brain man.

amazing · Veteran Member

Abyss wrote:

Your point is self refuting. There aren't thousands of those sites even now. Why not?

The answer seems obvious to me...

Actually, there are, quite literally, thousands of sources currently hosting the content. http://thepiratebay.org/search/wikileaks/0/99/0

See the column on the right hand side of the screen that says "se" (stands for seeding)? That number represents the amount of people that have a FULL copy of the content and allowing anyone who wants to to download it.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I don't even know what treason means. Can someone tell me what a "nation" is?

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

soccerguy315 wrote:

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

In Soccerguy's universe, a non-US citizen (like the Australian Julian Assange) can get charged with treason against the US.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/interpol-issues-red-notice-for-arrest-of-wikileaks-julian-assange.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Well, he'll still have to dodge this alleged rapist thingie.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

soccerguy315 wrote:

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

In Soccerguy's universe, a non-US citizen (like the Australian Julian Assange) can get charged with treason against the US.

Abyss · Senior Member

ImSoAnarchist wrote:

I guess I'm one of the people who thinks Assange is a hero.

As merely the conduit? I suppose you praise traitors like Manning even more highly?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I guess I'm one of the people who thinks Assange is a hero.

Abyss · Senior Member

Wildwood wrote:

"Just make him disappear. He becomes a matyr then? I think you'll be highly disappointed."

What's that supposed to mean? Do you not know that there are plenty of people around the world who consider Assange a hero? I'm not one of them, but I am realistic about the perceptions that many non-Americans have about the way the U.S. operates and who are happy to see light shed on diplomatic manipulations and other government actions. These people exist in every country, including in high proportions among U.S. allies. If he just "disappears" conspiracy theories will abound throughout the world, and it will elevate him to martyr status for many.

We'll see. The over/under on his lifespan might be 3 years at this rate.

Wildwood · In exile

Wow. I see from BigG's link that Ecuador, not exactly an enemy of the U.S., has offered to take in Assange and give him free rein to disseminate any documentation or information he acquires.

I don't get how the U.S. could charge him for releasing leaked official documents when, as far as I know, it has never done so with any U.S. publication that has acquired and published such material. The government even lost a Supreme Court case in which it was trying to prevent newspapers from publishing things from the Pentagon Papers.

Wildwood · In exile

"Just make him disappear. He becomes a matyr then? I think you'll be highly disappointed."

What's that supposed to mean? Do you not know that there are plenty of people around the world who consider Assange a hero? I'm not one of them, but I am realistic about the perceptions that many non-Americans have about the way the U.S. operates and who are happy to see light shed on diplomatic manipulations and other government actions. These people exist in every country, including in high proportions among U.S. allies. If he just "disappears" conspiracy theories will abound throughout the world, and it will elevate him to martyr status for many.

BigG · Guru

What are the limits, if any, of US soverignity?

We seem unable to legally stop Saudi bankrolling of terrorist operations, what is the legal precedent for "going after" Assange?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1130/Did-WikiLeaks-founder-Julian-Assange-commit-a-crime

Has the man even ever been within the jurisdiction of the United States?

Abyss · Senior Member

Wildwood wrote:
But it is not treason for Julian Assange or any other non-American, as they are under no obligation of loyalty to the U.S. government. They could try to take him out, but it certainly would not deter others from doing the same thing, in fact, it would only encourage them, as it would turn Assange into a martyr.

-- Edited by Wildwood on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 01:20:20 AM

Just make him disappear. He becomes a matyr then? I think you'll be highly disappointed.

Wildwood · In exile

It is treason for Pfc Manning who walked off with CDs of the material in the first place (definite in the first set of leaks, suspected in the most recent) but he never would have been caught if he hadn't blabbed about it in chat rooms online. A more savvy and dedicated spy would have just passed the info on to a third party and may have never been found out.

But it is not treason for Julian Assange or any other non-American, as they are under no obligation of loyalty to the U.S. government. They could try to take him out, but it certainly would not deter others from doing the same thing, in fact, it would only encourage them, as it would turn Assange into a martyr.

-- Edited by Wildwood on Tuesday 30th of November 2010 01:20:20 AM

soccerguy315 · Guru

there's a reason classified information is classified.

that said, I haven't heard anything yet from these leaks that is really surprising. A lot of it sounds like standard stuff that every government probably does.

however... threatening the national security of the US or helping enemies of the US seems like a good way to try to get yourself killed by the government. Treason? maybe.

-- Edited by soccerguy315 on Monday 29th of November 2010 09:19:42 PM

BigG · Guru

Good line Cardinal Fang. No "black helicopters" in your airspace.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

You think that the Russians or Chinese would hestitate to assassinate if there were true national security secrets coming down the pipeline?
They would likely assassinate such a person, if they could do so quietly. However, the US is not Russia or China. We are founded on principles that we must maintain, lest those wishing to destroy what we stand for win.

What do we stand for? I tend to think killing one guilty person to save 10,000 'innocents' is a decision I'd hope our president would make.

poetgrl · Senior Member

When BigG says things like that I can't decide if it makes me more nervous that he says those things or that I go, hmmmmm.......

I wonder if when I am so old I can't remember any of you I will end up being in a wheelchair, smoking the medical marijuana and expousing conspiracy theories?

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Giving the example of Vince Foster, a depressed person who, sadly, committed suicide, and Ken Lay, a very ill slimemold who escaped a well-deserved prison sentence by dying, does not make me more likely to believe that the US government would assassinate political opponents.

BigG · Guru

Do you think appropriate departments in our own government would have hesitated for a nanosecond if assasination could have stopped the leak?

Vince Foster
Ken Lay
et al

It is amazing how often potentially inconvenient people turn up dead.

Billy · Senior Member

You think that the Russians or Chinese would hestitate to assassinate if there were true national security secrets coming down the pipeline?
They would likely assassinate such a person, if they could do so quietly. However, the US is not Russia or China. We are founded on principles that we must maintain, lest those wishing to destroy what we stand for win.

Wildwood · In exile

I think the reason there aren't other known sites is just a question of content. When someone gets hold of secret information, whether from the government or any other place, there are a multitude of ways to make it public through the internet. Wikilieaks is just the first or most well-known to make the business so notorious and actually solicit people for secret info. You kill or shut down one guy, and there will always be plenty of others, mostly non-U.S. people willing to take the risk on principle, as they see it.

I know many find it hard to understand, but a lot of people think this is just what the world needs to make wars eventually end and governments more accountable. If those with power can no longer manipulate information and the relationships with others because everything is at risk of being exposed, they will learn to be a lot more straightforward in their dealings.

I know people are outraged by the possible dangerous consequences for some people, but many more people (in absolute numbers) are outraged by the the wars that the U.S. has initiated that already have led to the deaths and suffering of millions. So try to understand why some are eager to expose U.S. international maneuvering.

-- Edited by Wildwood on Monday 29th of November 2010 02:27:55 AM

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

Why do multiple pirated websites exist (if you start counting news groups, there are a massive amount)? Why wouldn't only a single website exist?
Oh, I seem to have misunderstood your post. Yeah, it seems like the actual direct leak would only be to one website. Though, if the first one shut down, maybe he would spread the information around through many sites? Like social networking or torrent sites? I don't know, not really relevant, I suppose.

I would like to see these documents not leaked, but it's clearly inevitable now. The impact may be exaggerated, though, as other posters have pointed out.

I think it's really relevant that there is only one "wikileaks" site versus dozens of traditional pirating sites. I think it's because hackers know the intrinsic danger of messing with governments. Governments don't have the same rules that companies do.

I tend to think if Mr Assuage was assassinated his fellow leakers wouldn't quite be so hasty in posting stuff directly to the internet.

You think that the Russians or Chinese would hestitate to assassinate if there were true national security secrets coming down the pipeline?

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 11:29:44 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Why do multiple pirated websites exist (if you start counting news groups, there are a massive amount)? Why wouldn't only a single website exist?
Oh, I seem to have misunderstood your post. Yeah, it seems like the actual direct leak would only be to one website. Though, if the first one shut down, maybe he would spread the information around through many sites? Like social networking or torrent sites? I don't know, not really relevant, I suppose.

I would like to see these documents not leaked, but it's clearly inevitable now. The impact may be exaggerated, though, as other posters have pointed out.

Abyss · Senior Member

Billy wrote:

Your point is self refuting. There aren't thousands of those sites even now. Why not?

The answer seems obvious to me...
Because there's already a website like that with the information. If it was shut down, unless all of the information was taken back or all involved parties were imprisoned, the information would be put on another site.

Why do multiple pirated websites exist (if you start counting news groups, there are a massive amount)? Why wouldn't only a single website exist?

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:14:03 PM

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 28th of November 2010 08:14:33 PM

Billy · Senior Member

Your point is self refuting. There aren't thousands of those sites even now. Why not?

The answer seems obvious to me...
Because there's already a website like that with the information. If it was shut down, unless all of the information was taken back or all involved parties were imprisoned, the information would be put on another site.

Abyss · Senior Member

amazing wrote:

You seemed to have missed my point. Yes, the government could easily shut down the singular website that is known as wikileaks. My point was that this wouldn't do anything, because there are thousand of other websites/media outlets/whoever that people can still leak information to. The only way to get rid of them all would be to shut down the entire internet and all media outlets, which seems like an unlikely course of action for the government to take. This is why it should focus its efforts on preventing sensitive information from getting out in the first place, as opposed to targeting the websites that distribute the information.

Your point is self refuting. There aren't thousands of those sites even now. Why not?

The answer seems obvious to me...

amazing · Veteran Member

Abyss wrote:

amazing wrote:

Cuse0507 wrote:

The government could probably shut down wikileaks if it wanted to. I'm not sure why they haven't.

Sort of, not really. They could shut down wikileaks, but there are a thousand other websites out there that would gladly host the content. Also, bittorent. We have been trying for years to shut down TPB and similar websites without much overall success.

We need to focus our efforts on preventing the information from being leaked in the first place, not on futile attempts to shut down distribution sites.

The US government could easily 'shut it down'. The legality of the action would be questionable - but it could easily do it.

You seemed to have missed my point. Yes, the government could easily shut down the singular website that is known as wikileaks. My point was that this wouldn't do anything, because there are thousand of other websites/media outlets/whoever that people can still leak information to. The only way to get rid of them all would be to shut down the entire internet and all media outlets, which seems like an unlikely course of action for the government to take. This is why it should focus its efforts on preventing sensitive information from getting out in the first place, as opposed to targeting the websites that distribute the information.

Abyss · Senior Member

amazing wrote:

Cuse0507 wrote:

The government could probably shut down wikileaks if it wanted to. I'm not sure why they haven't.

Sort of, not really. They could shut down wikileaks, but there are a thousand other websites out there that would gladly host the content. Also, bittorent. We have been trying for years to shut down TPB and similar websites without much overall success.

We need to focus our efforts on preventing the information from being leaked in the first place, not on futile attempts to shut down distribution sites.

The US government could easily 'shut it down'. The legality of the action would be questionable - but it could easily do it.

amazing · Veteran Member

Cuse0507 wrote:

The government could probably shut down wikileaks if it wanted to. I'm not sure why they haven't.

Sort of, not really. They could shut down wikileaks, but there are a thousand other websites out there that would gladly host the content. Also, bittorent. We have been trying for years to shut down TPB and similar websites without much overall success.

We need to focus our efforts on preventing the information from being leaked in the first place, not on futile attempts to shut down distribution sites.