View Poll Results: Releasing leaked info; right or wrong?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • Right - for whatever reason

    32 61.54%
  • Wrong - for whatever reason

    20 38.46%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 124
  1. #41  
    This thread keeps turning in circles.. here my thoughts:
    WL opens the governments up for the people they depend on - hence the word "democracy" (power of the people). It's the same with companies and shareholders or their employees - they know rather well whats going on inside (I bet there are exceptions). It is no valid point to bring up your own personal privacy because you don't depend on anyone (and if you do, that person will know you rather well).
    Back to WL: I don't think they can control what information they get. They just get it and then they decide to publish it to inform the people about their governments or not. (But don't nail me on that one..) That a lot of the information isn't vital to me is true, but I'd like to know what my government thinks of the other countries of the world - does it correspond with my views of these countries? Is this government representing my views? Thats all something to keep in mind for the next election.. How am I supposed to truly embrace my "power" of voting if I don't know what I'm truly voting for?
    That's why, for a democracy, I'd say WL is essential.
    As to how much information WL is allowed to leak: enough for me to know what my "vote is thinking".. I don't know why someone mentioned the medical history of the politicians.. if he is now capable of doing what he is supposed to do, then it's fine. Anything else is his personal matter (see above).
    Same with the D-day-information stated.. For me, as a single person, a war strategy is totally irrelevant (if I'm not a soldier risking my life). That's controlled by the military. All I need to know is that the government is willing to go to war. Then it doesn't matter anymore who is in the government..

    This is - as I think - how a democracy should work in theory.. but we all know this isn't the case. We get our vote and after that its a playhouse.

    But WL already accomplished something: It made clear to everyone how governments think about it.. +1 for transparency
  2. #42  
    ummm there is another course that the govt can,, and hell will go, they just wont use email/cables anymore. Period. All info would be on a comp with no access to the net of any sort. They are already doing that for many things. This will just force it even further underground. i will restate, what I have said and Groovy has stated, how much can you trust someone who 1) is a known hacker of old, 2) traffics in stolen items. I could care less if its tv, comp or email, its stolen. I think you have laws against that, ie trafficing in stolen goods. Treat him as he needs to be treated, as a criminal, the sexual thing is something else all together.
    I personally see no different between the theft of US govt email, or mine. Remember, your lady of justice is blind, all should be treated equally.
    I have had ummm individuals try to use my computer and info for ummm nefarious means, hmmm strange things happened really strange.. lolol
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #43  
    By the way, if the US government was as corrupt as people say, one would think WL would have a treasure trove of incriminating evidence. What have they published so far that's been so incriminating? Damaging? Yes. Embarrassing? Yes. Sometimes juvenile? Absolutely. Criminal? I haven't seen it yet.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    By the way, if the US government was as corrupt as people say, one would think WL would have a treasure trove of incriminating evidence. What have they published so far that's been so incriminating? Damaging? Yes. Embarrassing? Yes. Sometimes juvenile? Absolutely. Criminal? I haven't seen it yet.
    Most of the documents (at least with respect to the most recent disclosures) are diplomatic cables. So with the exception of some talk of spying on UN officials, illegality isn't really the concern. What has been exposed is the level of doublespeak that goes on in politics. My impression, actually, is that the US and some other western countries are guilty of far less of it than some of the other nations that we deal with (Ex: Egypt). The advantage of the WL from a US perspective is, you get to see what our real thoughts/impressions are. Keep in mind, Our government officials make public statements and press releases specifically tailored to shape public perception, WL is helping read between the lines.

    Is it possible one his leaks will be going too far and put policy or even troops in jeopardy? yes, but I don't think it has happened yet. It also seems like he's keeping those harmful items in his back pocket to prevent the government from going overboard in their attempts to silence him.
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant View Post
    Most of the documents (at least with respect to the most recent disclosures) are diplomatic cables. So with the exception of some talk of spying on UN officials, illegality isn't really the concern. What has been exposed is the level of doublespeak that goes on in politics. My impression, actually, is that the US and some other western countries are guilty of far less of it than some of the other nations that we deal with (Ex: Egypt). The advantage of the WL from a US perspective is, you get to see what our real thoughts/impressions are. Keep in mind, Our government officials make public statements and press releases specifically tailored to shape public perception, WL is helping read between the lines.

    Is it possible one his leaks will be going too far and put policy or even troops in jeopardy? yes, but I don't think it has happened yet. It also seems like he's keeping those harmful items in his back pocket to prevent the government from going overboard in their attempts to silence him.
    Our policy is already in jeopardy if foreign diplomats don't think what they say to us will be kept out of the papers.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    xForsaken and groovy; With all due repsect, all valid points, but I'm hearing echos.
    hmmm than answer our concerns,,, you have made several statements that this must happen or that must happen,, 100 percent transparency.. hmmm remember, this is your govt, ohh and by default that makes all your email vunerable,, as you are your govt... just saying.... I do not see how making the govt transparent is going to change anything,, instead of writing it, they will just say it. And if someone tapes those calls, hmmm than your dealing with a whole other set of laws.. To defend that he broke the law for our good is wrong.. he broke or is breaking the law.. fini..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    So, where does it end? The question to ask yourself is what you would think if thousands of your own personal and/or business correspondence made its way to the internet for all to see.
    I do not think that this is analogous.
    Either a reasonable expectation of privacy extends to everybody or it extends to nobody.
    False dichotomy. What is reasonable is going to vary. If I'm using corporate email, it's not reasonable for me to expect that no one can read it. It's completely reasonable to assume that, should it come down to it, my boss or someone he assigns will have access to it. Why should 'public servants' expect any better treatment than that?
    Sure, you can say that they used government email so there's no expectation of privacy.
    I think I just did.
    That's true to a point, but the right to read those correspondences normally extends to their superiors, not some random dude on the internet.
    If that random dude is an American taxpayer, he is their superior in my view.
    If that's all there is to it, you better not cross your company IT guy. For that matter, you'd better not make rude statements to your ISP or email host customer support. Heck, some disgruntled guy at Google can make life suck for a whole lot of people. If we're relying solely on the good graces of the leakywicks to ensure our privacy then we all had better bite our tongues.
    Perhaps if more of us thought about what we spew into the ether and its ramifications before we did it, the world might be a better place?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Our policy is already in jeopardy if foreign diplomats don't think what they say to us will be kept out of the papers.
    That argument means nothing to me. Who's to say WL or some other organization won't reveal how, for example, Arab countries conduct diplomacy with each other (without the U.S.)?

    Foreign diplomats are afraid communication with the U.S. is compromised, yet they won't think twice about telling secrets to their neighbor? It doesn't add up.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    How far does the openness go, and who decides? Should the openness extend into the medical history of our politicians?
    Doesn't it already? Wasn't one of the controversies about Obama that he wouldn't release his medical records when McCain did? Wasn't Cheney's medical history an issue with his being Bush's running mate?

    Or to put it another way... Wouldn't you want to know if the guy you were about to vote for had a disease that would deteriorate his brain and decision-making capabilities?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFromNam View Post
    Bear in mind this private imaginary moment of triumph produces a shockwave of extremely tiny magnitude. Your sarcasm will have no outcome on WikiLeaks or the Healtchcare reform.
    Perhaps not, but should you dismiss it out of hand so easily? Many a true word have been spoken in jest. In so many of these sorts of debates, we dismiss concerns because the politicians in control are the type we like (at the time), forgetting that at some point, the politicians in control are bound to become the type we don't like.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #51  
    Perhaps if more of us thought about what we spew into the ether and its ramifications before we did it, the world might be a better place?

    A frank discussion, with your superior, or equal, is how perceptions of a given item are formed. If "spewing" as you put it, has to be couched in non volitile wording, less will get done. A course of action may be needed in quick order, sitting on information because your afraid of your email showing up on the internet is stupid. As is second guessing what was discussed prior to the email being written. I have to ask, are you a trained diplomat? I know I am not, but in discussions i have had with union leaders, city planners, concerned citizens and so on over the years, what is said between two people, in a frank discussion, for furtherance to ones superiors is not for public consumption. There is one other thing, if people can not do their jobs because of "transperancy", are you going to drop into that slot and do it?
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  12. #52  
    Ultimately, it comes down to this, for my position, Were those emails/cables stolen?
    The answer is Yes. Should someone go to jail for this? again Yes.
    so far the emails and such are pretty benign, but as it was suggested on one site or another, pertaining to this topic, what if our lil Wiki Leaks leader is sitting on some real good stuff, to use it as a bargining chip? To ensure his release/ or stop prosecution for this and other crimes. Can we say blackmail everyone?
    It matters not, that you believe that it is right, what it comes down to is that it was stolen. That is what matters, nothing else. if you want transperancy in govt, than you can get your senator, or rep to author a bill to make it so. Failing that, run for office, and author it yourself. I am betting, it wont fly in either case.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  13. #53  
    Groovy & XForsaken: you make good points that this, especially in the short term, could have a chilling effect on what foreign diplomats discuss with those from the US. We would all have to agree that this is a legitimate downside. I think the area in which we disagree is (1) Some of us seem to find that downside worthwhile in exchange for a deeper understanding of how our government operates in the theater of global politics; and (2) whether any of those individuals had an individual expectation of privacy that is being violated.

    as for (2), so far, I have not read any WL that would have a substantially negative effect on any individual. In fact, the news organizations that have been advising WL on what to redact use that as one of the factors in determining whether or not something should be redacted (their caveat seems to be, if an individual is high enough level in their government, like a PM, King etc, they won't suffer any serious blowback and therefore their name won't be redacted). Until Assange goes too far and starts publicizing people's sex lives or health information, so far I am pleased with his performance.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I do not think that this is analogous.
    Why?

    False dichotomy. What is reasonable is going to vary. If I'm using corporate email, it's not reasonable for me to expect that no one can read it. It's completely reasonable to assume that, should it come down to it, my boss or someone he assigns will have access to it. Why should 'public servants' expect any better treatment than that?
    A reasonable expectation in a corporate setting is that a companies competitors won't be able to read their communications. Why should or public servants expect any less treatment than that? Unless, perhaps, one thinks the US government doesn't have any competitors.

    If that random dude is an American taxpayer, he is their superior in my view.
    So the government should reveal all of it's internal workings (including national defense) to the taxpayers?

    Perhaps if more of us thought about what we spew into the ether and its ramifications before we did it, the world might be a better place?
    While true, I think we all make mistakes and gaffes that we would rather the world not read about. Where those gaffes concern international diplomacy I think it would be all the more important to keep it in the family.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Doesn't it already? Wasn't one of the controversies about Obama that he wouldn't release his medical records when McCain did? Wasn't Cheney's medical history an issue with his being Bush's running mate?

    Or to put it another way... Wouldn't you want to know if the guy you were about to vote for had a disease that would deteriorate his brain and decision-making capabilities?
    Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe this extends to all public servants. Also, while debilitating diseases would and probably should disqualify some people for some jobs, some diseases are just more embarrassing than anything else.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Courousant View Post
    I think the area in which we disagree is (1) Some of us seem to find that downside worthwhile in exchange for a deeper understanding of how our government operates in the theater of global politics;
    Yes, we would disagree on that. To me, the academic lesson isn't worth the risk.

    and (2) whether any of those individuals had an individual expectation of privacy that is being violated.

    as for (2), so far, I have not read any WL that would have a substantially negative effect on any individual. In fact, the news organizations that have been advising WL on what to redact use that as one of the factors in determining whether or not something should be redacted (their caveat seems to be, if an individual is high enough level in their government, like a PM, King etc, they won't suffer any serious blowback and therefore their name won't be redacted). Until Assange goes too far and starts publicizing people's sex lives or health information, so far I am pleased with his performance.
    I think resigning one's post counts as a "substantially negative effect". So far, I know of one Canadian politician who has fallen because of these leaks. Time will tell but I think there will be others. The real cost, however, is in the reputation of the US with regards to being able to keep secrets. Like it or not, our allies do tell us things they'd like to be kept secret and it's beneficial for us to know those secrets. Confidentiality strengthens bonds.
  17. #57  
    I read what Crosbie said, as far as i am concerned he said nothing wrong,, its the way he does things, he has said similar things to other Canadian politicians. A fair assesment of a situation is what is needed. Not couched in diplomese (sp made up word). i would suggest that if this was to come to pass, that you would all be screaming for clearer language. hmmm
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    A frank discussion, with your superior, or equal, is how perceptions of a given item are formed.
    Yes, a discussion. Generally, the frankness of the discussion should determine the appropriate forum, IMO.
    If "spewing" as you put it, has to be couched in non volitile wording, less will get done.
    Something to consider is that the statement was a more general aside than specifically to the cables.
    A course of action may be needed in quick order, sitting on information because your afraid of your email showing up on the internet is stupid.
    Not as stupid as sending an insecure email when a phone call might be quicker.
    As is second guessing what was discussed prior to the email being written. I have to ask, are you a trained diplomat?
    No, but I have worked in government before. A basic tenet was to never commit to a recorded medium (print, text, audio) something which you did not wish to be published at some point.
    I know I am not, but in discussions i have had with union leaders, city planners, concerned citizens and so on over the years, what is said between two people, in a frank discussion, for furtherance to ones superiors is not for public consumption.
    Not all of those are public servants, though.
    There is one other thing, if people can not do their jobs because of "transperancy", are you going to drop into that slot and do it?
    Depends on what it pays.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Ultimately, it comes down to this, for my position, Were those emails/cables stolen?
    That's a horse of a different color, IMO.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #60  
    WL has dropped a list of critical infrastructure sites across Canada and the US, which was "supposed" to be helpful in indicating which areas be deemed "weak & easy" targets for potential terrorist attacks. Although that may have been put out for good purposes, it's a double-edged sword. Personally, I couldn't care less about what a bunch of politicians say behind closed doors about other (foreign or domestic) politicians. Putting out a list of potential sites, that would have dire consequences if compromised, is another matter, imo.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions