Wikileaks

[Kingdom Ablaze]

I want to start with i would really like this to be a serious discussion.

What i want to know if how do you feel about the wikileaks situation? some questions i would like to raise is:

1. Do you think what they are doing is right?(releaseing classified information)
2. Do you think they should be allowed to remain open uncensored?(even though they are breaking the law)
3. How do you feel that so many people are taking this into their own hands and give wikileaks DoS attacks?(Denial of Service)
~ room for more questions latter or when some one saks a good one.

Here is some refrence info if you needwill get more if people want more)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101204/ap_on_hi_te/wikileaks

 

[Incognitus]

As much as I would congratulate Assange for revealing to the public such vital documents such as the CIA assessment of "The Defecation Habits of the Woodland Bear" or proof that unconstitutional NSA wiretapping has finally uncovered to which religious denomination the Pope belongs, I'm afraid I have to cast my lot in with the former US Advisor for National Security, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren't some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments. "

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/governme ... 11-29.html

And obviously, narrowing than the lists of interested parties is both fun and fruitless. But yeah - it's not just an infodump of classified information. To be honest, there's nothing in the recent documents that isn't common knowledge or available elsewhere - apart from the diplomatic gossip.

I think Wikileaks is a necessity - however a lot of what they have released over the years is just patent dyed in the wool bullshit, and it was always inevitable that the moment they did release something of note it would be shut down faster than you can say "Pentagon Papers".


Q: Has Wikileaks *really* put lives at risk?

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

Q: Has Wikileaks *really* put lives at risk?

A: I know my opinion is biased, but yes they have since they released troop movement at one point.

id love to say more, but this is to gather your opinion rather then state my own.

 

[Incognitus]

Q: Has Wikileaks *really* put lives at risk?

A: I know my opinion is biased, but yes they have since they released troop movement at one point.

Information that was several years out of date at the time they released it. So long as the Terrorists don't have a Time Machine, I'm pretty sure the troops will be fine.

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

old info doesn't make it useless, you can solve patterns if you have enough info on the past. my whole job in the military is "Information Assurance" most attacks on the united states were made with only unclass information, now your adding classified info. with enough pieces of a puzzle you can guess what its gonna be.

also what about the people who leak info? they agree to this when they use a goverment computer

Spoiler

Department of Defense (DoD) information systems:

. You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) information system (IS) (which includes

any device attached to this information system) that is provided for U.S. Government-

authorized use only.

. You consent to the following conditions:

o The U.S. Government routinely intercepts and monitors communications on this

information system for purposes including, but not limited to, penetration testing,

communications security (COMSEC) monitoring, network operations and defense,

personnel misconduct (PM), law enforcement (LE), and counterintelligence (CI)

investigations.

o At any time, the U.S. Government may inspect and seize data stored on this

information system.

o Communications using, or data stored on, this information system are not private,

are subject to routine monitoring, interception, and search, and may be disclosed

or used for any U.S. Government-authorized purpose.

o This information system includes security measures (e.g., authentication and

access controls) to protect U.S. Government interests--not for your personal

benefit or privacy.

o Notwithstanding the above, using an information system does not constitute

consent to personnel misconduct, law enforcement, or counterintelligence

investigative searching or monitoring of the content of privileged communications

or data (including work product) that are related to personal representation or

services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their assistants. Under

these circumstances, such communications and work product are private and

confidential, as further explained below:

- Nothing in this User Agreement shall be interpreted to limit the user's

consent to, or in any other way restrict or affect, any U.S. Government

actions for purposes of network administration, operation, protection, or

defense, or for communications security. This includes all communications

and data on an information system, regardless of any applicable privilege or

confidentiality.

- The user consents to interception/capture and seizure of ALL

communications and data for any authorized purpose (including personnel

misconduct, law enforcement, or counterintelligence investigation).

However, consent to interception/capture or seizure of communications and

data is not consent to the use of privileged communications or data for

personnel misconduct, law enforcement, or counterintelligence

investigation against any party and does not negate any applicable privilege

or confidentiality that otherwise applies.

- Whether any particular communication or data qualifies for the protection

of a privilege, or is covered by a duty of confidentiality, is determined in

accordance with established legal standards and DoD policy. Users are

strongly encouraged to seek personal legal counsel on such matters prior to

using an information system if the user intends to rely on the protections of

a privilege or confidentiality.

- Users should take reasonable steps to identify such communications or data

that the user asserts are protected by any such privilege or confidentiality.

However, the user's identification or assertion of a privilege or

confidentiality is not sufficient to create such protection where none exists

under established legal standards and DoD policy.

- A user's failure to take reasonable steps to identify such communications or

data as privileged or confidential does not waive the privilege or

confidentiality if such protections otherwise exist under established legal

standards and DoD policy. However, in such cases the U.S. Government is

authorized to take reasonable actions to identify such communication or

data as being subject to a privilege or confidentiality, and such actions do

not negate any applicable privilege or confidentiality.

- These conditions preserve the confidentiality of the communication or data,

and the legal protections regarding the use and disclosure of privileged

information, and thus such communications and data are private and

confidential. Further, the U.S. Government shall take all reasonable

measures to protect the content of captured/seized privileged

communications and data to ensure they are appropriately protected.

o In cases when the user has consented to content searching or monitoring of

communications or data for personnel misconduct, law enforcement, or

counterintelligence investigative searching, (ie., for all communications and data

other than privileged communications or data that are related to personal

representation or services by attorneys, psychotherapists, or clergy, and their

assistants), the U.S. Government may, solely at its discretion and in accordance

with DoD policy, elect to apply a privilege or other restriction on the U.S.

Government's otherwise-authorized use or disclosure of such information.

o All of the above conditions apply regardless of whether the access or use of an

information system includes the display of a Notice and Consent Banner

("banner"). When a banner is used, the banner functions to remind the user of the

conditions that are set forth in this User Agreement, regardless of whether the

banner describes these conditions in full detail or provides a summary of such

conditions,

 

[Incognitus]

old info doesn't make it useless, you can solve patterns if you have enough info on the past. my whole job in the military is "Information Assurance" most attacks on the united states were made with only unclass information, now your adding classified info. with enough pieces of a puzzle you can guess what its gonna be.

Yeah - but my point is there is already enough specific information in the public domain that it renders specific leaks moot.

I'm assuming (and hoping) you were talking primarily about the Afghan stuff, right? Most of that was already known: I read a followup interview with one of the Talking Heads of the intelligence community (I think it was a former liaison to the ISI, will doublecheck) a couple of months after in which the Helmand Province movement leeks were used as example; the guy basically said... well... the above: The US has made enough information available over the decades about how they fight their bushfire wars that they have reason to believe that the more organized of the groups already have accurate... well... "models" of predictions, counter-predictions etc.

He also said that standard procedure is to fake-out each group *this is also public domain *and has been since, Vietnam* but still, every damned militia seems to fall for it. It's the way they quickly ascertain how organized (or equipped) a group should be.

Furthermore, he implied that a lot of what we get to see eventually, or is procured through leaks, is never what actually occurred: there are a lot of things that don't make the main transcript but are ordered to happen in the field. It's a bit like some of those WWI/II documents that are coming to light which cast subtly different interpretations of things like Midway or the Battle of the Bulge - you know, like there's two documents - one is kept on file and one is sealed for Super-duper-Private-Reference only.

also what about the people who leak info? they agree to this when they use a goverment computer

So what? Surely principles should come higher than legalese? Would you say that nothing classified should ever be leaked regardless of how repugnant the actions of the individual/business/state involved?

Assange claims to be sitting on information that implicates a top bank in dodgy accountancy and open fraud. Do you think he should suppress this because it was probably obtained by... bypassing the bank's confidentiality agreements?

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

no, but i think his way is not the solution, things should follow the proper channels. ie since im in the military ill use it as an example, if something is done wrong there is a form(or even a phone number in many cases) that i can fill out so higher ups can deal with a situation. there is no excuse for some one to leak info to get a problem fixed. thats like if i leak information about our network just because i need the servers fixed or something, thats simply ignorant. the only way i see my way failing is if our leaders do, and if the are failing then i still feel a leak isnt the way too fix it, real action is. i dont know, maybe its just because i know so many government secrets. but this really gets me angry.

 

[Incognitus]

So essentially, your solution would be to send a post-it-note to your bosses contesting their decision in the hope that, without any pressure to change, they decide to reconsider anyway --- and would never ever leak? :smile:

Obviously, I disagree. But this doesn't mean I'm a defacto supporter of the current leaks - there's a lot of irrelevant gossip that undermines 99% of the people involved without bringing any great boon to the general public.

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

i will never leak anything i love my country. and no thats not all my solution.

 

[coreball]

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should be honest to the people.

Why shouldn't we have 100% government transparency? I elected these assholes; I want to know what they are up to. If the government is doing things they want to keep from their citizens, they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

As for troop movement, if it is antiquated information, it probably will have no ill effect. It's not like Wikileaks is hiring Geraldo to make sand illustrations "deep" in enemy territory. Also, nobody has been killed due to wikileaks (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/28/1 ... eases.html), and it entirely speculation that anyone will be.

I feel wikileaks in an important outlet of much needed truth, for a society that has forgotten that our nation was founded on truth and justice for everyone.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

i can agree why you would think so, im still a firm believer that there are some things that people simply dont need to know. but again i didnt start this to preach my opinion, i want to hear everyone else's. thanks for yours

 

[Sgt. Cookie]

Being from Britain, the only thing that has really been leaked about us is something about Prince Andrew. As far as I know anyway. Personally I think that we should know just what is going on. After all, how likely is it that Al qaeda have a computer.

You can just imagine the twitter feed:
Terrorist 2 posted: About to blow up the bomb. 2 minutes to go.
Posted 3 minutes ago.

Or how about complaints that the Sims 3 doesn't allow you to blow up buildings.

If they did have a computer, don't you think it would have been traced by now?

 

[Daxis]

i think it's highly not feasible that terrorists do not have a computer. Conputers allow for easy collection and storage of data. Also, it's fairly easy to dispose of, unlike papers which are easily stolen or lost.
seriously, not all terrorist lives around around terrorizing. That's like saying that all britons' lives revolve around drinking tea, acting classy, and being generally white (which is not too far off from the truth). Besides, http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/khadr ... mily3.html
but even so, I'm pretty sure Assange at least knows which information to be released and when, and I doubt that critically crucial information would easily fall to his hands. I mean, unless there's some secret underground war going on between all the nations of the world, there'll be little need to CARE about wikileaks beyond public face. And once something like war DOES start, wikileak/assange can easily be arrested under law/martial law for some shti they can make up.

 

[BlueScope]

1. Do you think what they are doing is right?(releaseing classified information)

Complicated to explain, but pretty easy in nature: When you get information and you're not obligated to keep it a secret (for example because you're a part of the military, federal institutions or private company branches that have a confidential clause), share it at will (which btw means share with common sense, not share because you can). The fault is with the people who actually were leaking classified information - they shouldn't have done it (this time, not because of common sense, but because of something they agreed on themselves; or most of them at least), and they're the people to blame.
The same thing basically applies to this topic, to name an example: If someone would post information that was released on Wikileaks here, he or she would be the one sharing information, however I'm pretty sure noone would be like : about it. Why? Because you're just sharing what you heard elsewhere - in other words, communicating.

2. Do you think they should be allowed to remain open uncensored?(even though they are breaking the law)

I'm not entirely sure if they're breaking the law... then again, I'm not familiar with US law all that much. Either way, from a european sense of legality (and well, transparency, as that's the issue here), I'd say it's a service to the public rather than anything else (refering to the concept in total, not to every individual information given).
Obviously, information such as troop movement is something very delicate, and while US military strategies really aren't all that mysterious and secret, I'm with plague on this one and say if it endangers lives directly or indirectly (such as in this case).

So, as I said in my first paragraph... it's not a conflict of censorship vs something else, as censorship (despite being used regularly) is something you want to avoid as a democratic government of the 21st century (never compromise, remember?). Instead, it's a matter of wheather people who get the respective information actually share it or not. I'm sure Wikileaks doesn't only share information that's meant to endanger or kill people, and since everyone has a different sense of dangerous (I wouldn't trust German soldier's lifes on the US government really...), don't censor it at all, because this way, you actually have to think about what information you release and can't just throw everything out there and expect the filtering work being done by necessarily biased people.

3. How do you feel that so many people are taking this into their own hands and give wikileaks DoS attacks?

I dunno what to think of this really... there's always going to be people who feel that less transparency actually makes a better government - from my side of the topic, that's not too smart of an assumption. So yeah, whatever your opinion is, I guess.


Something alongside the topic: Some information (or rather, opinion) about German politicians got leaked as well, which was in the news all day long... well, I was basically laughing about it, as all it really was was stuff that you would hear every other day at comedy stages, TV, or even from one politician to another.

 

[Ellie]

If this was the government first starting up then I would agree with 100% transparency.

However;

We have built ourselves into a hole somewhat, giving ourselves the type of government where leaks like this can do a lot of damage.

While we live in a silly and war-ridden world it's bad for some things to be leaked.

In an ideal world - everything would be open. But this isn't an ideal world.



I do not agree that it is illegal and do not agree that JA should be arrested.

 

[Kingdom Ablaze]

yey more opinions, cant wait for more :D

 

[Incognitus]

Something alongside the topic: Some information (or rather, opinion) about German politicians got leaked as well, which was in the news all day long... well, I was basically laughing about it, as all it really was was stuff that you would hear every other day at comedy stages, TV, or even from one politician to another.

Wasn't it that Merkel was "risk-adverse" and "lacks imagination"? It's like the memos that said David Cameron was a light-weight or Berlusconi is a crook: if those leaders need US memos to tell them that, then they are seriously out of touch with world opinion. :lol:

 

[BlueScope]

@Inc: Yep, sums it up pretty well ^^

 

[Twirly]

However;

We have built ourselves into a hole somewhat, giving ourselves the type of government where leaks like this can do a lot of damage.

While we live in a silly and war-ridden world it's bad for some things to be leaked.

In an ideal world - everything would be open. But this isn't an ideal world.

I disagree, people have to know what the fuck the gov is doing, they are paying for those assholes after all
And people should always tell the truth, even if it's bitter! It's like in real life, "white lies" to hide facts of great importance are dumb. (I have to say though, some leaks were really risky and dumb)

 

[Venetia]

WL is acting within accordance to Swedish law (where its main "base" is located). Few other countries can cite an actual law the site itself infringes.

I can appreciate the need for secrecy in current military operations. But they're not publishing them.

Transparency--especially in financial and legislative matters--in govm't is hugely important. It demonstrates reliability & fosters trust. These giant backlashes by leadership are only making them look even more deceitful & sneaky :/


I can see why leaders would get pissy about their correspondence on other public figures being shared. But it's official fucking correspondence; what were they expecting?

If I sent out an email stating "hey [my coworker] is a douche" on company time, and it was intercepted by my bosses--why would I think that they couldn't hold me responsible for it? I signed a paper when I started acknowledging that I wouldn't do shit like that, so why shouldn't I be held accountable for it?

Govm't leaders swear an oath when they take office, to uphold the best interests of the public--not their interests.

Wikileaks itself is a total non-issue. The important issues are the ones published there that delineate which of our elected officials are not acting in the manner with which we expected when we hired them.