The Wikileaks databank

Post Reply
Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Trolldor » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:49 pm

Oh how clever, you've managed to copy me once again.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:53 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:Oh how clever, you've managed to copy me once again.
Why wouldn't I? You're a genius. :blasted:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:28 pm

Gawd wrote:Ian won't like this.
Yet again, you assume too much.

What should be the point of Wikileaks? That genuine whistle-blowers have a place to send their information and see it published, or that nobody anywhere has the right to classify anything? The way they've been acting, one would think they really do believe the latter. Sickeningly reckless and naive. If they re-orient themselves towards actually releasing those things which are or could be possibly considered whistle-blowing, I'll applaud them for their efforts.

Assange apologists seem to like Orwell quotes, so here's one for them: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even realize that fire is hot." That applies to Wikileaks pretty well. They've managed to burn a few actual wrong-doers, a whole lot of people who didn't deserve to be burned at all, and the past two weeks they've burned themselves as well.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:32 pm

Ian wrote:
Gawd wrote:Ian won't like this.
Yet again, you assume too much.

What should be the point of Wikileaks? That genuine whistle-blowers have a place to send their information and see it published, or that nobody anywhere has the right to classify anything? The way they've been acting, one would think they really do believe the latter. Sickeningly reckless and naive. If they re-orient themselves towards actually releasing those things which are or could be possibly considered whistle-blowing, I'll applaud them for their efforts.

Assange apologists seem to like Orwell quotes, so here's one for them: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even realize that fire is hot." That applies to Wikileaks pretty well. They've managed to burn a few actual wrong-doers, a whole lot of people who didn't deserve to be burned at all, and the past two weeks they've burned themselves as well.
How is it reckless or naive? In what sense?
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Trolldor » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:42 pm

You can't differentiate between the exposure of corruption and the personal opinions of one polly on another?

Ian:
Assange really does believe in 'absolute transparency'. It has never been about exposing corruption, but in his own words "knowing every private thought of your leaders".
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
AshtonBlack
Tech Monkey
Tech Monkey
Posts: 7773
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: <insert witty joke locaction here>
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by AshtonBlack » Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:46 pm

To the OP. Want!

10 Fuck Off
20 GOTO 10
Ashton Black wrote:"Dogma is the enemy, not religion, per se. Rationality, genuine empathy and intellectual integrity are anathema to dogma."

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:01 pm

sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
Gawd wrote:Ian won't like this.
Yet again, you assume too much.

What should be the point of Wikileaks? That genuine whistle-blowers have a place to send their information and see it published, or that nobody anywhere has the right to classify anything? The way they've been acting, one would think they really do believe the latter. Sickeningly reckless and naive. If they re-orient themselves towards actually releasing those things which are or could be possibly considered whistle-blowing, I'll applaud them for their efforts.

Assange apologists seem to like Orwell quotes, so here's one for them: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even realize that fire is hot." That applies to Wikileaks pretty well. They've managed to burn a few actual wrong-doers, a whole lot of people who didn't deserve to be burned at all, and the past two weeks they've burned themselves as well.
How is it reckless or naive? In what sense?
Because most of the diplomatic cables are not remotely "whistle-blowing". But they're causing a lot of collateral damage, much of which is happenening elsewhere besides the US. China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have been royally embarrassed due to some of these cables. The "transparency" Wikileaks espouses will not hold long: blowback from this recklessness includes 1) hesitancy of diplomats and leaders to be friendly and/or candid with each other, 2) less sharing of information between agencies and between nations, thereby leading to 3) fewer leaks likely to make their way to Wikileaks for disclosure and 4) weaker abilities to detect and counter threats such as terrorist plots (9/11 was not so much a failure of intelligence collection or analysis, but rather it was a failure of information sharing/coordination). Wikileaks could have just published massages relating to Iraq and Afghanitsan; if they did that, they'd merely still be "controversial". Ever since they started releasing diplomatic messages written by ambassadors, it's backfired and they've shot their own ideology in the foot.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:10 pm

Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
Gawd wrote:Ian won't like this.
Yet again, you assume too much.

What should be the point of Wikileaks? That genuine whistle-blowers have a place to send their information and see it published, or that nobody anywhere has the right to classify anything? The way they've been acting, one would think they really do believe the latter. Sickeningly reckless and naive. If they re-orient themselves towards actually releasing those things which are or could be possibly considered whistle-blowing, I'll applaud them for their efforts.

Assange apologists seem to like Orwell quotes, so here's one for them: "So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even realize that fire is hot." That applies to Wikileaks pretty well. They've managed to burn a few actual wrong-doers, a whole lot of people who didn't deserve to be burned at all, and the past two weeks they've burned themselves as well.
How is it reckless or naive? In what sense?
Because most of the diplomatic cables are not remotely "whistle-blowing". But they're causing a lot of collateral damage, much of which is happenening elsewhere besides the US. China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have been royally embarrassed due to some of these cables. The "transparency" Wikileaks espouses will not hold long: blowback from this recklessness includes 1) hesitancy of diplomats and leaders to be friendly and/or candid with each other, 2) less sharing of information between agencies and between nations, thereby leading to 3) fewer leaks likely to make their way to Wikileaks for disclosure and 4) weaker abilities to detect and counter threats such as terrorist plots (9/11 was not so much a failure of intelligence collection or analysis, but rather it was a failure of information sharing/coordination). Wikileaks could have just published massages relating to Iraq and Afghanitsan; if they did that, they'd merely still be "controversial". Ever since they started releasing diplomatic messages written by ambassadors, it's backfired and they've shot their own ideology in the foot.
I don't see any of that as reckless or naive. You're just saying some people were embarrassed (rightly so in most cases) and that this will lead to less trust among world leaders (also justified). In what sense did they "shoot their own ideology"? What ideology is that? Freedom of information? Didn't think that was really considered an ideology. Don't see how this has backfired at all.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:20 pm

sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: How is it reckless or naive? In what sense?
Because most of the diplomatic cables are not remotely "whistle-blowing". But they're causing a lot of collateral damage, much of which is happenening elsewhere besides the US. China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have been royally embarrassed due to some of these cables. The "transparency" Wikileaks espouses will not hold long: blowback from this recklessness includes 1) hesitancy of diplomats and leaders to be friendly and/or candid with each other, 2) less sharing of information between agencies and between nations, thereby leading to 3) fewer leaks likely to make their way to Wikileaks for disclosure and 4) weaker abilities to detect and counter threats such as terrorist plots (9/11 was not so much a failure of intelligence collection or analysis, but rather it was a failure of information sharing/coordination). Wikileaks could have just published massages relating to Iraq and Afghanitsan; if they did that, they'd merely still be "controversial". Ever since they started releasing diplomatic messages written by ambassadors, it's backfired and they've shot their own ideology in the foot.
I don't see any of that as reckless or naive. You're just saying some people were embarrassed (rightly so in most cases) and that this will lead to less trust among world leaders (also justified). In what sense did they "shoot their own ideology"? What ideology is that? Freedom of information? Didn't think that was really considered an ideology. Don't see how this has backfired at all.
Because you don't want to see it. Like you said, everyone has ideology and biases. But I think most people here would agree that you're excessively blinded from rational analysis by your hatred of anything related to the US.

It's reckless because a great many messages are completely innocuous: an American diplomat's characterization of Angela Merkel as uncreative and risk-averse, for example. The damage to US-German relations i probably minimal. But maybe it cooled off just a little. And meanwhile, information is being blocked between sources. The link between the State Department's diplomatic archives and Secret-level servers has already been cut; more walls may be put up as a security measure in the future. All because countries and agencies are rightfully worried about the potential cumulative damage that could come about from lax security. That does not do anyone any good. But Wikileaks made no attempt to sort through these cables and just release the few that seem to show wrong-doing; they're releasing all of them because they could. How could you not see that as naive?

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Ian » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:30 pm

Could someone tell me how this leak is "whistle-blowing"? Or how it does any good at all for the world?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html
WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security
(CNN) -- WikiLeaks has published a secret U.S. diplomatic cable listing places the United States considers vital to its national security, prompting criticism that the website is inviting terrorist attacks on American interests.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the disclosure "gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list." The sites are included in a lengthy cable the State Department sent in February 2009 to its posts around the world, asking American diplomats to identify installations overseas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States."

The diplomats identified dozens of places on every continent, including mines, manufacturing complexes, ports and research establishments. CNN is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry.

The list also mentions dams close to the U.S. border and a telecommunications hub whose destruction might seriously disrupt global communications. Diplomats also identified sites of strategic importance for supplying U.S. forces and interests abroad, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and the Panama Canal.

The cable is classified secret and not for review by non-U.S. personnel.

The United States and Great Britain condemned the disclosure.

"There are strong and valid reasons for classifying vital information, including the identification of critical infrastructure that is important to not only our society and economy, but those of other countries," Crowley said Monday.

"Without discussing any particular cable, the release of this kind of information gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list," he said. "This is why we have condemned WikiLeaks for what it has done."

Later, on the microblogging site Twitter, Crowley said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- now facing extradition to Sweden in connection with a rape investigation -- "threatens to put others at risk to save his own hide."

British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement that the publication is "damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere."

And Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in Britain, said the list was "a gift to any terrorist (group) trying to work out what are the ways in which it can damage the United States."

"It is grossly improper and irresponsible" for Assange and his website to publish that information, he said.

WikiLeaks, which facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information, published the list of sensitive sites as part of a larger disclosure of what it says are 250,000 U.S. State Department documents that were never meant for public view. The site began publishing the first of those quarter-million documents last week.

Since then, the site has been hit with denial-of-service attacks, which seek to make a website unavailable. It also has been kicked off servers in the United States and France, and it lost a major revenue source on Friday, when U.S.-based PayPal cut off its account.

On Sunday, WikiLeaks appealed to supporters worldwide to mirror its website, saying the site "is under heavy attack. In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove WikiLeaks from the Internet, we need your help."

In a message sent on Twitter on Monday, WikiLeaks said it had several hundred mirror sites -- websites at other online addresses that have the same content as WikiLeaks.

Assange, 39, is wanted by Swedish authorities on allegations of sex crimes, including rape. He has denied the allegations, but his whereabouts have been undisclosed since WikiLeaks began publishing the documents last week.

Investigators have focused much of their effort on finding Assange in Britain, where U.S. investigative activity is being conducted by the Defense Department, a senior law enforcement official said Friday.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:31 pm

Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: How is it reckless or naive? In what sense?
Because most of the diplomatic cables are not remotely "whistle-blowing". But they're causing a lot of collateral damage, much of which is happenening elsewhere besides the US. China, Russia, Germany, Italy, Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others have been royally embarrassed due to some of these cables. The "transparency" Wikileaks espouses will not hold long: blowback from this recklessness includes 1) hesitancy of diplomats and leaders to be friendly and/or candid with each other, 2) less sharing of information between agencies and between nations, thereby leading to 3) fewer leaks likely to make their way to Wikileaks for disclosure and 4) weaker abilities to detect and counter threats such as terrorist plots (9/11 was not so much a failure of intelligence collection or analysis, but rather it was a failure of information sharing/coordination). Wikileaks could have just published massages relating to Iraq and Afghanitsan; if they did that, they'd merely still be "controversial". Ever since they started releasing diplomatic messages written by ambassadors, it's backfired and they've shot their own ideology in the foot.
I don't see any of that as reckless or naive. You're just saying some people were embarrassed (rightly so in most cases) and that this will lead to less trust among world leaders (also justified). In what sense did they "shoot their own ideology"? What ideology is that? Freedom of information? Didn't think that was really considered an ideology. Don't see how this has backfired at all.
Because you don't want to see it. Like you said, everyone has ideology and biases. But I think most people here would agree that you're excessively blinded from rational analysis by your hatred of anything related to the US.

It's reckless because a great many messages are completely innocuous: an American diplomat's characterization of Angela Merkel as uncreative and risk-averse, for example. The damage to US-German relations i probably minimal. But maybe it cooled off just a little. And meanwhile, information is being blocked between sources. The link between the State Department's diplomatic archives and Secret-level servers has already been cut; more walls may be put up as a security measure in the future. All because countries and agencies are rightfully worried about the potential cumulative damage that could come about from lax security. That does not do anyone any good. But Wikileaks made no attempt to sort through these cables and just release the few that seem to show wrong-doing; they're releasing all of them because they could. How could you not see that as naive?
Yes, everyone does have an ideology. Just not sure what ideology you are claiming wiki leaks has. That was my question, not whether or not they have one. There is nothing irrational about my analysis, unless you are judging it from an irrational love for all things american and a blind allegiance to neo liberalism. How do the leaks do anyone good? They go to prove a lot of things that people already assumed were true. See my "spying on Bolivia" post. Basically it seems you are saying that the leaks will cause governments to talk less shit about each other. Pretty minimal. Not naive, not reckless. If anyone is naive and reckless it is the governments actually believing that what they write down will NOT be leaked. That's naive...
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:32 pm

There is nothing irrational about my analysis, unless you are judging it from an irrational love for all things american and a blind allegiance to neo liberalism.
:funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny: :funny:
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:32 pm

Ian wrote:Could someone tell me how this leak is "whistle-blowing"? Or how it does any good at all for the world?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks/index.html
WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security
(CNN) -- WikiLeaks has published a secret U.S. diplomatic cable listing places the United States considers vital to its national security, prompting criticism that the website is inviting terrorist attacks on American interests.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the disclosure "gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list." The sites are included in a lengthy cable the State Department sent in February 2009 to its posts around the world, asking American diplomats to identify installations overseas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States."

The diplomats identified dozens of places on every continent, including mines, manufacturing complexes, ports and research establishments. CNN is not publishing specific details from the list, which refers to pipelines and undersea telecommunications cables as well as the location of minerals or chemicals critical to U.S. industry.

The list also mentions dams close to the U.S. border and a telecommunications hub whose destruction might seriously disrupt global communications. Diplomats also identified sites of strategic importance for supplying U.S. forces and interests abroad, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and the Panama Canal.

The cable is classified secret and not for review by non-U.S. personnel.

The United States and Great Britain condemned the disclosure.

"There are strong and valid reasons for classifying vital information, including the identification of critical infrastructure that is important to not only our society and economy, but those of other countries," Crowley said Monday.

"Without discussing any particular cable, the release of this kind of information gives a group like al Qaeda a targeting list," he said. "This is why we have condemned WikiLeaks for what it has done."

Later, on the microblogging site Twitter, Crowley said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange -- now facing extradition to Sweden in connection with a rape investigation -- "threatens to put others at risk to save his own hide."

British Prime Minister David Cameron said in a statement that the publication is "damaging to national security in the United States, Britain and elsewhere."

And Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in Britain, said the list was "a gift to any terrorist (group) trying to work out what are the ways in which it can damage the United States."

"It is grossly improper and irresponsible" for Assange and his website to publish that information, he said.

WikiLeaks, which facilitates the anonymous leaking of secret information, published the list of sensitive sites as part of a larger disclosure of what it says are 250,000 U.S. State Department documents that were never meant for public view. The site began publishing the first of those quarter-million documents last week.

Since then, the site has been hit with denial-of-service attacks, which seek to make a website unavailable. It also has been kicked off servers in the United States and France, and it lost a major revenue source on Friday, when U.S.-based PayPal cut off its account.

On Sunday, WikiLeaks appealed to supporters worldwide to mirror its website, saying the site "is under heavy attack. In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove WikiLeaks from the Internet, we need your help."

In a message sent on Twitter on Monday, WikiLeaks said it had several hundred mirror sites -- websites at other online addresses that have the same content as WikiLeaks.

Assange, 39, is wanted by Swedish authorities on allegations of sex crimes, including rape. He has denied the allegations, but his whereabouts have been undisclosed since WikiLeaks began publishing the documents last week.

Investigators have focused much of their effort on finding Assange in Britain, where U.S. investigative activity is being conducted by the Defense Department, a senior law enforcement official said Friday.
haha may not be whistle blowing per say, but... That is great :lol:
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by Trolldor » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:35 pm

So when are you and Putin getting married?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: The Wikileaks databank

Post by sandinista » Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:39 pm

The Mad Hatter wrote:So when are you and Putin getting married?
Are you 5?
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests