The Wikileaks databank

[Trolldor]

*snore*

Man you guys are boring. Ian is the only one who actually provides reasons, not ideology, for his position.

And exposing American crimes and hypocrisy is not a valid "reason" I see.

And again, Ideology.

[Gawd]

*snore*

Man you guys are boring. Ian is the only one who actually provides reasons, not ideology, for his position.

And exposing American crimes and hypocrisy is not a valid "reason" I see.

And again, Ideology.

And again, hypocrisy.

[Ian]

Oh, so you prefer to be oblivious to all that your evil government does like the detention centers that torture people and all the kickbacks that the fatcats get from those contractors that build all those over priced insecurity buildings that you don't have a clue what they are even for. A democracy is not about repressing what your government does. It is about being informed and having a voice. What you advocate is closer to Stalin era communism.

Well, I work in one of those over-priced insecurity buildings, so I have a pretty darn good idea what they are for. What I'm really trying to do is build bridges - we in the intelligence community are not some shadow government or secretive ruling class.

As for the rest of that last post: it's total hyperbole and not worth a response. I prefer to be oblivious and live in Stalin-like communism, eh? Yeah okay, that makes a lot of sense.

THIS explains a lot. So you're one of "those" people that do the repressing.

Yeah, that's it, I'm one of those people. In fact, look behind you - you see that tiny camera on the wall?

You know what the real problem is? You're one of those people with a paranoid "us and them" mentality. It's not constructive, and it will not help you understand your cause(s) any better.

[Trolldor]

*snore*

Man you guys are boring. Ian is the only one who actually provides reasons, not ideology, for his position.

And exposing American crimes and hypocrisy is not a valid "reason" I see.

And again, Ideology.

And again, hypocrisy.

You really are blinded by faith.

[Gawd]

@Homeland Security Worker Ian:
And it will not help your cause of fighting "terrorism" by repressing everything. Whatever your definition of terrorism is today.

[Gawd]

*snore*

Man you guys are boring. Ian is the only one who actually provides reasons, not ideology, for his position.

And exposing American crimes and hypocrisy is not a valid "reason" I see.

And again, Ideology.

And again, hypocrisy.

You really are blinded by faith.

You really are blinded by Americanism.

[Ian]

@Homeland Security Worker Ian:
And it will not help your cause of fighting "terrorism" by repressing everything. Whatever your definition of terrorism is today.

Not just paranoid, but you assume so much.

If you want more details, then I'll tell you that my job has virtually nothing to do with terrorism. Same goes for a large part of the intel community. I have yet to see or hear tell of anything that I would consider an abuse of power or a cover-up. And the people I work with - we come from every state in the union, and a few from other countries. Our politics run the gamut from Democrats and Republicans to the odd Green or Tea Partier. And no doubt, you would label every one of us part of "they" who are keeping you in this repressive Fourth Reich that you live in.

[Gawd]

Let's see if you are "honest", Ian. Who funds most of the "terrorism" in the world and who is the biggest "terrorist" country in the world? I want to hear this from the horse's mouth.

Oh BTW, the oligarchy of American parties is nothing to be proud of. That's one party away from communism. American "democracy" is like asking if you want white or cheddar cheese when what is needed is mayonnaise.

[Ian]

Let's see if you are "honest", Ian. Who funds most of the "terrorism" in the world and who is the biggest "terrorist" country in the world? I want to hear this from the horse's mouth.

1) Didn't I just explain that my job has virtually nothing to do with terrorism?

2) A couple posts ago, you referred to the flexible definition of what constitutes terrorism. Even in this post, you put "terrorism" in quotation marks. Oh let me guess - it's a loaded question, because you're willing to ignore conjectural definitions (and a whole bunch of other facts, if you're even aware that conflicting information exists in the world) for the sake of proving some of your own pre-conceptions?

3) Since you asked, the answers to your two questions are quite obviously Finland and New Zealand, respectively.

[sandinista]

*snore*

Man you guys are boring. Ian is the only one who actually provides reasons, not ideology, for his position.

And exposing American crimes and hypocrisy is not a valid "reason" I see.

And again, Ideology.

Give it a rest, everyone has an ideology. What the fuck do you even mean by that statement?

[Loki]

[break for thread]

I'd rather see leaks from within the Democrat and Republican party machines (or Tea Party just for lols), or their equivalents in other countries. Then we'd see some real whining and gnashing of teeth at what really goes on behind the scenes.

No national security issues to use as a cover-up, no "bilateral relations" dodge, just the raw paranoia and opaque scheming asshattery which ultimately ends up driving governments.

No problem with the recent leaks per se, just think they miss the mark somewhat.

[/return to usual programming]

[Mishakal]

[break for thread]

I'd rather see leaks from within the Democrat and Republican party machines (or Tea Party just for lols), or their equivalents in other countries. Then we'd see some real whining and gnashing of teeth at what really goes on behind the scenes.

No national security issues to use as a cover-up, no "bilateral relations" dodge, just the raw paranoia and opaque scheming asshattery which ultimately ends up driving governments.

No problem with the recent leaks per se, just think they miss the mark somewhat.

[/return to usual programming]

That is all.

[Ronja]

What do you make of this? The full opinion piece is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... with-leaks - and there are almost 600 comments on it already, so this particular piece has clearly struck a nerve.

Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
Western political elites obfuscate, lie and bluster – and when the veil of secrecy is lifted, they try to kill the messenger
o John Naughton
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 December 2010 20.59 GMT

'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations.

The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing.

And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net.

There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down.

Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable."

She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.

One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates.

...

It's long, but IMO worth the read.

[Gawd]

Ian won't like this.

[Ronja]

Ian (and maybe Mai), what do the US (federal) laws say about openness and transparency of government? Are there any laws that bind government authorities on all levels (also state and city/county) to openness?

Edit: what I'm getting at is: is it clearly defined who has the right to decide about the classification of a (type of) document, and on what grounds? And are such definitions easily findable and understandable for all or most citizens?


In Finland, we have this Act (national-level law), which specifically stipulates that no government information may be kept secret unless there are lawful reasons to do so. In practice, quite a few documents are secret based on some other Act (personal privacy protection is one big issue in this), but the main principle is that when a representative of an authority (see the list in section 4 below) makes a decision about the classification of a document, they have to follow criteria established in law. If they don't, they are possibly committing a felony and endangering their career.

Additionally, anyone who wants some information from an authority can challenge a negative decision in court. As going to court in a matter like this is not too expensive in Finland, this has also happened multiple times since 1999, and each precedent by our Supreme Court has clarified the balance of the law. For example, a journalist has the right to get copies of all documents pertaining to a court hearing (which has not been declared secret - rape and murder cases often are, to protect the victim/'s family), but the social security numbers of the people involved must be covered in the copies given to the journalist.

The Act begins thus:

Act on the Openness of Government Activities
(621/1999; AMENDMENTS UP TO 1060/2002 INCLUDED)

Chapter 1 — General provisions

Section 1 — Principle of openness

(1) Official documents shall be in the public domain, unless specifically otherwise
provided in this Act or another Act.
(2) There are specific provisions that apply to the right to attend Parliamentary plenary
sessions, meetings of municipal councils and other municipal bodies, court
hearings and meetings of ecclesiastical bodies.

Section 2 — Scope of application

This Act contains provisions on the right of access to official documents in the
public domain, officials’ duty of non-disclosure, document secrecy and any other
restrictions of access that are necessary for the protection of public or private
interests, as well as on the duties of the authorities for the achievement of the
objectives of this Act.

Section 3 — Objectives

The objectives of the right of access and the duties of the authorities provided in
this Act are to promote openness and good practice on information management in
government, and to provide private individuals and corporations with an
opportunity to monitor the exercise of public authority and the use of public
resources, to freely form an opinion, to influence the exercise of public authority,
and to protect their rights and interests.

Section 4 — Authorities

(1) For the purposes of this Act, authorities are defined as:
-(1) State administrative authorities and other State agencies and institutions;
-(2) courts of law and the other bodies for the administration of the law;
-(3) State enterprises;
-(4) municipal authorities;
-(5) the Bank of Finland, including the Finance Supervision Authority, the National Pensions Institution and other independent institutions subject to public law; however, this Act applies to the documents of the Pensions Security Centre and the Agricultural Pensions Institute as provided in paragraph (2);
-(6) Parliamentary agencies and institutions;
-(7) ̃ land authorities, when performing the duties of State authorities in ̃ land;
-(8) independent boards, consultative bodies, commissions, committees, working groups, investigators, as well as auditors of municipalities and federations of municipalities, and other comparable organs appointed for the performance of
a given task on the basis of an Act, a Decree or a decision of an authority
referred to in subparagraph (1), (2) or (7).
(2) The provisions on an authority also apply to corporations, institutions, foundations
and private individuals appointed for the performance of a public task on the basis
of an Act, a Decree or a provision or order issued by virtue of an Act or a Decree,
when they exercise public authority. Separate provisions apply to access to the
documents of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
...

Full translation here (it's unofficial, like all English versions of Acts and Decrees, but a pretty reliable information source anyway): http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset ... 990621.pdf