WikiLeaks risks really high?

rpm

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,805
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
WikiLeaks risks exaggerated by Government?

Although the Defense Deprtament warns that WikiLeaks could have blood on its hands for publishing classified U.S. war documents that name Afghan sources, history shows that similar disclosures have not always led to violence.
 
Slightly unrelated to this article but if things continue as they are in RSA, we would need to embrace WikiLeaks to publish our articles if the Information Bill is passed.

The risks are justified if they lead to the truth.
 
I have the idea, that if a government has to have secrets, then something is wrong. And usually the public is the one's who get it in the bum, from that. Is there really any thing that needs be kept secret from other folk ? Of course, if you want to run an aggro government, then you will need secrets, but most of this stuff is cover ups of politicians doing back door deals to fill their own pockets, or poor management of the departments they run.
 
From: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-strikes-hosting-deal-with-wikileaks-100817/
During his visit to the the Swedish capital Stockholm, Wikileaks spokesman Julian Assange struck a deal with the local Pirate Party. The Party, which participates in the national elections next month, will host several new Wikileaks servers to protect the freedom of the press and help the whistleblower site to carry out its operation.
Click to expand...
For Wikileaks, support from the Swedish Pirate Party is a significant win. If the Party is voted into Parliament next month it could use Parliamentary immunity to run the site from inside the Swedish Government, making it impossible to take it offline through legal procedures.
Click to expand...
 
I find it ironic that they claim wikileaks have blood one their hands considering they started to wars with little justification.
 
Balstrome said:
I have the idea, that if a government has to have secrets, then something is wrong. And usually the public is the one's who get it in the bum, from that. Is there really any thing that needs be kept secret from other folk ? Of course, if you want to run an aggro government, then you will need secrets, but most of this stuff is cover ups of politicians doing back door deals to fill their own pockets, or poor management of the departments they run.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want the witness protection programs to be made public.
 
stix said:
I find it ironic that they claim wikileaks have blood one their hands considering they started to wars with little justification.
Click to expand...

:confused: I'm sorry... but were you trying to say something there?
 
It's probably too early to tell... especially if Wikileaks are planning on releasing more documents.

I like the idea of having a Wikileaks there in case you need to spill the guts on something underhanded... but at the same time Wikileaks has to take responsibility for the info they choose to release and it's consequences.
 
Look wikileaks might be good for some kinds of sensitive information (shady deals etc.)

Things like the witness protection program are shrouded in secrecy for very good reasons. Wikileaks should be very careful about which information they choose to publish, or they WILL have blood on their hands.
 
You can not have selective freedom of speech, you either censor or you allow everything. If you censor, who watches the watchers. As to the witness protection program, yes, it could be tough, but I feel only for those who do not trade wpp for testimony. Whistle-blowers need public protection, not hiding away in some backward dorp.
 
Garyvdh said:
:confused: I'm sorry... but were you trying to say something there?
Click to expand...

I think he's saying invading and removing a backward brutal regime that harbored equally barbaric terrorists that attacked them is little justification :erm:

Anyway as if the Taliban would harm enemy informants. This are reasonable people ffs next they'll be claiming the Taliban throw acid into the faces of girls for defying them by going to school.....
 
I wonder when we're going to get leaked documents on the Weapons of Mass [-]Deception[/-] Destruction.
 
Last edited:
Balstrome said:
I have the idea, that if a government has to have secrets, then something is wrong. And usually the public is the one's who get it in the bum, from that. Is there really any thing that needs be kept secret from other folk ? Of course, if you want to run an aggro government, then you will need secrets, but most of this stuff is cover ups of politicians doing back door deals to fill their own pockets, or poor management of the departments they run.
Click to expand...

I have the idea that Balstrome has to have secrets, then something is wrong. For instance we want to know his ID number, his real name, his address, when he is at home, his alarm systems code, his credit card PIN and number, if he owns a gun and where he keeps it, the combination to his safe, the password on his laptop etc.

There is public info and there is classified information. For example the SA govt may not want to tell the world how many special forces personnel it has, it may not want to publish the names of the bodyguards of the president (lest the families of these people are used to blackmail these guards), it may not want to tell the world what its defence strategies are, what the exact chain of command are, which frequencies and codes/equipment the military/police/secret service use, etc etc. There are many valid reasons why governments keep secrets. I am surprised you did not consider this.

Much of that Afghanistan stuff published is operational stuff. So revealing that stuff to the enemy such as the names of commanders or intelligence officers or liaison officers can give the Taliban vital clues on how to fight the Americans (NATO). They could for example go after a particular officer and then cripple the US in a particular sector for a long time. Same with the names of informants - not only are they and their families being betrayed, but in the future fewer people will want to co-operate with NATO or Afghani government against the Taliban and more NATO soldiers and aid workers will end up getting killed.

Even releasing videos of civilians being killed by NATO can be dangerous. The material could be used a propaganda and taken out of context - it could be used to recruit more fighters and suicide bombers for the Taliban. Secondly fake information could be slipped in with 'genuine' reports. Would Assange know what is real or not? Hell no.

In short this is dangerous. I'm all for releasing hidden deal information when it is in public interest to do so, but when it can cost lives, I would not be so happy. Perhaps if Wikileaks was around in 1944 they could have published the details of the D-DAY Landings too.
 
Nod said:
From: http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-party-strikes-hosting-deal-with-wikileaks-100817/
Click to expand...

If they host foreign CLASSIFIED material they are in fact then aiding and abetting an act of aggression against the US. Are foreign diplomats immune from prosecution or expulsion if they engage and are caught in acts of sabotage or spying against the host country? Of course they aren't.

At the same time, believe it or not Sweden has state secrets they want to keep secret too. The CIA will just use ECHELON to get some of that and happily publish it too. This is really stupid - hopefully the Swedes are not this retarded to go along with this.
 
Last edited:
stix said:
I find it ironic that they claim wikileaks have blood one their hands considering they started to wars with little justification.
Click to expand...

Irrespective of why a war was started, giving out this material leads to MORE people getting killed (especially innocents such as families of the traitors to Taliban). Do two wrongs make a right? BTW the Afghanistan invasion was credible -they could have just bombed them or invaded them. Leaving them alone would send the message that a foreign power can kill 4000 Americans without any consequences. Iraqi was not credible in my mind and was a pity.
 
Balstrome said:
You can not have selective freedom of speech, you either censor or you allow everything. If you censor, who watches the watchers. As to the witness protection program, yes, it could be tough, but I feel only for those who do not trade wpp for testimony. Whistle-blowers need public protection, not hiding away in some backward dorp.
Click to expand...

We have selective freedom of speech. We have freedom of speech as long as that right does not encroach on other peoples' rights. Your right to freedom of speech is not more important than someone else's right to life. Next you'll tell me we need to know the nuclear launch codes and the exact location of each ICBM USA possesses, details of the personnel guarding those sites and what passwords they use. Hey it's all public money - all 300 million Americans should know this. Oh yeah so should foreign visitors, they also pay tax on earnings and purchases in the US.
 
It was incredibly irresponsible for wikileaks to publish documents that have details of individuals that have collaborated with NATO soldiers. As the organization publishing the leaks they have the moral duty to ensure that identifying information is censored.

They should have maintained their stance as a neutral repository for documents. Instead Assange seems to have become personally involved and this means that wikileaks is now too biased to be trusted.
 
Last edited:
BobsLawnService said:
It was incredibly irresponsible for wikileaks to publish documents that have details of individuals that have collaborated with NATO soldiers. As the organization publishing the leaks they have the moral duty to ensure that identifying information is censored.

They have maintained their stance as a neutral repository for documents. Instead Assange seems to have beecome personally involved and this means that wikileaks is now too biased to be trusted.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X