Wikileaks Embassy Cables

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's now a celebrity, in the US that would mean he no longer has a right to privacy I don't know if that applies to the rest of the world. Not to mention that the dipmolats were all indidivuals to, they were just working for the US govt like Assange works for Wikileaks.

Celebrity or not his right to privacy wasnt signed away and it's not just Assange, I doubt the women were pleased about this.

Well the women were planning to release it anyway, so that's not a huge issue. But in the correct place- the courtroom.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
One could also point out that Assange's justification is public interest, and that can be applied to any information, individual or group.

The prejudicial nature of the material is a more serious issue. I'm equally critical of wikileaks' revelations about China and North Korea- fascinating stuff, but by releasing it they put the diplomatic process at risk, as that information embarrasses China.

Well, that may all be true, but it doesn't really relate to my point.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well the women were planning to release it anyway, so that's not a huge issue. But in the correct place- the courtroom.

Originally posted by 753
Well, that may all be true, but it doesn't really relate to my point.

Yes it does- public interest can justify a release from any source, not just government info. If Assange uses it as a justification to blow info on others, others can use it likewise on him.

And the court info will almost certainly be widely reported, and the women know that.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes it does- public interest can justify a release from any source, not just government info. If Assange uses it as a justification to blow info on others, others can use it likewise on him.

And the court info will almost certainly be widely reported, and the women know that.

Perhaps the detailed contents of the allegations would be made public record or end up being revealed anyway, perhaps not. I actually don't know how restricted the access to trial info would be on Sweden.

That's actually not the point. The point is that the public interest justification is used to trump all other considerations. The right for the public to know certain bits of information is considered a higher cause than any individual's right to privacy. Those affected by wikileaks have given many, many good reasons beyond simple privacy as to why those documents should be secret; wikileaks have replied 'public interest' on every count.

you guys are going to have to correct me, but in most nations, doesn't this info get made public anyways? like, wasn't it a strange part of the assanhe case that we hadn't been given access to details of what Asange had been accused of?

edit: though, on your last point, Ush, I'd still say that the rights to privacy of citizens are different than are those of nations or corporations. if Asange had released the medical records of people, even gvt employees, that would be a problem. I think it is still reasonable for citizens to have different rights than the state.

Well, I think it has to do with him not being charged, is he even charged with anything now?

I mean apparently the person he allegedly raped was also referred to as witness rather than victim (though I may be confused about that). I could imagine it has to do with the status of the case, i.e. that it's still in the investigation.

Originally posted by inimalist
you guys are going to have to correct me, but in most nations, doesn't this info get made public anyways? like, wasn't it a strange part of the assanhe case that we hadn't been given access to details of what Asange had been accused of?

I think in matters of 'national security' that info can be withheld for a length of time, but to me it sounds like "we need time to fabricate something that will stick and won't make us look like douche-bags."

That's actually not the point. The point is that the public interest justification is used to trump all other considerations. The right for the public to know certain bits of information is considered a higher cause than any individual's right to privacy. Those affected by wikileaks have given many, many good reasons beyond simple privacy as to why those documents should be secret; wikileaks have replied 'public interest' on every count.

And their rationale is based on the need for private citizens of the world to know what governments are doing so they fiscalize or fight their abuses. Public control of government activity is a political imperative within anything that resembles a democracy - not that we have those lying arround. The same logic doesn't apply to a private citizen. Government data is everyone's business while people's private data isn't. People have fundamentals rights like privacy, governments prerrogative of secrecy don't fit into the same category.

Naturally, the state must investigate and judge a man who may have commited a crime, but this already takes care of the legitemate public interest in the matter - acquitting an innocent man or taking a sex offender off the streets - and the general public does not need to know the specific details of the case for this to occur.

Originally posted by 753
and the general public does not need to know the specific details of the case for this to occur.

i have to disagree with you on this. I think it is hugely important that the public have access to the details of how our courts and police work to convict people.

if they are concerned about these girls, the sweedish prosecutors should do more to hide their identities. the public, however, has the right to know what is being charged on their behalf in courts they pay for.

Originally posted by inimalist
you guys are going to have to correct me, but in most nations, doesn't this info get made public anyways? like, wasn't it a strange part of the assanhe case that we hadn't been given access to details of what Asange had been accused of?

I think rape cases in the US get extra privacy for the identities of the defendants.

Originally posted by inimalist
edit: though, on your last point, Ush, I'd still say that the rights to privacy of citizens are different than are those of nations or corporations. if Asange had released the medical records of people, even gvt employees, that would be a problem. I think it is still reasonable for citizens to have different rights than the state.

If Obama raped someone don't you think the public would have a right to know?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think rape cases in the US get extra privacy for the identities of the defendants.

Could be wrong, but I think only in regards to minors. Two notable cases, the woman Mike Tyson raped and the woman Kobe Bryant allegedly raped were made public information.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
IIf Obama raped someone don't you think the public would have a right to know?

An extreme example, of course, but in essence, yes. I was not denying the difference between government and personal privacy. I am just saying that wikileaks has used 'public interest' as a trump card for the reason behind any of their revelations, quashing, as I say, more than just privacy objections with that defence.

It cuts both ways.

The reason this is wrong is nothing to do with privacy; a good case can be made for this being public interest knowledge. This is purely to do with prejudicing a criminal trial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think it has to do with him not being charged, is he even charged with anything now?

I mean apparently the person he allegedly raped was also referred to as witness rather than victim (though I may be confused about that). I could imagine it has to do with the status of the case, i.e. that it's still in the investigation.

that might actually be it... idk honestly

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think rape cases in the US get extra privacy for the identities of the defendants.

for sure, there are things they do to protect the victims, but in the end, if something is entered as evidence it becomes part of the public record.

I could totally be wrong though, I thought when someone was charged with something these things had to be made public. I could totally be wrong, or it could be what Bardock mentioned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If Obama raped someone don't you think the public would have a right to know?

I don't see why it would be any different than what we are describing here. If you were convicted of rape, it and the details of your case would become part of public record.

I feel he'd have the right to know, and the prosecutors, as employees of the people, should have to provide, the details of the accusations, even if things like names and dates are removed to protect the identity of the people involved.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is purely to do with prejudicing a criminal trial.

if he isn't charged with anything yet, can it really be prejudicing the trial?

😉

----

I heard his lawyer give an interesting perspective on why the case was re-opened so close to the Wikileaks releases. Apparently there were Sweedish elections going on at the time, and a local politician reopened the case in an attempt to garner support. It makes a little sense, the perspective of "global celebrety gets away with raping innocent girls, not if I'm elected", but more just food for thought than anything.

For whatever reason, if it is true that this case was reopened as a political maneuver at a local level, the whole global conspiracy angle sort of dies. Both sides are obviously politicizing the hell out of the case anyways, but it may come from a more mundane source.

YouTube video

"some day hackers are going to break into hospitals and kill people, its the first step towards anarchy"

(paraphrased a bit)

wow... talk about a bumbler. xD that old man had no argument.

ya, he'd get on a rant, but it didn't do much for me...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340885/America-launches-WikiLeaks-Task-Force-Yes-agents-refer-WTF.html