Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you figure that?
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.
People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.
I can understand what you're trying to say, it's like the same with parenting I suppose, you don't tell your child everything at first and ease them into it as they get older so certain life aspects won't come as such a shock to them.
At the same time, I'm not sure that applying that particular logic to a system of government is really the greatest idea. We should have a right to know what's going on, what our particular countries are doing both foreign and at home.
They are hiding a lot, and I think Wikileaks is doing a great job at exposing this, I just can't see myself agreeing with all that they've done in terms of releasing certain names.
He said his client was in a "bizarre situation" where he had tried to seek a meeting with the Swedish prosecutor to discuss the charges against him, but had been rebuffed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11911162
So it seems he has tried to make contact with the authorities.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.
doesn't that assume that privacy-from-government serves the same purpose as government-secrecy?
it is certainly in the public interest for there to be a high degree of privacy-from government involvement in one's life, but state secrets, as demonstrated with the wikileaks, do more to hide the real politik that the citizens, who democratic leaders are supposed to work for, don't want people to know about. This isn't a leak of personal information about the state that might be equivalent with a violation of its "privacy", its information about how the US negotiates its position in the world.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosgovernment is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables
If you're doing something bad we should know about it.
If you're not doing something bad you shouldn't care that we know about it.People have plenty of legitimate reasons to want privacy when they're doing something that's perfectly reasonable. Government agencies similarly need a certain level of secrecy in order to do their jobs. You can't make the blanket descision that all secrecy is bad for either group.
Originally posted by 753
government is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables
someone on AJE was talking about this last night
if the sum total of the cables were only to show that the Americans behaved properly overseas, and had private dialogue with world leaders that expressed the same views they expressed in public, there might be an argument that this was a violation of state privacy. However, given the articles contained clearly hidden state programs that violate the law, the "privacy" argument makes no sense. I don't have privacy from the state when I am breaking the law.
Maybe there is an argument that wikileaks doesn't have the equivalent of "probable cause" to investigate state privacy, but because the information was a leak, and not stolen, obviously someone considered the information in enough violation of US law (potentially), or at the very least, thought it amounted to something that concerned the public enough that "state secrecy" was not more important.
Originally posted by 753
government is not a person, it has no claim to privacy, what it does have is the power to keep secrets when it deems them necessary and since the contents of such secrecy and what should or shouldn't be revealed to the public are up to the state itself to define this means it is answering to itself. and unlike private citizens who can do whatever the **** they want in their private lifes unless it's illegal, the state can only do what the law allows it to do and must be held acountable. clearly there were international law violations described in those cables
I'm objecting more to the low quality of the argument that "x could be doing something bad, thus it's okay to find out everything x is doing", which is what Assange's argument seems to boil down to. Wikileaks does a good thing but I still think it should be supported by a solid argument.
And you're right, governments aren't people. And while I don't think that negates all privacy I do agree that they don't have the fundamental right to privacy that we extend to people. What they do have is a need for privacy, a government cannot perform the functions of government unless some of what it does is unknown.
However, I think that's where you can fit reporting leaks/ doing investigative journalism in as good things or at least necessary ones. A government also can't do it's job if it isn't accountable (as this means it cannot be trusted by the people), neither can they be trusted to be wholly transparent about what they do.
In the link below Julian Assange made a comment about the possibility UFO´s being mentioned in any cables, his reply was.
Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules. 1) that the documents not be self-authored; 2) that they be original. However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.
this is also interesting, a map showing where the cables originated from in the chosen time period.
The encrypted file has the entirety of the Cable Gate files which they have been gradually releasing and some other info on the USA and other world governments. He says they've been distributed 100.000 people already.
"The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in encrypted form. If something happens to us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organisations. History will win. The world will be elevated to a better place. Will we survive? That depends on you."
Originally posted by Corrupt_America
By putting the information out there unedited, like a Scientist he proves what's happening using evidence, rather than being the corrupt mouth piece of the rich and powerful like most newspapers in the U.K. and U.S. are.He is a hero!
Asange has said, point blank, that he has a specific agenda with his releases, and has even alienated members of the Wikileaks staff to the point of leaving the organization because of it.
Asange, much like science, is not clear of bias
your remark about the newspapers is bizarre as well, as they (Both in the US and UK) have done more to get the leaks to the mainstream public than has Asange. Most of the cables are dense and require a large understanding of local context to even understand, they really aren't in a format digestable to the majority of the public.
Originally posted by inimalist
Asange has said, point blank, that he has a specific agenda with his releases, and has even alienated members of the Wikileaks staff to the point of leaving the organization because of it.Asange, much like science, is not clear of bias
your remark about the newspapers is bizarre as well, as they (Both in the US and UK) have done more to get the leaks to the mainstream public than has Asange. Most of the cables are dense and require a large understanding of local context to even understand, they really aren't in a format digestable to the majority of the public.
Actually, Assange agenda is to act as aconduit for unbiased information. Read up 😉
The papers have put the leaks out there whilst giving an editorial message against WL.
You only have to look at how things like Afghanastan have been reported. As a 'war', brave heroes etc.
Originally posted by Corrupt_America
Actually, Assange agenda is to act as aconduit for unbiased information. Read up 😉
🙄
what in particular?
Originally posted by Corrupt_America
The papers have put the leaks out there whilst giving an editorial message against WL.
which papers? Certainly neither the NY Times or UK Guradian have come out against Wikileaks, and even conservative publications like the Washington Post and The Economist have written many editorials in support of Wikileaks
I think you are confusing people showing rational skepticism of something with them being against it.
Originally posted by Corrupt_America
You only have to look at how things like Afghanastan have been reported. As a 'war', brave heroes etc.
I think you are extrapolating from Fox News to cover the entirety of published media in America. The NY Times is certainly no slouch when it comes to publishing stuff against the war.
Also, considering a soldier a hero doesn't make someone pro war.
Originally posted by inimalist
🙄what in particular?
which papers? Certainly neither the NY Times or UK Guradian have come out against Wikileaks, and even conservative publications like the Washington Post and The Economist have written many editorials in support of Wikileaks
I think you are confusing people showing rational skepticism of something with them being against it.
I think you are extrapolating from Fox News to cover the entirety of published media in America. The NY Times is certainly no slouch when it comes to publishing stuff against the war.
Also, considering a soldier a hero doesn't make someone pro war.
No, in the Uk it's generally a brave war. The Guardian has it's own agenda and pushes womens issues etc in the U.K. something which here has gone to far as men are now targets believe it or not.
Assange's agenda is what you need to read up on of course, 🙂
keep the faith 🙂
Stay wiki 🤘