55
   

WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

 
 
failures art
 
  5  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:25 pm
@msolga,
I'm asking about poor handling because if one completely buys into wikileaks being infallible, then one cannot accept that information could ever be mishandled. I am asking what kinds of things you'd have to see to be convinced of the mishandling of information. Unless you believe there is no way for this information to be mishandled, you do have an answer. I'm asking for your opinion.

Quote:
You appear to be saying we shouldn’t have the right to transparency & that secrecy between governments is OK. The fact is, without Wikileaks we would not know quite a few things that we now know. And I’m grateful to Wikileaks for supplying us with this information. Is it preferable that our governments make deals between each other in secrecy?

So if I'm skeptical about WikiLeaks, then I'm against transparency? That's bogus and offensive. I've made very clear not only my objection, but how I think things could be handled better. Is there no room in your interpretation of these events for constructive criticism?

Should states have the ability to speak in secret. Yes. Should they speak more often in the open. Absolutely. I'm fond of public meetings msolga, but too often politics makes for theater and interferes with crafting policy. Certainly, you'd not like to see a televised meeting between your head of State with a foreign official turned into nothing more than a photo-op campaign stop. Sometimes we want the cameras away so people can get to work. We need not subscribe to either extreme. There is area in the middle where a balance of private and public negotiations between states.

I'm still not sure how you feel the facilities release is in the public's interest. One is a plant that produces most of the world's insulin. That's public on a international level. Would Australia be better off if it publicly announced what foreign sites it found most critical? This information defies the defense of WL simply exposing dirty deeds. They aren't simply interested in devious info. They are interested in any info that has power.

Is it okay to have material 30 years later? You're ignoring what I said. I'm saying that real transparency is changing the policies on the proper release of information. Wikileaks: not the problem, not the solution. It's the symptom.

Think back to before there was a WikiLeaks. If I asked you how to obtain the degree of transparency you desire in our society, are you going to tell me that your answer would have been to wait for a group of hackers to come along and collect sensitive information and then release it as their leader sees fit? I doubt it.

Quote:
I can’t believe the colourful language you are using, Art. “Agents of chaos”? “Assange's Robin Hood complex”. “Vigilante agents”. Sounds like stuff from the cold war, or Bush’s “axis of evil” era. What’s gotten into you?

Poisoned the well. Well damn me for not sharing your enthusiasm.

You know, despite what Cyclo said about how DoD and IC people wanting to protect the temple of secrecy, you'd be pretty shocked to know the truth. I'd much rather be able to share what I do with my father, my mother, my sister, and my girlfriend. It seems that the stigma grows that all that is secret is shameful, and that's bullshit.

I think it's going to get exhausting to tow the extreme line that only good can come from this. I've been fair, and I've shared what will convince me this was worth it. I suggest before you keep piling on support you do the same.

Quote:
It sounds like you hoping the Australian cables will remain under lock & key.

Where do you get that? I'm saying that in your lessons-learned great open society, obviously there is no need for any state to ever keep their cables private. So why doesn't some state stand up an be the first to hold up this great torch of the open society and say: "We heard you world! Here's the key to the vault!"

I somehow suspect that the truth is rather that no state will do so. Better to play damage control and suggest that diplomacy is only dirty when the US is involved.

There is a certain truth to the idea that these releases are liberating. I'm not, as JTT likes to accuse, afraid of the US being shamed. By comparison, I can't even imagine the fear of those who try to diffuse suspicion by condemning the US in the strongest terms.

In the mean time, I'll await a WL release that shows criminal corruption in Monsanto's GE corn production. The public will understand somehow intuitively that they are supposed to be upset, but few will actually start to read their food labels. In the end, no new policies. Only known villains in new costumes, still in business because people mistake blame for accountability.

A
R
The world is getting flat.
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:32 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
But then again the defensive posture of you, Finn, BillRM, even FA, as you see the narrative


You forgot Ionus, Hinge. But I guess you must have been thinking of people who actually try to make an argument.

I appreciate your honesty, not for me, but for this situation.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 10:42 pm
@failures art,
No time to respond properly, Art.
I will later.
But, something I've been wondering ...
Around the time of the Iraq invasion, would you have objected as vehemently to official government leaks which shed light the Bush government's claims about WNDs in Iraq?
Would you have objected to leaks which shed light on the Bush administration's communications with it's allies about the planned invasion of Iraq?
I would have welcomed those leaks, if they had occurred.
They might have made a real difference.
To this day I can't figure out how millions of citizens, all over the planet, marched against that war in the streets of our cities. Yet our leaders took us to war, anyway. How were they persuaded to do that? What were the pressing arguments? We might find out in 30 or so years ...
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Dec, 2010 11:10 pm
@msolga,
I was, briefly, a woman in black.

I was against the war before that one and the one after that one.

How were leaders persuaded? Routine in action already, with commensurate feed.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 12:16 am
@msolga,
failures art wrote:

msolga wrote:
You appear to be saying we shouldn’t have the right to transparency & that secrecy between governments is OK. The fact is, without Wikileaks we would not know quite a few things that we now know. And I’m grateful to Wikileaks for supplying us with this information. Is it preferable that our governments make deals between each other in secrecy?


So if I'm skeptical about WikiLeaks, then I'm against transparency? That's bogus and offensive. I've made very clear not only my objection, but how I think things could be handled better. Is there no room in your interpretation of these events for constructive criticism?

Should states have the ability to speak in secret. Yes. Should they speak more often in the open. Absolutely. I'm fond of public meetings msolga, but too often politics makes for theater and interferes with crafting policy. Certainly, you'd not like to see a televised meeting between your head of State with a foreign official turned into nothing more than a photo-op campaign stop. Sometimes we want the cameras away so people can get to work. We need not subscribe to either extreme. There is area in the middle where a balance of private and public negotiations between states.

I'm still not sure how you feel the facilities release is in the public's interest. One is a plant that produces most of the world's insulin. That's public on a international level. Would Australia be better off if it publicly announced what foreign sites it found most critical? This information defies the defense of WL simply exposing dirty deeds. They aren't simply interested in devious info. They are interested in any info that has power.

Is it okay to have material 30 years later? You're ignoring what I said. I'm saying that real transparency is changing the policies on the proper release of information. Wikileaks: not the problem, not the solution. It's the symptom.

Think back to before there was a WikiLeaks. If I asked you how to obtain the degree of transparency you desire in our society, are you going to tell me that your answer would have been to wait for a group of hackers to come along and collect sensitive information and then release it as their leader sees fit? I doubt it.

msolga wrote:
I can’t believe the colourful language you are using, Art. “Agents of chaos”? “Assange's Robin Hood complex”. “Vigilante agents”. Sounds like stuff from the cold war, or Bush’s “axis of evil” era. What’s gotten into you?


Poisoned the well. Well damn me for not sharing your enthusiasm.


msolga wrote:

No time to respond properly, Art.
I will later.
But, something I've been wondering ...
Around the time of the Iraq invasion, would you have objected as vehemently to official government leaks which shed light the Bush government's claims about WNDs in Iraq?
Would you have objected to leaks which shed light on the Bush administration's communications with it's allies about the planned invasion of Iraq?
I would have welcomed those leaks, if they had occurred.
They might have made a real difference.
To this day I can't figure out how millions of citizens, all over the planet, marched against that war in the streets of our cities. Yet our leaders took us to war, anyway. How were they persuaded to do that? What were the pressing arguments? We might find out in 30 or so years ...


I am sorry to say this, msolga, but it seems you are continuing to dodge valid points and ignoring constructive criticism of Wikileaks.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 12:38 am
@JTT,
Ionus is on my ignore list because he's an arsehole with an overinflated sense of self worth and a loose grip on reality that he resents people shaking further loose.

msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 01:18 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
I am sorry to say this, msolga, but it seems you are continuing to dodge valid points and ignoring constructive criticism of Wikileaks.


Well, I'm sorry to say this, wandel, but ... Wink

Whether you see those points as "valid" or not appears to depend on where you stand on the activities of Wikileaks.

My position is different to yours & Art's. It's as simple as that.

I think I've made myself pretty clear.
The problem is that those of us on the opposite sides of an argument like this one are never going to agree & validate each others' arguments.

For example:
Quote:
So if I'm skeptical about WikiLeaks, then I'm against transparency. That's bogus and offensive. I've made very clear not only my objection, but how I think things could be handled better. Is there no room in your interpretation of these events for constructive criticism?


How can it be argued that you're in favour of "transparency" & that "things could be handled better" while at the same time condoning (via opposition to Wikileaks information) the denial of all the relevant information to the people?

I used the example (above) of Australia's (then) prime minister Kevin Rudd publicly "supporting" Australia's involvement in Afghanistan to the Australian people, while secretly revealing his grave reservations in discussions with US diplomats. ...(which we found out about only via a Wikileak.)
How could it possibly be argued that Australians had a transparent view of our government's position & the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan, when we even didn't have access to all the relevant information?

I think some of you in the US have absolutely no idea of the implications of being a minor, insignificant partner in diplomatic exchanges with a much more powerful ally. Because you've never been in that sort of position yourselves & have no insight into the sovereignty issues that we are constantly confronting as a result.
I am not "ant-American" and I have no problem at all with our mutual treaties, but do have a problem with the secret deals which our governments engage in, which are not necessarily in the best interests of my country. And while these sorts of secret dialogues are occurring, I welcome any leaks which could add to Australians' fuller understanding of what we're actually implicated in.

I'd strongly suspect that these issues of sovereignty & national independence do not only apply to Australia & Australians, but many other allies of the US as well.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 05:45 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The biggest kill might be the Internet as we know it.....The Chinese are already pushing to kill it, to make sure that every information packet is traceable to a person so that revenge can be exacted. Maybe western governments will now decide that the Chinese have been right all along.


Hawkeye without starting from ground zero in the design of the net it is not possible to stop people with any knowledge from becoming untraceable.

Right now the US government is looking into trying to gain some control of the net by using it address assignment of websites and power over Domain name servers.

As a result a project is well underway to have a parallel system using p2p networks technology to get around this control of names servicers up and running.

A completely off the books and out of governments control “dark net” as you would have it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 05:54 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
I am sorry to say this, msolga, but it seems you are continuing to dodge valid points and ignoring constructive criticism of Wikileaks.


It's very odd wande that you never say such things about anti-ID and dodging valid points, declaring them invalid is a species of Ignore, and ignoring constructive criticism about it goes on continuously on your two threads on the matter.

It could look like you are victimising Olga using a principle you don't always adhere to on other subjects.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:01 am
I think we have to accept that politicians began the trend which has resulted, so far, in WL when they started writing books after they had left office and to make them sensational included material which was normally discreet.

Richard Crossman was the original villain of the piece and all the arguments put forward at the time of the publication of his famous diaries are applicable in this case.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:16 am
You know the ones who should be facing charges are the idiots who allowed anyone with access to the "secure" network to just plug a memory stick into a USB port and download a few G byes of secret information to it.

Not even real time monitoring that would flag a low level clerk downloading this amount of information it would seem.

Most private companies have far better security with any USB ports hardware disable on their isolate systems for example. A step that would had likely end stop this leak.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:17 am
Those who forget history....
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/75774/september-21-2006/daniel-ellsberg
djjd62
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:19 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Well I'm pretty sure JTT has already lumped in the UK, Australia and Canada previously so I think he's pretty aware that other countries are capable of war crimes - so it's a facetious question. I don't think he'll be jumping up in support of Sudan, Nazi Germany, the Belgians in the Congo or Bosnian Serbia either.

I think JTT's strident criticism is an attempt to overthrow the dominant narrative of word affairs in this past century of US domination, a one man 'even the balance' attempt - I applaud his commitment, even if occasionally it does grate a little through repetition. But then again the defensive posture of you, Finn, BillRM, even FA, as you see the narrative you cherish be attacked is also a little grating. My churlishness also grates. C'est la vie.


well said
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:24 am
@hingehead,
More history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ2-PRlbvdo
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 07:08 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Quote:
I am sorry to say this, msolga, but it seems you are continuing to dodge valid points and ignoring constructive criticism of Wikileaks.


It's very odd wande that you never say such things about anti-ID and dodging valid points, declaring them invalid is a species of Ignore, and ignoring constructive criticism about it goes on continuously on your two threads on the matter.

It could look like you are victimising Olga using a principle you don't always adhere to on other subjects.


Your concerns about the teaching of evolution have been answered over and over. Your arguments are nebulous and seep back into our discussions like a foul-smelling vapor.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 07:59 am
@wandeljw,
There you go wande. Dodging the point and ignoring the criticisms by the simple expedient of crass assertions. Not a single one of my concerns has been answered or even addressed. They all concern the social consequences of the teaching of evolution to a nation's adolescents. Anti-IDers have ignored all questions relating to consequences for seven years.

The educational system is only justifiable in relation to the consequences of it.

You have relied for your answer there on three pathetic assertions without any semblence of evidence that they are valid which I do understand because none of them are valid and for the obvious reason than anybody could use the same assertions about any argument. They are nothing but long winded versions of "I'm right--so there!!!" Mnumnurhhh.

Your "discussions" begin with the premise on which all your subsequent reasoning and conclusions rest and from which no others could logically result. A circularity which doesn't escape me however much snow it is hidden under.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:06 am
@djjd62,
indeed
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:41 am
@failures art,
FA, I'll respond to your earlier set of questions in greater length later, I haven't forgotten about them. Wrote a long post and then got up to cook dinner, came back and... the computer had reset for an auto-update ><

In the meantime, here's an interesting little WL article.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/12/wikileaks_1.html

Quote:
December 9, 2010
WikiLeaks

I don't have a lot to say about WikiLeaks, but I do want to make a few points.

1. Encryption isn't the issue here. Of course the cables were encrypted, for transmission. Then they were received and decrypted, and -- so it seems -- put into an archive on SIPRNet, where lots of people had access to them in their unencrypted form.

2. Secrets are only as secure as the least trusted person who knows them. The more people who know a secret, the more likely it is to be made public.

3. I'm not surprised these cables were available to so many people. We know access control is hard, and it's impossible to know beforehand what information people will need to do their jobs. What is surprising is that there weren't any audit logs kept about who accessed all these cables. That seems like a no-brainer.

4. This has little to do with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is just a website. The real story is that "least trusted person" who decided to violate his security clearance and make these cables public. In the 1970s, he would have mailed them to a newspaper. Today, he used WikiLeaks. Tomorrow, he will have his choice of a dozen similar websites. If WikiLeaks didn't exist, he could have made them available via BitTorrent.

5. I think the government is learning what the music and movie industries were forced to learn years ago: it's easy to copy and distribute digital files. That's what's different between the 1970s and today. Amassing and releasing that many documents was hard in the paper and photocopier era; it's trivial in the Internet era. And just as the music and movie industries are going to have to change their business models for the Internet era, governments are going to have to change their secrecy models. I don't know what those new models will be, but they will be different.


4 and 5 are the most important points. I think that WL may actually be doing the DoD a favor; as I said earlier, what are the chances that these cables, so widely-spread, weren't already being leaked to various foreign entities? I think very, very small.

Cycloptichorn
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:41 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:

No time to respond properly, Art.
I will later.
But, something I've been wondering ...
Around the time of the Iraq invasion, would you have objected as vehemently to official government leaks which shed light the Bush government's claims about WNDs in Iraq?
Would you have objected to leaks which shed light on the Bush administration's communications with it's allies about the planned invasion of Iraq?
I would have welcomed those leaks, if they had occurred.
They might have made a real difference.
To this day I can't figure out how millions of citizens, all over the planet, marched against that war in the streets of our cities. Yet our leaders took us to war, anyway. How were they persuaded to do that? What were the pressing arguments? We might find out in 30 or so years ...

You post illustrates the public's relationship with the information. Having now the existence of WL, you've come to assume that leaks are the way things could be prevented. But leaks themselves are still retroactive. A real system of transparency is proactive. If you're under the impression that the current situation is going to inspire any change in the tenor of small dark rooms, you're wrong.

So, how about a choice? Would you have rather had a leak prior to the Iraq war

...or...

would you rather have had a level of public interaction with the information itself such that (now famous) testimonies by people like Colin Powell woulld have been known to be a farce. Better yet, the testimonies would have been impossible to even give.

As Cyclo put it so very well, the starting point for this should be to not do embarrassing things to begin with. So as the Bush admin was drumming up for war and trying to sell it to congress, wouldn't it have been better to have public mechanisms to get the information they were manipulating to make their case so that when they said "we must," they could be answered with a "no we do not." Can you imagine Powell trying to sell Congress on wars knowing that citizens were a part of the investigation and had the same informational base as him? It simply would not have happened.

You've locked onto the idea of leaks as being the way we get info. I think that whistle-blowing should be protected. Make no mistake though, it's not a solution, it's a symptom of a larger problem, and it's a problem WL won't solve.

I'm still interested in your responses, but if you're simply not interested in replying, I'm wasting my time. Perhaps most frustrating:
Quote:
The problem is that those of us on the opposite sides of an argument like this one are never going to agree & validate each others' arguments.

Which is total crap. I've shared with you exactly what would validate your argument. I've been very honest about this. To me the meter on WL is if it changes the culture of civic non-participation and calls for real mechanisms of transparency are made.

I invited Cyclo to look for measurable signs of exactly this. So instead of telling me that nothing can be validated, care enough to try. I'm not married to any position. I'm exercising my judgement based on what I see. Disagree with my judgement, then show me more. Otherwise, you're making a lazy argument. I'm not interested in politicians/companies embarrassment, I want something proactive and real.

To contribute in the search for any sign that WL could have any real effect, I found this video this morning.


It was encouraging to see this topic being brought back into the present and related to what is happening now (not in the past) and providing a map on how to move forward. Paul, while I do not agree with him on many topics, speaks eloquently about the importance of keeping the internet free of gov control. This specific battle's outcome could be the sheath for the sword of countless wars we will never have to fight.

However, let's see a bill. Let's see something tangible. It's a start.

I don't think we need to get rid of WL, but rather to make it unnecessary.

A
R
T
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,
All good points.

Part of me thinks that simply putting them up (via bit torrent etc) would have been superior to giving them to Assange/WL. The only problem is then what I asked Thomas: The guy DLs 400,000 documents on the wars, and 250,000 from the State Dept. Unless we believe that he read all of these before posting, he would have been posting information he himself had no knowledge of. All three of the Lord of the Rings books are about 1600 pages in sum (depending on how they are bound), if we assume that each document was one page long, that would be like reading LotR 406 times.

So bit torrent might be more objective, but it would be second degree reckless as well.

A
R
T
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.26 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 04:45:02