WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Of course. And some things that are protected shouldn't be leaked. I think that the distinction between a leaker and a whistleblower that John Dean was making here.

I haven't heard Ellsburg say that absolute transparency is an ideal. I think he has been quite clear that his battle was one of conscience between protecting a lie that would result in the death of many (Americans and others) and living up to his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution. He has called for others to do the same, but I've never heard that he's called for absolute transparency.

Giants like PayPal, Amazon.com, Visa and MasterCard almost instantly crumbled under government (and p.r.) pressure to drop WikiLeaks, depriving the site of vital funding sources and online platforms. But other companies, some of them small, independent start-ups, have decided to risk the wrath of Joe Lieberman, the State Department, and their European counterparts and help keep WikiLeaks afloat by providing funding sources (yeah, you can now donate to WikiLeaks even if you only have Visa or MasterCard.) and hosting the site. Here's a list of companies that have stood by WikiLeaks:
Xipwire, Facebook, Twitter, Flattr, Datacell (Iceland), OVH (France)

What's been happening with Wikileaks is the freedom of the press that the government tries to repress.

So you acknowledge the true form of transparent government.

We don't "need" leeks, but leaks are simply what is going to happen as long as we don't work towards the real goals; the ones that require actual work and accountability.

WikiLeaks may give you some of the information you are entitled to, but it brings us no closer to the type of transparent government where you get all of the information you are entitled to. If you are truly an advocate for more openness, spend less time praising WL, and more inspecting what you do to move towards what you acknowledge would have been a better goal prior to the existence of WL.

You're repeating what I said. I said that things are out of balance in terms of secracy. Things can be unbalanced in many ways msolga. WL is a reaction to one form of unbalance, it's not the ballast to level things off.

Why won't you have the whole truth ever?

So your policy is waiting?

Why not demand those documents now? What I'm getting at is the reliance on WL (or rather leaker and whistle-blowers) is always retroactive. If you are concerned with Australia's doing with the US (or in the future China), then what are you doing to create openness on the front end? Where is the proactive measures?

WL is the lazy way out.

I don't care if it's anti-US or not. That's not the origin of my skepticism about WL.

I think lots of the information they are getting out is good.

That said, they have horded information and are using it for personal leverage. I'd have the same objections if that information was about Mexico, Canada, or Australia.

I think your concerns are valid, don't worry Olga.

It could be as you say that the difference in reaction could be because the interests differ between countries. There's a good argument for that, but acknowledge that the difference could also be that the effect is different. Certainly a different reaction would be understandable.

Think back several months to the whole embarrassment from the KFC cricket commercials.

Wikileaks might well be the catalyst for greater transparency.

Wikileaks supplies the information. It does not proscribe how that information is used or editorialize about the material. That is up to people who receive the information to do for themselves. And what is wrong with that?

Using that logic, if I provide information to someone about what you have in your house, the combination to your wall safe, when you were going to be away from home, and the codes to shut off your home alarm, then I'm not in any way responsible if they use that information to burglarize your house.

Why should we "spend less time praising WL, and more inspecting what you do to move towards what you acknowledge would have been a better goal prior to the existence of WL."?
Wikileaks might well be the catalyst for greater transparency.
Do you really think there have not been efforts to achieve greater government transparency prior to the Wikileaks?
You are completely wrong about that.

Information by itself is not transparency. You've got that wrong.

I'm telling you that if people were a more proactive about what is happening there would be less need for leaks because there would be less to hide.

WL is retroactive. That's not a solution.

RE: Hoarding. I'm not going to go around in circles msolga. Poison pill.