Anonymous & WikiLeaks

Good Q. bm

Yea Cis

Yes, good question.

My shot:

Generally, breaking the law is bad...

The questions that arise though are:
1. What are the short, and long term implications when the groups making the laws, do bad things, then hide those things from the public using the laws they made?

2. If a government is engaging in unacceptable behaviour - do the voters in a democracy have the right to cast a vote against that behaviour (they can't if they don't know it's happening)

3. Does the international community have rights, when it comes to the type of behaviour another country engages in - in the international arena. Their rights are non-existent with regards to unauthorised activities affecting them, that they know nothing about

I'm sure there's other questions too.
-----------------------------------------------

Currently, there is in governments around the Western world, an ever increasing desire to hide things from their constituents, and to exert ever more control over the 'message' they give to the public.

I know that between 1992-2005 in Australia, the Federal Governments PR branch increased by 1000%. Members of Parliament started only commenting if they were authorised (and everything became about the Party line). Director Generals of Govt Dept's were barred from criticising govt policy (I remember the 80's, when they used to be able to). University Grants started to be withheld if professors criticised the outcomes of Govt Policy etc. And this is only scratching the surface of how information was starting to be controlled by Govt.

Lack of information, and lack of expert criticism, is bad for democracy. Poor decisions get made in the vacuum, people get unnecessarily affected, and money gets wasted.
--------------------------------------------------

I think Wikileaks blase release of information - with no regards to the lives that may be lost because of it, is criminal (they should at least filter it). At the same time, I sympathise with the general principle behind their releases

If the leak endangers lives, I can see it being kept secret. Even then, there might be situations that it may be more important for the public to know.

I think it is not an easy black or white answer because the whole principle of Anonymous is that they have no centralized leadership.

However, the problem with this you get internal sects like the LulzSec, within Anonymous, who just hack anyone and everyone.

Also, WikiLeaks have released information that seemed pointless and somewhat against individual people which seems to go against their mission's agenda.

On the flip side though, love or hate Edward Snowden, he released information to the public that we didn't know but that affected our daily lives. The world governments have reached a point where they can hide from the general public of what they do, so we do rely on whistleblowers to tell us what is really going on.

So, the question becomes is it treason for someone to go against national security, even if the nation is violating the constitutional rights of their people?

I agree. Hence I wrote:



The question of whether the release of information is more important than lives is an interesting one. It raises the question of 'collateral damage'. I agree that sometimes it may be more important to release the information, but as a general rule, a lot of information can be released in a way that doesn't result in identifying individuals who may then be killed because of such.

We quite agree.

I would say the question is whether or not treason is valid anymore. There are plenty of criminal laws more than adequate to deal with any action that may be deemed treason. Treason is basically a person acting against the group he came from, because he no longer wishes to side with that group. There can be many valid reasons for no longer wishing to side with the group you came from.

Treason is also a carry over from the days of Kings and Queens, where loyalty to King & Queen were deemed highly desirable.

Other than being an emotional issue, it's a rather redundant concept. Other criminal laws are more than adequate. At best, you could make a case for it being a circumstance of aggravation (ie. it attracts an additional penalty on top of whatever actual law they've broken)

Whistle blowers can be very helpful if they release information to the public they have a right to know. However Snowden wasent a whistle blower. He went to China and sold them what information he had and than went to Russia to do the same thing. He was a spy who released some information to the press but most to China and Russia.

Regardless, was the US governement spying on their own citizens and those around the world without their knowledge not significant and moreover not the people's right to know?

Secondly, I agree there is valid reason to question Edward's motives, but what proof, or rather evidence, have you come across that he gave secrets to Russia?