|
On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote:
What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some.
I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life?
Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
|
On December 09 2010 11:18 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:16 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote:
Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero. I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit? One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless. Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not. Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know.
Is that a joke?
|
On December 09 2010 10:21 Ghostcom wrote:
It should be pretty obvious to anyone equipped with a brain that a diplomat wiring home commenting on Angela Merkels personality isn't really relevant when your function is that of a whistleblower. I mean it is hardly illegal and definatly not a crime against humanity to do an assesment like that...
Are you even aware that an "objective" measure (it can never truely be that, but you can make a set of pretty good standards) are actually already in place? Doctors are allowed to break their oath of silence and disclose parts of a journal to the police if it is deemed serious enough. Wikileaks could really just use the same standards when sorting in what to publish and what should not be... I.e. it would have to be proof of a serious crime and not just "chit-chat" before it was released. Until they start doing so, it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks - unless of course you also think doctors, lawyers, school teacher etc. shouldn't keep their confidentiality....
You think the assessment on Angela Merkel is irrelevant. Some Germans might disagree. Why is your opinion of the cable more valuable than that of those Germans? I mean, besides the fact that they apparently have not been equipped with a brain, according to you. Please just answer me this. I hear these same points made over and over here but I have yet to have any of the internet morals police honestly answer me why they feel they are a good enough authority to decide what's relevant for 6 billion people.
It's very interesting that there are so many people who think they have the right idea on how Wikileaks should be run. Here's an idea: start your own whistleblowing platform, then you get the final say on which stuff should be released. Wikileaks is not beholden to you. Wikileaks is not some kind of organization that survives based on your opinion. The only people that decide what Wikileaks should release are the people who make up Wikileaks.
Also, very cute there on the "it is morally not possible to support Wikileaks", I got a good laugh out of that. Thanks for defining my morals for me, very gracious of you.
|
On December 09 2010 11:00 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote:
To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information.
As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing? + Show Spoiler +How is it ridiculous to filter information?
What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth.
When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose.
(Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship)
On December 09 2010 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote:
What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some. I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life? Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks.
Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before.
Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
|
On December 09 2010 11:23 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:18 iamho wrote:On December 09 2010 11:16 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote:
Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero. I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit? One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless. Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not. Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know. Is that a joke? Jesus, scroll to the top of the page you posted in and there's an example right there.
Its pretty well known that the Nigerian oil industry is corrupt.
Its really pathetic that some losers on the internet have some idiotic noble sentiment that they're promoting freedom or whatever by inconveniencing mastercard users for a few hours.
|
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
|
I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
|
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is
and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information?
|
On December 09 2010 11:25 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:00 Roe wrote:On December 09 2010 10:38 MerciLess wrote:
To say wikileaks should filter their information prior to releasing it is ridiculous. From my understanding, the whole point of wikileaks is to release information that would otherwise be controlled by governments, corporations, etc. To that effect, withholding ANY information would kind of defeat the purpose. In order to meet it's goals, they need to disseminate all information.
As for if it's "right" or not, I suppose it's more of a personal thing, would you rather the government be able to withhold information from the people it governs or be completely open about what it does? Because once the people of a country give their government the go ahead to keep some things from the public, they can keep anything from the public, which terrifies me as someone who believes in a limited government accountable to the people. You cannot possibly have it two ways, where you have a government that withholds only that absolutely necessary for national security, etc, and also a government that will not abuse that power. Myself, I'm for complete transparency rather than the bleak alternative that must necessarily happen with a government as overgrown and bureaucratic as the United States'. The truth is never a bad thing
this is quite dangerous thinking. The truth is never a bad thing? + Show Spoiler +How is it ridiculous to filter information? What he said was indeed dangerous thinking, but it was nonetheless true. The fact is that it is impossible to have an objective view of what should not be disclosed and what should be (especially when it comes with politics), so sometimes you just dont have any other choice then to ask for EVERYTHING to be public, yes its dangerous, but its the only way that you can be sure of the truth. When you take that to the context of an organization that is against hiding infirmation, filtering kinda goes against that organization's purpose. (Yes, they could have filtered the gossipy stuff,etc, but I think theres a reason they did not, and its the fact that they are against any form of censorship) Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:22 SharkSpider wrote:On December 09 2010 11:13 MerciLess wrote:
What I meant was that he should release all the information he comes across, even if it seems trivial to some. I give you a box of information. Some of it could lead to the deaths of people working for your country overseas. Do you release all of it, or do you take out the parts that could endanger someone's life? Wikileaks has a moral responsibility to consider the outcomes of what it releases since ultimately, it's the last barrier between that information and what people can see. Whether or not it's a crime for them to release it (it's most definitely illegal to solicit it, or to actually be the whistleblower, though), you can't say that they should carry out their objective without regard to human life, without being just as bad as what most who share your position are quick to accuse the US of. If you think governments should be accountable, that they should carry out their objectives while considering humanitarian issues, then at the very least, you should expect that of wikileaks. Again, sometimes when youre against censorship, you just cant censor yourself, maybe the government should have thought about this before, Wikileaks are to blame, but only because there was someone to blame before. Also, there is no actual proof of any people being in danger right now with what has been leaked.
I've never stated that the information out there has actually done that. Some people say it has, some say it hasn't, and the same is echoed through various journals/publications/whatever. I'm not going to open myself up to that debate. Either way, my challenge was to the position that it is okay to release something purely on the basis of truth without giving heed to any of the damages it might cause.
Either way, you've gotten in to it, so why not explain what you mean about the how the government should have thought of having their classified information leaked all over the internet before they went to war. Any country with troops stationed anywhere hostile has information that, if leaked, could mean the death of their soldiers. If you honestly believe that it's okay to make them casualties in some "war" for free information, then how can you condemn the US soldiers for murdering reporters in Iraq and calling them casualties too. If you want to take the moral high ground, then generally that means adopting a more morally acceptable philosophy than the one you're attacking. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept that some information should be kept from the general public.
On December 09 2010 11:32 MerciLess wrote:
I release all of it shark, because any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship. You can never trust a government, especially one that has grown as large as ours has in the United States. I firmly believe that, and I am willing to sacrifice my security for my liberty. If you really believe that our government can be trusted to tell us everything except that which is absolutely putting people at risk, you are naive and open to exploitation.
Don't make the assumption that I believe the US government to be capable of making that decision correctly on their own. I don't. Either way, you're saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, which really can't be backed logically, and you're advocating letting people die just so that you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you didn't withold any information. If anything's wrong here, it's on your end.
|
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
I dont think anyone said that wikileaks is trying to save the world. Releasing unfiltered information might not be the way to prove that the world is fucked, but when the world gets too fucked up, you need to do something to stop things, and sometimes the only way to truely fight something terribly and utterly wrong, is by doing another wrong.
(Would you imagine the consequence if Wikileaks said it would release only the information that it thought was useful to be released ? Or should they have asked the US what to release ? Or UK ? Or Canada ? You will always piss someone off, and some things will always pertain to some people in particular, so you either release it all or dont release anything.)
|
Paypal.com is going under siege in under 30 minutes......
|
On December 09 2010 11:28 iamho wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:23 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:18 iamho wrote:On December 09 2010 11:16 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:05 uSnAmplified wrote:
Fight the power! don't arrest the criminals! Love reading these ridiculous internet rebel threads, funny how people believe this douche bag is doing any good to the world, releasing confidential information that could endanger the safety of a nation and innocent people, what a fucking hero. I honestly dont understand how people can say things like this without either being: a) sarcastic b) paid to do so c) absolutely oblivious How can you not understand and appreciate the potential to expose corruption? How can you care so little about the people around the world being abused and having their rights denied? In these cables we have proof of murders, robbery on a massive scale, and extortion. How can you not give a shit? One day you'll be on the short end of the stick and you'll wish someone would have done something to stop the exploitation of the helpless. Even with that said though, I regret implying that you should only be concerned if it could someday affect you. You should be sympathetic to the plight of your fellow human beings regardless of whether you may face the troubles or not. Name one thing these cables revealed that people didn't already know. Is that a joke? Jesus, scroll to the top of the page you posted in and there's an example right there. Its pretty well known that the Nigerian oil industry is corrupt. Its really pathetic that some losers on the internet have some idiotic noble sentiment that they're promoting freedom or whatever by inconveniencing mastercard users for a few hours.
First of all, did you even read what you quoted? You're accusing me of shit that has nothing to do with what i've written. I was initially responding to someone who was not talking about the mastercard issue.
Anyway, if you can't understand the value of actual documents proving the corrupt and sovereignty impairing actions of major corporations, then there isn't really a point in having this discussion in the first place.
On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
I'd ask you to define 'saving the world' and to give your opinion on how to go about bringing positive change to a clearly broken and corrupt system, but I have a feeling I'd be disappointed with the answer.
|
I think the world is taking steps closer to the obvious truths that my family was brought up to believe, that we are all brothers and sisters and that the borders surrounding us are put their to create class and wealth, not protect.
The internet is making these borders look worse and worse and more imaginary.
|
On December 09 2010 11:33 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information? The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
|
On December 09 2010 11:41 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:33 shawster wrote:On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information? The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead?
|
Shark, the fact that governments become corrupt over time if unchecked has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.
|
|
|
On December 09 2010 11:41 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:33 shawster wrote:On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information? The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works.
Ye. People rioting in the streets. that would never happen.
|
On December 09 2010 11:48 AttackZerg wrote:
Paypal.com is down
holy shit!!! lol just tried it and its down!!
go anon
|
On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:41 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:33 shawster wrote:On December 09 2010 11:29 uSnAmplified wrote:
If you honestly think digging up classified government information is the way to save the world then you obviously are delusional, their is really no arguing it honestly. Their is no proof of damage, but to believe this guy is some sort of heroic freedom fighter is straight ridiculous, we all know the world is fucked up and releasing unfiltered information is not the way to prove it.
you would be surprised at how little people realize how fucked up this world is and i don't see your argument, got a better idea then providing raw information? The argument is people are delusional and biased into the armchair hero status that by releasing raw information that they are somehow going to change shit. Really if something did come out of these raw leaks, who the fuck would do anything about it, a bunch of script kiddies giving master card users a hard time? Get real, you have no understanding of how the world actually works. I think i'm the third person to ask you this, but what would you propose is done instead? Id still like you hear how you are going to free people and stop this terrible injustice you have uncovered, peace and flowers don't free countries, im sorry if reality is so hard for you to swallow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
