|
On December 09 2010 11:34 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:25 TurpinOS wrote: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) 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. Show nested quote +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.
Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral)
I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one)
(Im not backing the argument of ''if you give the governments the right to censorship they will abuse it, I think it is flawed, my issue with censorship is the fact that people with censor what ''should be censored'' in their opinion, but is it the opinion of everyone ? of course not.)
|
On December 09 2010 11:47 MerciLess wrote:
Shark, the fact that governments become corrupt over time if unchecked has been demonstrated repeatedly in history.
Way to latch on to one argument and ignore everything else I've said. Either way, your definition of unchecked doesn't match what you said earlier, and you're giving an exceptionally vague statement without actually going in to why you think that. The statement "all governments will increase censorship if they're allowed to do a bit of it" is an almost undefendable position in terms of debate. One would simply find one example of a government in history that didn't release some information, but was otherwise considered pretty good. If you're going to say something that people can disagree with, at least provide some preamble to arguments you might make, or say something that puts you in a position you have the means to defend, ie, that censorship can be increased over time if it's allowed to go unchecked, or something like that.
On December 09 2010 11:54 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:34 SharkSpider wrote:On December 09 2010 11:25 TurpinOS wrote: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) 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. Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral) I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one)
Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but judgments are still passed. You simply can't use lack of objective qualifiers as an excuse to do things that are unethical. If you're worried about censoring based on imperfect rules, then you should be much, much more worried about the idea that ethics don't apply in non-objective situations. The idea that people are out there applying that line of thought to their actions would scare me far more than to think some piece of information was withheld from me because it was in a grey area between putting lives at risk and being okay to release.
|
On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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.
Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please?
|
On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
|
On December 09 2010 11:55 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:47 MerciLess wrote:
Shark, the fact that governments become corrupt over time if unchecked has been demonstrated repeatedly in history. Way to latch on to one argument and ignore everything else I've said. Either way, your definition of unchecked doesn't match what you said earlier, and you're giving an exceptionally vague statement without actually going in to why you think that. The statement "all governments will increase censorship if they're allowed to do a bit of it" is an almost undefendable position in terms of debate. One would simply find one example of a government in history that didn't release some information, but was otherwise considered pretty good. If you're going to say something that people can disagree with, at least provide some preamble to arguments you might make, or say something that puts you in a position you have the means to defend, ie, that censorship can be increased over time if it's allowed to go unchecked, or something like that. Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:54 TurpinOS wrote:On December 09 2010 11:34 SharkSpider wrote:On December 09 2010 11:25 TurpinOS wrote: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) 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. Im not saying that any censorship will inevitably lead to complete censorship, I am saying that since it is impossible to establish an OBJECTIVE way to decide whether or not some information should be censored, you dont have the choice but to release it all. (Well you always have a choice until you decide to be completely neutral) I would be FOR censorship if there was some universal objective point of view that you could adopt in order to do it, the fact of the matter is that you cant. (What is bad for one is often good for someone else, who are you to judge whos the good one and whos the bad one) Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but judgments are still passed. You simply can't use lack of objective qualifiers as an excuse to do things that are unethical. If you're worried about censoring based on imperfect rules, then you should be much, much more worried about the idea that ethics don't apply in non-objective situations. The idea that people are out there applying that line of thought to their actions would scare me far more than to think some piece of information was withheld from me because it was in a grey area between putting lives at risk and being okay to release.
Courts can't objectively decide who is guilty or not in many cases, but they still do everything possible (or should) in order to make it as objective as it could be.
There is also a major difference when you come to comparing a Courts decision and the international release of classified documents.
This difference is the fact that in one case, there are guidelines that have been accepted by the population, while in the other there is not.
When you decide to live in a country, you thereby agree to live by this country's laws and regulations. You accept to be judged under the laws, even when theres a part of subjectivity involved in them.
When it comes to the international release of documents, the subject gets tricky. There are no more agreements between all parties as to what should and should not be done, what is acceptable and what is not (to a certain extent, which is international law, but anyone that studied it knows how unreliable it is). Subjectivity in one subject is accepted by said countries, while its not in some other, subjectivity in this different subject is accepted by these other countries, but not the rest.
This situation creates too many problems (who should decide what should be censored and what should not be ?), while in the case of Courts decisions, there is already an agreement on what should be subjective and what should not be.
tldr : I dont have a problem with subjectivity when people ''agreed'' to it. I have a problem with subjectivity when its not everyone that agrees to it, in which case you can either decide to be subjective by taking someones opinion (lets censor only what this or this country tells us to censor) OR you go for a total objectivity.
|
On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
so you're basically saying: The cables leaked some stuff that is messed up, (and there is also no proof that the cables did hurt anybody innocent) but since the information won't do anything against it itself, we shouldn't do anything? and just live the lies?
well, sounds good to me.
|
On December 09 2010 12:21 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime. so you're basically saying: The cables leaked some stuff that is messed up, (and there is also no proof that the cables did hurt anybody innocent) but since the information won't do anything against it itself, we shouldn't do anything? and just live the lies? well, sounds good to me. You want people to do something about it, but your argument is posing hypothetical questions to me? genius. You would understand if you had the slightest clue about world politics and how shit actually works.
|
On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime.
So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man.
How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption - as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it.
What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered").
|
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote:
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Good question. I'll stop.
|
On December 09 2010 12:35 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime. So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man. How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it. What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered"). My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote:
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Why the fuck don't you think of a real argument? or did you get 6k posts by posting this one line bullshit?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 09 2010 12:46 uSnAmplified wrote:
My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it.
3 million people had clearance to access these cables. I would bet every major intelligence agency of the world has already read every single one of them. All WikiLeaks is doing is letting the public know what everyone else already does.
Also this is messed up. Just think, that's your tax dollars at work.
|
wow taking down paypal is a really bad idea. TONS of people are gonna be pissed.
I really see no way this could be a positive ploy for "the cause"
|
On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote:
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Post count does not make his argument invalid simply because you don't like what he has to say. These documents are potentially just as bad as they are potentially good. Corruption is a terrible thing, but its not okay to help people by endangering US defense personnel instead. You people talk about how the US and other Gov's are terrible because all this corruption is hurting others but you praise a group of people who endanger Defense personnel by posting their names for the bad guys to see???
|
On December 09 2010 12:46 uSnAmplified wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:35 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime. So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man. How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it. What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered"). My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it. Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote:
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Why the fuck don't you think of a real argument? or did you get 6k posts by posting this one line bullshit?
+ Show Spoiler +
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Only read 6 pages of this, is that enough to reply? If not, delete this post.
Besides play by play of this exciting drama, which I wish I could read without sifting through the rest, the thread is dominated by people naively conceiving authority or government, and people correcting them. i.e. use of force by the government is okay, but by other individuals, it's vandalism. while this might even be true, ppl making use of this claim haven't really backed it up very much, but instead are satisfied with labeling the acts vandalism.
i'd go a step further. when you use force to try to influence others' views, back in the 80's or 90's we def. called that terrorism. i am expecting the u.s. to call these attackers, if they are at all successful, "cyber terrorists." they are basically damaging/costing their targets with some ideological aim, and they are not legitimate users of force (i.e. "a government"), so they are "terrorists" then, in one of the ways the word was once defined in the u.s.
however, in the case that they remained super successful, and were never stopped, at some point they would basically be like our cyber government, just zapping anything they deemed deserving, and people would out of fear try to stay in line and not have such punishment come down upon them. in this way they would be functioning much like a government. the only difference, i think, between terrorists and governments, would be their success rate. once everyone comes to expect, and accept as just a state of affairs, a source of power, they are acting as a government, i think. if they are being thwarted by the government, not accepted as a state of affairs, but just treated like some freaks who are resisting the government(s) but will ultimately lose, then we can label them "terrorists."
so what we're seeing here is a power struggle, and assuming that the government(s) of the world beat these hackers, in the end they'll be cyber criminals, and these governments will have their way... even if a lot of people of certain cliques and age groups feel that these companies did wrong, or that wikileaks doesn't deserve this, or that mc deserves this, etc. on top of that, though, maybe these companies being sued for being unfair to wikileaks, or the state department being sued for its behavior in these cases (or other govts being sued) could play out interestingly too.
we're seeing the law be resisted here. civil disobedience, or criminal disobedience? i think civil disobedience means they're not obstructing government from finding/prosecuting them, they're just like, i'm doing this, arrest me if you want. if they are attacking in some way that keeps them from being stopped/caught, then that's just, well, an attack. cyber warfare. i think u.s. could deal with it if it ultimately came to that, but they don't wanna tip their hand over something like this. a cyber civil war forces them to show their cyber capabilities prematurely? probably won't happen. oh well.
|
On December 09 2010 13:05 News wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 12:46 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 12:35 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 12:08 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:58 SiguR wrote:On December 09 2010 11:54 uSnAmplified wrote:On December 09 2010 11:47 SiguR wrote: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. Can you please stop answering imaginary questions and answer the ones presented to you please? I never claimed to have the answer, so i never answered your stupid question, feel free to stop dodging mine anytime. So you're essentially arguing that even though you can't think of a better way to try to make our society less corrupt, you know with absolute certainty that we shouldn't be trying to make this evidence of corruption public because "it wont do anything"? That's some deep brilliant shit man. How do I stop this "terrible injustice I have uncovered"? I don't know the perfect answer to that, but as far as I can discern, supporting the release of incriminating documents seems pretty high on the priority list of someone interested in removing corruption as exposing it is likely the first step in removing it. What troubles me more is that your tone implies that you don't believe that social injustices are occurring. (I'm gathering this from your sarcastic reference to the "injustices I have uncovered"). My argument is some douche bag is releasing uncensored and possibly harmful information to the entire world while idiots claim that he is some heroic bringer of revolution for doing it. You know how shit really gets done, politics and fucking wars nobody wants to fight. your willing to stand against injustice but wont do what it takes to actually do something about it, but you sit behind a computer claiming this is the way shit will change. I know shit is wrong in the world, im surprised you even question that considering i actually have a grip on reality and what it takes to fix the shit that is wrong with it. On December 09 2010 12:40 AttackZerg wrote:
He is a forum member with like 60 posts. Why the fuck are you guys wasting your time on him?
Why the fuck don't you think of a real argument? or did you get 6k posts by posting this one line bullshit? + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi7uWviS0P4
You just made my life
User was temp banned for this post.
|
-_- this better not fuck up my automated payments. I swear if my car payment doesn't go through in time, I will find these people and stab them...
|
Australia326 Posts
On December 09 2010 08:35 sikyon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2010 08:31 palookieblue wrote:
It's just childish behaviour, really. Nothing unexpected though, from a 'community' like 4chan. It's all well and fine to be an internet tough guy behind multiple proxies, but in real life, heh. Many of these internet vigilantes (which are engaging in a clearly illegal activity, by the way) are socially inept and don't contribute positively to society.
This is just another way of them trying to express themselves publicly and to gain attention, nothing more.
And I think what Wikileaks is doing is ridiculous. How they can claim that they are not endangering lives in the warzones is beyond me. I don't know if you know this but a large portion of the world's GDP growth in the past 2 decades has come from the rise of the internet. I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make by insulting people you'll never meet in real life but to pretend that the internet is somehow unimportant is outright false. There is always a tradeoff to be made in any situation. You may endanger lives to increase transparency of a process. You may pay more in taxes to have better security. You may have less rights for better security. You may allow someone to get tortured in a back room if it means finding a nuclear bomb. Every life has a price that can be tacked onto it from an objective perspective.
I wasn't talking about the internet, I was referring to 4chan/anon. It's like equating the human body to the anus. I'm also not trying to insult, just being realistic. I would hope to think most people have got better things to do than trying to bring down legitimate websites for a bullshit 'cause', and feeling like a badass because you won't get caught. But 'anon' has a lovely history of being collective dickheads, and judging by recent activity I doubt anything has changed.
People who think DDoS/DoS is funny, I don't know what to say to you. What would be funny to me is that everyone involved got some jail time for their illegal activity. Wouldn't that put a smile on some 'anon' faces.
Regarding the second part of your post, I agree tradeoffs are a part of life. However when it's not your life or a loved one's in the balance it certainly makes these things easier to do.
|
Osaka27114 Posts
If you can't post without belittling other people's post count, calling people names, posting crappy youtube videos, or promoting the posting of crappy youtube videos,
don't post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
