Wikileaks - latest leak

[rypt]

Perhaps those who have handled or been privvy to sensitive information here ( military etc ) will agree that some information should never be in the public domain.

So information about US troops committing war crimes should not be public?

Information of industrial espionage carried out by government agents on behalf of companies should not be public?

Where do you draw the line?
I feel that all information other than military technology and current military positions/plans/etc should be public

 

[Energize]

Wikileaks has done some good work such as publishing the Australian website blacklist which was being abused to astronomic proportions. But publishing other things like the BNP membership list was completely detrimental to peoples safety and not in the public's interest, so it's hard to find sympathy for Assange.

 

[Castiel]

Let me guess... Next you'll say it would be fair play if he were assassinated.

Poetic Justice?

He becomes one of the very secrets he sought to release.

 

[kibblerok]

Perhaps those who have handled or been privvy to sensitive information here ( military etc ) will agree that some information should never be in the public domain.

Then they shouldn't have been available and exposed to so many people.

These aren't 'government secrets' - they are conversations that are proving to be embarrassing to the US.

Rather than a leak of top secret life threatening information as the US would have you believe, I think of it as more of a diplomatic fraping.

 

[mmj_uk]

Everybody should be given the truth therefore I admire what Wikileaks are doing, my concern is that it can be used to peddle propaganda just as much as the controlled media.

By that I mean US intelligence agencies just have to "leak" some manufactured documents to Wikileaks to propagate an opinion (eg. Ahmadinejad is another Hitler) and bobs your uncle next thing we're at war with them and everyone thinks it is justified a la Iraq's 'WMDs'.

The mainstream media is already going along with the "Russia is a mafia state" claims for headlines.

 

[meghatronic]

I wish people would stop worshping (my original words were cruder) Assange. He's a nobody.

 

[rypt]

I wish people would stop worshping (my original words were cruder) Assange. He's a nobody.

He's someone who has setup a website to report official documents that mainstream media seem to not want to report stories about

 

[CliffyBiro]

I wish people would stop worshping (my original words were cruder) Assange. He's a nobody.

People worship him?

Sure, I admire his stance on freedom of speech, but he's hardly a role model.

 

[Danthus]

An irresponsible fool who now faces the wrath of numerous police forces, intelligence services and governments.

Yes but who is he really?

There is a frenzy over the leaks, hiatus about the sire being attacked, talk about allegations of rape but very little about how this man can get hold of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents.

I know that people pass him various documents but nobody as really answered the question about who he is and why he is the outlet.

 

[CliffyBiro]

Espionage? Really?

 

[fez]

They have her in their party and sarah palin is their choice? She seems quite bright, very good at dealing with a debate.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

So information about US troops committing war crimes should not be public?

I didn't say that. I said some information. War crimes and unlawful killings should certainly be in the public interest

Information of industrial espionage carried out by government agents on behalf of companies should not be public?

Can you be more specific ?

Where do you draw the line?
I feel that all information other than military technology and current military positions/plans/etc should be public

I draw the line where peoples lives could be at risk who may be outed as intelligence operatives etc.

Spying and intel is a murky world and every single nation of this earth does it. The USA are hardly in their own league for dirty tricks.

Someone, somewhere has violated federal secrecy laws with this and they crossed the line and should answer for it.

 

[Vonhelmet]

It would be.

Why? He's just a front man for an organisation that serves as a front to anonymously publish information that 3rd parties feel should be in the public domain.

 

[rypt]

Can you be more specific ?

Airbus documents ending up with Boeing, via what is pretty likely to have been US governmental agents
Don't think this came out via Wikileaks, but there was a story on this a while ago I remember

I draw the line where peoples lives could be at risk who may be outed as intelligence operatives etc.

Wikileaks did not name intel. assets, and in fact wanted to work with US gov. to ensure that no-one was put at risk, a request that the US gov. refused.

99% of these documents should have never been secret in the first place, yes some names and places may need to have been redacted, but other than that they should all have been public.

It is far easier for governments to simply stick the "secret" moniker onto everything though

 

[meghatronic]

People worship him?

Sure, I admire his stance on freedom of speech, but he's hardly a role model.

Wander over to reddit. He's a hero/Christ of some sorts.

Wikileaks did not name intel. assets, and in fact wanted to work with US gov. to ensure that no-one was put at risk, a request that the US gov. refused.

Obviously. To redact the information themselves would've legitimised/sanctioned wikleaks' behaviour. Something the US could not and would not do.

 

[SiD the Turtle]

Latest leaks: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11923766

A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.

The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.

The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.

Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.

This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation.

Does this push the boundary of whistle-blowing and turn into recklessness? Perhaps the authorities should stop trying to destroy the guy as he might just do it himself.

 

[robgmun]

I agree, this one is pushing it

 

[ntg]

Is there any way of confirming that the leaks published on wikileaks are actually real documents? Any way to cross-reference them in some way? Or do we have to take them at face value as being really top secret docs?

This could be a slippery slope.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'd guess this is a shot across the bows to indicate that they have some information that the governments should really be worrying about, never mind diplomats' tittle tattle.

 

[CliffyBiro]

I'd guess this is a shot across the bows to indicate that they have some information that the governments should really be worrying about, never mind diplomats' tittle tattle.

Indeed. If they have this sort of stuff, chances are the 'insurance' is quite tasty.