"Wikileaks is great. It lets people leak stuff.""Hang on, so you're saying that no-one could leak stuff before? They invented it?"
"Well, no, but they brought leaking to the masses. Sure, people could post documents to the press before, but now anyone in the world can access the leaks!"
"Great, but isn't that just the internet that did that? If it weren't for Wikileaks, people could just upload their leaks to a blog. Or email them to 50 newspapers. Or put them on the torrents. Or start their own site. If it's good, it would go viral, and be impossible to take down. Just like Wikileaks, with all their mirrors, except even more secure, because there'd be literally no-one to arrest or cut off funding to."
"OK, but Wikileaks is a brand. It's not about the technical stuff - it's the message. Like one of their wallpapers says, they're synonymous with free speech."
"So you think it's a good thing that one organization has become synonymous with the whole process of leaking? With the whole concept of openness? What will happen to the idea of free speech, then, if that brand image suddenly gets tarnished - like, say, if their founder and figurehead gets convicted of a serious crime, or..."
"He's innocent! Justice for Julian!"
"Quite possibly, but why do you care? Is he a personal friend?"
"It's an attack on free speech!"
"So you agree that one man has become synonymous with free speech? Doesn't that bother you?"
"Erm... well. Look, fundamentally, we need Wikileaks. Before, there was no centralized system for leaking. Anyone could do it. It was a mess! Wikileaks put everything in one place, and put a committee of experts in a position to decide what was worth leaking and what wasn't. It brought much-needed efficiency and respectability to the idea of leaking. Before Wikileaks, it was anarchy. They're like... the government."
"..."
Edit: See also The Last Psychiatrist's take.
32 comments:
That's an absurdly simplistic strawman.
I hope it is. But a lot of people (on both sides of the argument) do seem to be treating wikileaks as synonymous with leaks...
"I am very smart and reasonable"
"Well, I'm a raving loony, I am!"
"Won't you at least listen to my calm reasoning?"
"No! Because I am stupid you see"
Plato would be proud
I hope not, with Plato, the author-surrogate who's meant to be calm and reasonable generally ended up talking about eugenics and magic Chairs.
what makes wikileaks different is that there is direct access to the original material and that the whistleblowers identity is unknowable, but of course, this can only be assured if there is a system through which information passes, which would make it "like the government", only it's not the same at all (it's a data managing system, but not a burocracy). i see it as a digital political asylum
I don't know about 'leaks' but they've certainly been trawling and harvesting publicly available documents and calling it their own. This isn't whistle blowing. It's plagiarizing. It's stealing intellectual property. I'm angry. You work so hard to find out this thief got an award for a project you made recommendations for. I mean what is Wikileaks? Was the public spectacle necessary? There's already a system in place for 'leaking'. A responsible one where sources are acknowledged, protected, respected, and not re-written, omitted, confusing the truth. Jail for Julian.
Who said it's the original material? The ones I know of aren't. Anyone can whistle blow, but if you want to be taken seriously there is a system in place to protect whistle blowers and it isn't Wikileaks.
What Wikileaks adds that simply emailing news centers or posting on anonymous blogs don't add are further protections for hiding the identity of the leaker and attempts to verify the authenticity of the leaked documents - neither of which are always successful. Eventually someone will do both of these things better (and add as yet unimagined things to the list too).
So long as the widely-discussed but not official espionage charges don't stick, I believe the long term effect of the current situation will be a variety of Wikileakslike enterprises (such as OpenLeaks).
At least wikileaks added a nice conversation piece. Something else to talk about. Weird this sudden upheaval, it's been there for years. Now that it's proving what was no more then obvious to anyone who reads more then one newspaper, we're being treated like dumb cattle, everyone and his dog has an opinion.
Poor Assange, don't know him,never will. But he stands a better chance as a terrorist kidnapped victim then now of getting treated 'democratically'.
Vengeance is mine said the world. Funny though, imagine ending up in a Patriot act style holdup, incommunicado, because your condom split......
This isn't whistle blowing. It's plagiarizing. It's stealing intellectual property.
Oh! veri!
Not only you are nuts but you are also stupid?
I am very disappointed...
BH: Multiple Wikileaks would be a good thing, so I'm all in favour of OpenLeaks - and as many others as possible. There should be no 'official' leaking agency.
As for what Wikileaks offers, I'm not convinced by the anonymity thing. Go to an internet cafe, pay in cash; register a GMail account, email your leak to a list of newspapers and bloggers, never log into it again.
The real mass appeal of Wikileaks isn't the leaks themselves or even the aim of trying to promote more transparent and connected democracy . No, Wikileaks mainly serves as a real-time progress report of the losing battle to protect this medium from Government , powerful Corporations and over-anxious controlling types like veri.
"Go to an internet cafe, pay in cash; register a GMail account, email your leak to a list of newspapers and bloggers, never log into it again."
How would newspapers verify that documents emailed anonymously from an internet cafe are real?
The problem is many newspapers are in bed with the government, or have their own agendas. They may not publish your leaks, or they may misrepresent them. See for example the cable about Iran buying missiles from NoKo.
The leaked cable said that Iran might have gotten missiles from NoKo, but the Russians thought the report was probably bogus. The NYT had the cable before Wikileaks and printed a story saying only that Iran bought missiles from NoKo, no mention of the Russians' doubts. It wasn't until Wikileaks released the whole text of the cable to the public that anyone knew that the NYT article's conclusion was undermined by the very same document they used as evidence.
I think a relevant question is: would Manning have leaked what he leaked if Wikileaks didn't exist?
Furthermore, Assange is a symbol. A symbol free speech advocates defend (whether he deserves it is beside the point) and governments attack. He's not "synonymous" with free speech and if he falls from grace or is martyrized the movement and ideas will live on.
Jesper: That's an interesting question and I've wondered that. The problem is, we don't know. Anyone who leaks stuff nowadays, leaks it to Wikileaks first. But without Wikileaks, maybe they'd have sent it somewhere else.
On Mental Nurse, we've been having great fun publishing leaked documents from the UK Council of Psychotherapy.
Julian Assange is just copying us. :D
A site such as WikiLeaks should be created for neuroscientists. Everyone in the field knows that you can publish in many journals and get grants only if you are part of certain networks. These networks exist because of corruption, impede the progress of science, and need to be uncovered. This is especially important when resources are scarce.
Because of Wikileaks, hundreds of people will lose their jobs, tortured and even killed, based on unverfiable statements purported by this site, and ill informed opinions made by diplomats. Working for govt is not like working in a university. It isn't safe. It isn't the content in that site, all govts have spies and intelligence networks. Who leaked is the cancer. I don't believe most of that content was 'leaked', but was given by powers higher up for a political agenda no doubt, which may include curbing free speech. This is a blow for civil society, not govts.
Neo is right. There is a tipoff to the media but it isn't done anonymously or they won't listen. Whistleblowing is risky business and is typically done through a powerbroker, who might personally email three editors in a top newspaper and go from there. Publicity ensures the safety of the accused or whistleblower.
veri
Because of Wikileaks, hundreds of people will lose their jobs, tortured and even killed, based on unverfiable statements purported by this site,
Yes, and how many thousands will be spared, how does this add up?
You should truly take your meds veri, they are after you (not Wikileaks nor the CIA)
[captcha: 'mania' what a coincidence!]
Barbie, so in your mind govts rely on Wikipedia for information, Wikileaks is equivalent to the CIA, and Julian should receive the Nobel peace prize. Wikileaks is awesome because thousands will survive when people read how corrupt govts are. Like they'll rally for Sudan and jail corrupt people like you veri. The world is so awesome, it isn't something you'd understand veri unless you take your meds.
[See how you speak in third person, you're like totally psycho, look behind you, DEMON!]
I bet you still believe in Santa Claus. This is why you work in a lab, and I don't. Ok, I really need to leave this joint now before I shoot myself from people like you. Have a happy life. Enjoy.
Barbie, so in your mind govts rely on Wikipedia for information,
Huh?
veri you are definitely gone.
Where did you read that?
What I mean is this:
Most of what we have seen from the Wikileaks cables is mere confirmation of what we suspected all along, mostly that our politicians and other leaders routinely lie to us about what they are doing and, especially, why they are doing it.
In some cases that leads to dead people as have illegal or unwinnable wars such as in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is seriously rich to have people with buckets of blood on their hands lecturing Wikileaks about the possibility that people may be compromised.
Some interesting info: Alleged leaker Bradley Manning's steps retraced
Anonymous: "Most of what we have seen from the Wikileaks cables is mere confirmation of what we suspected all along..."
This is the other reason I'm skeptical of Wikileaks.
We already knew that governments lie about stuff. It's a truism. And since Iraq, the missing WMDs, and Abu Graib, we've known that they're willing to lie about (or at best bend the truth to the extent that it's effectively a lie) even the most serious issues.
The problem is that this doesn't change anything. Despite all the revalations about Iraq we stayed fighting the war there. And I don't think the revalations changed many minds (most of the people who were opposed to the war in 2006, were already opposed before it started).
Leaks embarass governments but this doesn't lead to change because voters already knew that governments lied etc. and we voted for them anyway. This is the problem. We think politicians are bastards but we still vote for them. Leaks, that show them to be slightly bigger bastards than we thought, are therefore not going to change much unless they're followed by concerted political campaigns to change how we vote, but I don't see many.
Anon: Have you ever protested in YOUR LIFE? Since Wiki says so it's biblical truth? Ironically there is no specificity in these leaks implicating the highest offices to have blood on their hands. As of yet the cables seem to have harvested information already available in the public domain, and nothing shocking apart from the recent public showcase by team Hillary + USA on the sudden merit to Wikileaks, when in actual fact details have been altered and not all of it is true. You know the scary thing is people like you actually do fall for govt propaganda. This is why Iran, China, Iraq and everyone else the cables would be meaningful to ignore it while only Americans like Sarah Palin and yourself have sleepless nights declaring it the absolute truth to LIFE.
Julian is superman, terrorist, Osama, alpha, omega, dunderhead hackers who've never even stepped into parliament let alone protest with civil society, must fight for free speech lest anarchy take over the world. You know let's continue this conversation in 6 months time when people like you have forgotten the atrocities the cables purportedly leaked, let me rephrase, plagiarized from NGOs, while people like me are still fighting for the rights of people you rape. So keep grovelling for grants supporting your caccoon of horror, disorder! disorder! Go ahead and make a fortune for bourgeois elite pharmas while I live under the bullet so some kid isn’t hacked to death because of political misgivings. Get your whiskers off me this isn’t a license to kiss me. Ciao.
Let me also add, a classic strategy used in politics is to pollute the truth by unleashing semi-truths, conspiracies, spread public confusion. So the question is, why now and what for. What are they really trying to hide, or what is their real intention?
We think politicians are bastards but we still vote for them.
LOL, this is the catch, only politicians are applying in elections, whomever could you vote for?
Leaks, that show them to be slightly bigger bastards than we thought, are therefore not going to change much unless they're followed by concerted political campaigns to change how we vote, but I don't see many.
No chance, I do not share Earl Mardle "revolutionary" ideas, anyone who enters the game becomes a politician and has to abide by "the rules" because no one enforces the rules they are de facto.
Yet, some changes will happen...
We think politicians are bastards but we still vote for them.
LOL, this is the catch, only politicians are applying in elections, whomever could you vote for?
Leaks, that show them to be slightly bigger bastards than we thought, are therefore not going to change much unless they're followed by concerted political campaigns to change how we vote, but I don't see many.
No chance, I do not share Earl Mardle "revolutionary" ideas, anyone who enters the game becomes a politician and has to abide by "the rules" because no one enforces the rules they are de facto.
Yet, some changes will happen...
Irrespective of whether you're a politician or a scientist, at the top there are wolves, and there are revolutionaries. The former protect the status quo, the latter change societies. The irony is, the wolf can not survive without blood, its destiny will always be bridled in the vision of the revolutionary. Very few have the courage, so most stick with the pack and opt for the wolf.
Aaaahhhh...
veri, much better with your meds isn't it?
Before Wikileaks people leaked stuff all the time to the newspapers. Now, with Wikileaks, people leak stuff all the time to the newspapers.
They're usually referred to as "an anonymous government official", "a high ranking military official", "an industry insider" and you never get their names, but what you do get is information that helps the government use the media to influence public opinion.
Pretty convenient, no? I bet they would all love to get rid of Wikileaks.
As for suggesting an anonymous leak sent by someone unnamed from an internet caffe - how many newspapers, do you think, would pick up a story that they cannot verify because they don't have access to the source?
Wikileaks provides a service - it protects the source and verifies the integrity of the information. And then the media releases the information (Wikileaks has not published the 250,000 cables, they've published only those that have been released by other media sources). It is not the same as free speech, but it has done a lot to make free speech more available to some people.
Not to mention the fact it is helping to unmask how much the government rely on anti-democratic behaviour to stay in power (the government of the people, by the people, for the people - yet the people are precisely those who must not know what the government is doing, because they might react badly to all the torturing and exploitation it is doing for their supposed "benefit").
?
So what you're saying is to verify the integrity of an anonymous source is by cross checking with what's already available in the media. The media makes an agreement with the anonymous source to respect their anonymity whereas Wikileaks believes in the name of free speech because there's no such thing as free press they have a right to reveal the whistleblowers identity even if it means jeopardizing the whistleblowers life.
That would mean what Wikileaks did was not only illegal but immoral. But I don't think what you say is correct. Wikileaks in my opinion of late, was used as a platform from powers higher up to indeed leak something to someone or some groups. They WANTED to leak. If there was any risk bearing truth to Wikileaks, politicians would've denied it and Wikileaks would never have seen the light of day.
Every country has a leak site where people in politics, think tanks, advisors, activists etc 'leak'. There are hundreds of them, not all accessible to the public. In Australia for example there is an online forum where politicians 'leak'. Do I think these people take Wikileaks seriously? No. Why? How do they know if it's true or not so why should they care when there's plenty of verified leaks as is without the trash from Wikileaks.
To the public, Wikileaks seems like a big controversial scandal, to politicians it's just another speck stunt to fool the public to achieve some agenda. But I don't think we've seen the end of Wikileaks, whenever it serves them, suddenly these mysterious hackers reveal more cables concerning some country, somewhere. The inconvenience to this is when a country under media/public pressure does come out to deny or even admit to something.
It offers a convenient basis for confrontation if you ask me.
For example, the CIA finds out some investor donated a million bucks to an Iranian ballistic missiles program. They leak the Iranian documents to Wikileaks, hackers make it public, Yankees confront Iran about it without needing to admit the CIA leaked it. Something like that. I have to admit it's a brilliant strategy but frankly a dirty approach to blackmail and a shite way of doing politics.
Post a Comment