Thread: Wikileaks: Good or bad?

Originally Posted by pcb01

Happy to vote "good" and break the 14-14 tie.

Is it really a state secret that Berlisconi is vain and venal, or that Merkel is a bit on the frosty side? Didn't we already know that when Dubya tried to feel her up a couple years ago?

There's a lot more there than that kind of stuff - I just spent a few minutes actually reading some of the cables that are Secret/No Foreigners and within a few minutes found more than one that could result in the death of an individual if "the bad guys" had that intel.

Honest? I've spent more time thinking about this issue today in this thread than ever before - I'm not really that vested in it one way or the other and will sign off this thread with the suggestion that folks should go spend ten minutes browsing the data if they need help making up their mind on the issue.

I voted bad, although I think an option for "undecided" should have been available. Normally, I like the idea of the free flow of information; however, I think we need to realize that it isn't practical to make all information in the world open to the whole world. For instance, would anyone here be happy if WikiLeaks leaked all information existing pertaining to the United States nuclear arsenal?

From the little that I have read, most of the information presented is more of a gossip nature. However, there are some critical pieces of information about US involvement in Yemen against Al-Qaeda that could severely derail progress against probably the most dangerous group in Al-Qaeda at the moment. Also, information about other Middle Eastern countries wanting the US to strike at Iran will only drive that country more into seclusion.

Ironically, this episode of leaks will probably result in less documentation of government affairs, making tracing information much harder in the future. Working in the international community will be more difficult now for the US in the short term for sure and maybe in the long term as well.

As far as WikiLeaks the organization goes, if the organization truly has no other motive than to provide information to the world in an effort to make the world a more open place, then I think there is a place in this world for the organization. If WikiLeaks is only interested in hurting the US, then, of course, I would have a more negative view of the organization - to put it lightly.

Personally, I am not sure how much I trust the intentions of a "former" hacker and an ALLEGED rapist.

"Do as I say, Not as I do"
"See no evil, Speak no Evil, Hear no Evil"
"The Evil that Men do"

There, that kind of sums up a lot of things...

WiKileaks... Sure, people should know what their tax dollars are going for, whether good or bad...

As far as putting people in harms way... They are already in that position if it is a war zone, as a politician or World Leader... But on the other hand, why make it worse...

I guess what I can't figure out is... If it's not good information and "they" are afraid of someone finding it out... Why write it down?

The little "S**T" that is pending his military court hearing should "Hang" for his actions... He was in a public trust position and violated his oath...

As many "Black Op's" that occur around the world... Why don't the "threats" just "disappear"? It's always said "We don't do that anymore"... But of course it's not done any less...

Now at a personal level, my personal information was given to an inmate in the jail that I worked at... And yes my family was in danger... I didn't care about myself, but when my family didn't have anything to do with my job.

The Courts and County Attorneys Office provided the inmate with all the jury information sheets for his up coming trial... Names, Address, SSN, Phone Numbers... Dates of Birth...

I was p***ed, harsh words were said to the court and the attorney... The damage was done no matter what was done after that...

It wasn't the inmates fault, he was using what he was given...

I just saw this. I voted bad. Reasons (2) are simple (in my mind):

1. The records are not the same as “the truth.”
2. The lack of ethical concern, and an inadequate review process.

Although I agree in principle about "transparency" that it creates, there is a also great deal about Wikileaks and their source(s) that are unethical and should provoke intense outrage, imo...these actions essentially produce a gigantic hit list, for which people involved can pay a dear sum. The “do no harm” principle has been utterly ignored by Wikileaks.” What about the review process? Of my readings, I have read nowhere about Julian Assange's commitment to a fair and critical review process of leaked information.

At the end, I am not sure that ALL information and records should be transparent, in a manner that Wikileaks releases...Secrecy has its merits in some situations and lack of it may compromise integrity (and commitment) of not only personnel but also of operational command (in case of military activity).

Tis bad because it will tighten up things to the point that should anything IMPORTANT need to be leaked there will be no way.

Blind leaks are like a broken pipe -- just wastes water.