Forgot your password?

I'd rather WikiLeaks concentrate on leaks about ...

Displaying poll results.
The military, US and otherwise
  1017 votes / 4%
Political corruption, per se
  9373 votes / 44%
Corporate malfeasance generally
  5460 votes / 25%
Banking and tax irregularities specifically
  1873 votes / 8%
Just what it is the neighbors are doing all night
  2356 votes / 11%
Does not apply, and I'll explain why in comments!
  1221 votes / 5%
21300 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

I'd rather WikiLeaks concentrate on leaks about ...

Comments Filter:
  • by FuckingNickName (1362625) on Monday January 17, 2011 @02:45PM (#34907236) Journal

    All of the above. Though I'm sure a lot of the comments will be along the lines of, "Well, XYZ, but not ABC because ABC might actually reveal something I do."

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:07PM (#34907552)

      Why limit the scope of something like Wikileaks?

      If Wikileaks put up a cable showing that I only shower about 5 times a week, I think I'd be able to defend myself from any flak by stating at least thats the worst of my qualities.

      • by Weaselmancer (533834) on Monday January 17, 2011 @08:00PM (#34910530)

        Why limit the scope of something like Wikileaks?

        Exactly, AC. The point (as it seems to me anyways) is to bring the shady and illegal stuff into the light. And that's happening everywhere. So why limit where Wikileaks is looking? It's kind of nice to have the guys in the back rooms making the shady deals be a little afraid for a change.

        If it only gives them a moment's pause, only makes them commit 1% less evil in this world - it's still worth it.

        • by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @12:46PM (#34917212)

          The point (as it seems to me anyways) is to bring the shady and illegal stuff into the light.

          But that's not all they've done. Not every cable has fallen into that category, for instance. Some are not only not shady or illegal, but are cover already well known facts with some opinion piled on top.

          If the cables were used to show the Us doing something shocking (e.g. having mind-controlled Saddam since the 80's and using him for real-politik) that would be one thing. But the vast majority don't.

          And frankly, I hesitate to give any blessing to something that is functionally the same as "you won't mind the search if you have nothing to hide." A lot of people on slashdot, the same people championing wikileaks, oppose the government using full body scanners. And I don't get the distinction... both of us need privacy to do certain things; I'm pretty sure I could not have sex as the halftime show at the Superbowl and the government cannot have frank discussions with out countries if those discussions get leaked. And it is in my best interest for the government to know things that I don't if the alternative is that neither of us knows anything.

          • I get your point, but I don't think those two things are the polar opposites you think they are.

            There is a difference between full body scanning and the total destruction of personal privacy versus whistleblowing. In the first case the vast majority of the people are innocent, in the second case very very few are.

            In other words, it's not "you won't mind the search if you have nothing to hide", it's more like "I know what you did last Summer".

            People obeying the law don't really attract whistleblowers

            • There is a difference between full body scanning and the total destruction of personal privacy versus whistleblowing. In the first case the vast majority of the people are innocent, in the second case very very few are.

              I took what you said to mean: whistleblowing implies some selection (on par with an anonymous tip) where indiscriminate searching does not. I grant that the likelihood something is wrong is greater with whisteblowing as a concept. However I disagree on two points.

              First, as that assumption t

          • by Dan667 (564390) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @02:47PM (#34918798)
            the government serves the people so the government deserves no privacy. Not a good comparison at all.
          • by gambino21 (809810)

            But that's not all they've done. Not every cable has fallen into that category, for instance. Some are not only not shady or illegal, but are cover already well known facts with some opinion piled on top.

            They have released only a small portion of the cables in their possession, working with the mainstream media to determine which cables are most newsworthy and avoid damage to the innocent. I don't know of a better process for releasing these documents. Are you saying that because not all of the documents are damning, that none of them should be released? If a few unimportant docs are released along with the important ones, why would anyone care?

            And frankly, I hesitate to give any blessing to something that is functionally the same as "you won't mind the search if you have nothing to hide." A lot of people on slashdot, the same people championing wikileaks, oppose the government using full body scanners. And I don't get the distinction... both of us need privacy to do certain things

            I'll try to make a clear distinction. In one case you are s

      • by TheCarp (96830)

        I mostly agree, though, I do think some amount of scope limit is useful.

        Your admission of only showering 5 times a week is a prime example. Who cares? Is that a leak? Maybe its a valid leak if you are going around proslytizing about the virtues of showering once a month?

        The point is, no bit of information is, in and of itself, interesting or important without context. I wouldn't put people's personal habbits or social relations in the category of "vaid to leak" information.... UNLESS that information contra

    • by bcmm (768152) on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:59PM (#34908250)

      All of the above. Though I'm sure a lot of the comments will be along the lines of, "Well, XYZ, but not ABC because ABC might actually reveal something I do."

      They don't decide what information they acquire. The should publish whatever is leaked to them, provided they believe it to be genuine, and it is of actual interest, e.g. activities of governments and business, not what celebrities had for lunch.

      • by migla (1099771)

        They don't decide what information they acquire. The should publish whatever is leaked to them, provided they believe it to be genuine, and it is of actual interest, e.g. activities of governments and business, not what celebrities had for lunch.

        Yes, but let's pretend they get a backlog of leaks to be processed. Which kind of leaks would you like them to put most personpower on?

        • by gfreeman (456642) on Monday January 17, 2011 @05:10PM (#34908946)

          Yes, but let's pretend they get a backlog of leaks to be processed. Which kind of leaks would you like them to put most personpower on?

          FIFO.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 17, 2011 @08:40PM (#34910872)

            DDOS.

            If the pace of leaks were stepped up intentionally by people with significant reach, say a government, then it would be nearly impossible to successfully process the leaks and publish them, and even when they were published, important leaks would be mostly lost in the noise. Say you're England and you know that your data might be compromised, you start a massive campaign of mostly worthless and uninteresting "leaks" so that Wikileaks is deluged with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of leaks a day. Under the system they seem to be using now, most of those leaks would be ignored in favor of a journalist's perspective of interest or relevance. If you used an "everything verifiable" system then they'd be overwhelmed and unable to successfully get the word out about things that would be important to the perspective audience.

            Come to think of it, I'm not sure that something like this isn't already happening. Personally I suspect that all the banking secrets in the world are unlikely to hold a candle to the import of governmental secrets. What if there is a covert government driven campaign to influence some people who have access to confidential but less damaging information to leak juicy tidbits? Wouldn't that push the focus away from the cables? If you can't suppress information you don't want to be in the media, then you maybe you can drown it among things that the tabloid crowd will be more interested in.

            • So they implement a noise filter. If it ends up in a tabloid, it should never have made it onto WL.

              Seriously, if they were doing this, a majority of the diplomatic cables would not have been leaked.

              Really, who cares what politicians think about each other? There isn't anything particularly WL worthy about the personal opinion of a politician. They should stick to the stuff that's illegal.

          • by log0n (18224)

            This.

    • by greenguy (162630) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (odidnabetse)> on Monday January 17, 2011 @05:09PM (#34908940) Homepage Journal

      They all overlap some, and some overlap a lot. I'm thinking particularly of political corruption and corporate malfeasance. Those border on two names for the same thing -- or at the very least, they form a feedback loop.

      • In as much as the political world is corrupt, it is because it departed from representing the will of the people and became a corporation itself. Therefore, corporate malfeasance, including when the government does it.
      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Exactly.

        I selected "Corporate" as the more ire they draw from the voting public the less likely a politician will want to accept money from them and thus be associated with them (in principle).

    • by Odinlake (1057938)

      All of the above. Though I'm sure a lot of the comments will be along the lines of, "Well, XYZ, but not ABC because ABC might actually reveal something I do."

      XYZ = "All of the above"
      ABC = "Just what it is the neighbours are doing all night"

      Though that's equally much because I don't really care.

    • "All of the above" or "Republicans" I prefer the later. Its only 1 word instead of 4.
    • by alfredos (1694270)
      Second.
    • I'm sure glad I'm not your neighbour!

  • twofer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guyfawkes-11-5 (1583613) on Monday January 17, 2011 @02:45PM (#34907242) Homepage
    Corporate malfeasance often rides the coattails of political corruption.
    • Don't you mean BOGOF?
    • merry go round (Score:4, Insightful)

      by schlachter (862210) on Monday January 17, 2011 @05:43PM (#34909278)

      Corporate malfeasance often rides the coattails of political corruption.

      and corrupt politicians are propped up by corporate interests...making it all seem like some kind of crazy MC Esher drawing.

    • This is true, but after thinking about it some, I'd rather they reveal more corporate malfeasance. The kind of stuff companies prefer to keep secret has, I would guess, more tendency to actually be illegal than the kinds of things politicians prefer to keep secret. Therefore, there would be more stuff that would actually get acted upon in there.

      Also, in my experience, people tend to be much more jaded about political corruption than corporate malfeasance. Politicians taking barely-legal bribes and lett

      • by cusco (717999)
        I sometimes wonder what is lurking in the deep cesspits of corporate secrets. The tobacco and asbestos industries managed to keep secret until the 1970s that their products caused cancer, even when they definately knew this from their own research in the **1930s**. I personally think that every former Phillip Morris and WR Grace executive alive today should be tried for mass murder.
  • by jIyajbe (662197) on Monday January 17, 2011 @02:51PM (#34907332)

    Political corruption, per se. Because why, we can, at least theoretically, get rid of corrupt politicians. We have no way or hope of getting rid of corrupt CEO's and such-like vermin.

    • by blair1q (305137) on Monday January 17, 2011 @02:56PM (#34907388) Journal

      And, in theory, if we get rid of corrupt politicians, we can have laws and law enforcement and judicial appointments that make sense and take care of the other things. But if we don't get rid of corrupt politicians, our rule-of-law backstop is gone, and we end up with a corrupt world.

      • by dcollins (135727)

        Very well said.

      • Or you could, as they say "follow the money" and go after the crooked banksters. All the really great social disasters start in financial crimes.
        • by blair1q (305137)

          Not sure how that works when the crooked politicians are the ones protecting the banks by letting financial corporations write banking regulations, and slapping the hands of those who do get caught.

      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Gee imagine that these same politicians want wikileaks strung up by their privates (bad pun sorry), and called terrorists... I wonder why? Got something to hide much?

    • by publiclurker (952615) on Monday January 17, 2011 @02:59PM (#34907454)
      But the corrupt politicians are doing the bidding of the corrupt corporations. If we reveal enough of the corrupt corporate behavior than we can force even the corrupt politicians to do something about it in order to preserve themselves.
    • You get rid of corrupt CEOs by ostracising customers of corrupt corporations. I know, I know, it's so much easier to blame the CEO than it is to blame the guy voluntarily giving him money, but these businesses exist only because you and your neighbour want them to.

    • CEOs are subject to the laws made by politicians.

      Politicians have the power to enforce the laws that they made and jail corrupt CEOs if they want to. CEOs, by themselves, cannot get rid of corrupt politicians, only the people can do that.

      If you believe otherwise, then you are part of the problem. You have the vote, you are the consumer, you can abstain from voting for corrupt politicians, you can abstain from shopping at corrupt corporations.

      Too bad so many people prefer to point their fingers instead of ta

      • For that theory to be valid, you have to assume perfect access to true information. Nowadays, that simply cannot be the case, because there's more information out there than a person can possibly process in a lifetime. How can you research every single item or service that you purchase? How are you going to find the time? How can you know if the t-shirt you wear isn't woven by exploited immigrants? If the soy sauce you buy wasn't sprayed with too much pesticide? Sure, a lot of people will specialize and you

      • by dokebi (624663)

        Corruption of politicians by the (very) rich is as old as money itself. And it happens in any socio-economic system: democratic, authoritarian, socialist, capitalist... it doesn't matter.

        As for "The People", that used to mean land owning white males during the American Revolution. That's what, 10% of the population? "The People" were rich elites from the start.

        Even when everybody can vote, as long as they vote the way the Very Rich want them to, result is the same: The Very Rich stay in power. And the Very

    • by c++0xFF (1758032)

      Maybe, just maybe, getting rid of corrupt politicians will fix the others. They can then provide appropriate regulation to fix everything else.

      Except for what your neighbors are doing, unfortunately. We still need to protect a few rights here and there.

      But ... I think this is a pipe dream. Exposing an individual's corruption isn't quite enough.

    • We have no way or hope of getting rid of corrupt CEO's and such-like vermin.

      We sure do, or at least we have the power to reduce their ability to harm others by their corruption. Examples:

      • Amend the constitution to explicitly require corporate charters to expire, and return things to the way they used to be.
      • Prosecute white collar crime by the amount of damage caused; send corrupt CEOs to the same prisons we send other people who damage society (murderers, terrorists, etc.).
      • Armed revolution; build a new system that allows less room for corporate corruption

      Of course, most of thos

    • by gmuslera (3436)

      IF you have not corrupt policitians, this leaks could help them to get rid or regulate those corporations, so they should encourage this.

      But if you have corrupt politicians, well, probably their will try to shutdown wikileaks, or make the public hate it, divert attention, or try by all means to put their directors on jail.

      I wonder which is the current case in US.

  • All of the above! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ossifer (703813) on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:13PM (#34907648)

    Why limit it?

    • by jd (1658)

      Too much information will produce a lot of noise for relatively little signal. You want a balance such that there's maximum signal (and therefore maximum chance of eliminating corruption) and maximum interest by the public (not the same as public interest, as the public is rarely interested in things that matter).

    • by pla (258480)
      Why limit it?

      I agree with you, but unfortunately the past few months have shown us that the public simply doesn't care when overwhelmed with information.

      Leaking one or two juicy tidbits a week, and you get public outrage for that week. Confirm pretty much every paranoid conspiracy theory of the past decade in one massive release, and you get... Public outrage for that week.

      We should have seen rioting in the streets over the Manning release, and just about every world leader dragged into the crowd an
  • by lehphyro (1465921) on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:31PM (#34907946)
    It should release everything that people leaks to them.
    • by qbzzt (11136) on Monday January 17, 2011 @03:59PM (#34908248)

      I'm sure there a lot of intelligence agencies who'd love to:

      1. Provide disinformation through wikileaks to their enemies.

      2. Discredit wikileaks.

      So wikileaks has to be selective to be effective.

      • I think you underestimate the current rabbit-in-the-headlight effect of wikileaks on all levels of governments. But you're damn right, it won't be long.
    • by antdude (79039)

      Can it leak about /. too? :)

    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday January 17, 2011 @05:31PM (#34909148) Homepage

      Really? If someone gave them a copy of your personal banking information, including your passwords, PINs, and account numbers, you think they should release it?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by froggymana (1896008)

        You realize that wikileaks has been very good about editing the "cables" they have released to remove any personal information from them. So, unless your name is "XXXXXXX" and your password is "XXXXXXXXX" you should be fine. And if that is your name and password I would suggest having both changed.

    • by Phat_Tony (661117)
      Offering a leak vetting service is not a bad thing, though. There may be plenty of people with access to large quantities of documents that they feel could expose significant wrongdoing, but without the time, resources, knowledge, etc. to properly vet/redact them to prevent the leaking of information that could "get the good guys killed" or expose too much personal information incidentally contained in the documents about people who did no wrong, or other information that the person who wants to leak the do
  • 2 for 1 deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Titan1080 (1328519) on Monday January 17, 2011 @05:58PM (#34909426)
    Since we live under fascist rule, I think 'Political Corruption' will cover corporate malfeasance as well.
  • Right now the governments want to shut wikileaks down, more than anything else, and that's because they have something to hide. I don't want them to hide it from me. I believe Wikileaks is my ally in this.

  • So concentration might mess with underlying motives and conspiracy theories etc etc. So: all of them. I'll use my spyglass to find out what my neighbors are doing though, thank you very much.
  • #1-2 have been interesting areas recently because some people have been caught with their breeches down, so to speak. If Wikileak business continues in the same manner, I wager it'll just become another pawn in the political games.

    #3 actually seems nice since it adds a proportional (and presumably significant) cost to companies who want to do dirty business.

    #4: Isn't this out in the open already just that few people understand or cares about what's going on? Education would be a better counter measure, I t

  • by Z8 (1602647)
    Does anyone really think that China is any better than the U.S.? And if people think the US is keeping secrets, they should look into China. I'd love to know what senior Chinese leaders and diplomats were thinking and how they are planning to screw other countries.
  • Cowboy Bebop?
  • Natalie Portman, hot grits and Cowboy Neal!

    And whatever happened to that guy that wanted to turn girls into stone, anyway?

  • by SomethingOrOther (521702) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @05:01AM (#34913798) Homepage

    Yes, wikileaks should and will investigate everything....

    But from illegal wars (Haliburton?) to corrupt politicians and corporate baddies...... following the money and seeing who profits the most will give some very interesting answers. I'm surprised banking has so few votes.

  • that's all i gotta say, just the French
  • Apparently we don't like neither of them but when we vote we have to decide who will we trust.

    This looks like voting for a turd or a douchebag.

    P.S: God bless Wikileaks.
  • military is the ultimate political power!

    And power corrupts

    One can see how fast a dictator can be wiped away by the people in Tunisia.

    Please compare with this the effort of two US Gulf-wars plus one they financed by their later enemy before!

  • by prefec2 (875483) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 @08:17AM (#34914558)

    If you want to watch political corruption you automatically have to monitor the corporations as well. And when youo are at it monitor the rich fellows as well, because not paying the taxes means stealing from the public.

  • The notion of rather wanting Wikileaks concentrate on particular types of leaks would imply that I actually cared what Wikileaks concentrates on. I do not.
  • It's a pretty much a catch-all area that, due to its nature, will also expose most corporate malfeasance and tax/banking fraud because the Big Players with $$$ spend it buying Congress-critters to support their schemes.

    It will also expose a fair amount of military issues, though mostly in the contracting and acquisition area as DoD tries to do its job despite lots of Congressional meddling. And, frankly, most of the big problems in the military are as a result of political meddling more than military leade

  • missing option - whatever falls into its hands that is potential evidence of a "cover up" by authority figures of any kind including (but not limited to):
    church, state, business, education, country, science, superstition, cults, etc.
  • As long as WL doesn't sink to "see the celebrity tapes someone found on their phone", I think the rest is fair game.

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...