I'd rather WikiLeaks concentrate on leaks about ...
Displaying poll results.21300 total votes.
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke
If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke
erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
Secrets are just fine. Everyone should have a few.
I cannot give you a hard and fast rule for this. I can't say this one is a good one to keep and this one isn't. But I could suggest a few rules of thumb.
Secrets that shouldn't be kept:
And so on. And yes, it is probably possible to find a decent exception to everything I've listed. I know that.
In the end you have to follow your own morality, the dictates of your own heart and decide what is best.
Re: (Score:3)
Secrets that shouldn't be kept:
That depends on how people define "jaywalking" and "murder".
The majority of citizens in the Southeastern US states believe that abortion is murder. Does that make it right to publish the names of women who've had abortions? I hope not!
And if your jaywalking more than once has caused fatal traffic accidents, I think it would be nice to blow the whistle on where you do this.
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true.
Most corruption is out in the open and is known by everyone who cares to know. There is nothing in those diplomatic cables that I found surprising. if you did then your an idiot who never really cared to know the truth before anyways.
You don't understand people. That is true of most of slashdot. Corruption is one person profiting at the expense of others, but our ENTIRE Society is built on that very concept. Every Utopian hippie commune has either collapsed or turned into a business. Why? B
Re: (Score:3)
Most corruption is out in the open and is known by everyone who cares to know. There is nothing in those diplomatic cables that I found surprising. if you did then your an idiot who never really cared to know the truth before anyways.
There is a big difference between knowing/believing that there is corruption and having hard evidence of specific incidents of corruption thrown in your face. I knew that there was corruption in the US and other governments before the wikileaks revelations, but there's not much I can do about it. I can shout in the streets and no one will listen. When you are presented with solid evidence it is at least a step in the right direction. People can and should be removed from office or brought to trial. W
Re: (Score:3)
You need a better maid service . . .
Re: (Score:3)
My maid (assuming I have a maid for the purposes of this discussion) serves me. And while I have a right to make sure my maid doesn't steal, I don't get to insist she work naked or probe her mind. The government is made up of people, each of whom has rights.
I think you answered your own question. If your maid is breaking the law, such as stealing from you, most people would say that you have a right to know. In this case it was the government breaking the law, and we have a right to know about it.
But more importantly, no organization can survive total disclosure.
This strawman is repeated over and over again for some reason. Wikileaks is not calling for the discloser of all classified information everywhere. If they were, they would have already released all the state department cables, instead of releasing less than 1 per
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Putting stuff up about the Israelis will get you dead by a .22 or kidnapped back to Israel for trial.
Putting stuff up about the Russians will get you killed in odd and hard to trace ways.
Putting stuff up about the Chinese will get you killed "randomly" by a Triad member.
Putting stuff up about the Americans will get you shot in out of the way places in "robbery/mugging gone wrong."
Re: (Score:3)
Oh come on. Americans have far more creative ways to off someone. Gas leak and subsequent explosion. Accidental car explosion. Brakes fail at an inopportune time. Encouraged to drive off a cliff. Base jumping without a parachute. "suicide" with no note, jumping out of a window. Accidental overdoes on pharmaceuticals. Car accident. Plane accident. Boating accident. or just plain disappeared. Especially when it's obvious that you may have a reason not to be found, you may never be found again.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the favourite method in the USA at the moment was a semi-automatic pistol.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah. Too noisy. If the muzzle flash doesn't draw attention, the resounding "BOOM" will. It's much better if the "BOOM" is created in an apparent accident or suicide, than an obvious shooting.
But sometimes, they just don't care. It all depends on where you are. Some places, people don't have the rationalization that it's someone elses problem, and they'll rush to help. Some places, you could shoot someone on a sidewalk in the middle of the day, and there could be a few hun
Re: (Score:2)
IMO the GP was in bad taste, but still a resounding Woosh...
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right. No one would ever consider their environment nor how much attention is gathered during a murder. It's always someone elses problem.
The "some elses problem" has come up several times in the recent past. A couple years ago, in Virginia I believe, someone was shot at a gas station. Another person who was purchasing gas stepped over the victim, rather than render assistance. Sadly, there have been quite a few instances where bystanders ignored incident
Re: (Score:2)
I would have linked them all, but there are just too many examples that could be provided.
How about just one, then? Last I heard Bradley Manning is still alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think one PFC is responsible for feeding Wikileaks for all this time?
Which is easier from a PR standpoint? To blame a single low ranking person, or have a laundry list of mid and high ranking people throughout the government? The minute I heard it was a PFC, that raised red flags saying "scapegoat". He may have been responsible for some of it, but I doubt if he did all of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Re:erm, all of the above (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure glad I'm not your neighbour!
twofer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
merry go round (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Corruption is less often illegal... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Political corruption, per se (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Political corruption, per se (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Very well said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Political corruption, per se (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Gordian knot of a problem.
And should be solved accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
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 don't have the power (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
The laws aren't made by politicians. They're made by corporate lawyers and lobbyists.
That's only possible because/ when the politicians are corrupt.
Politicians are, after the voters, at the top of the heap, as long as they're dirty you can't expect much from the rest of society.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that immoral/unethical behaviour is legitimate just because it's not illegal, and that if people don't like it they can spend their money elsewhere, is just convenient naiveté.
I never said that corrupt behavior is legitimate, and I didn't say it's not illegal.
Corrupt behavior by either politicians or CEOs is illegitimate, illegal, and anti-ethical. It only happens because too many people tolerate it.
People who profit from unethical behaviour should be ostracised by society
Do you really know what "ostracizing" means?
Q: How do you ostracize a CEO?
A: By not buying anything from his corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
Or buying anything from anyone who buys anything from his corporation, to N levels deep. Think you have the information to trace those financial links? You don't.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Of course, most of thos
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Why limit it?
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Wikileaks should NOT choose (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wikileaks should NOT choose (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that intelligence agencies are staffed by a bunch of idiots. While I agree most evidence points that way, I'd like to add that those are secret organizations. You only hear about them when things go disastrously wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Can it leak about /. too? :)
Re:Wikileaks should NOT choose (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
2 for 1 deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing!
my reasoning is simple (Score:2)
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.
Concentration = bias (Score:2)
four of the above (Score:2)
#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
China! (Score:2)
Aliens? (Score:2)
Leaks about the slashdot basics: (Score:2)
Natalie Portman, hot grits and Cowboy Neal!
And whatever happened to that guy that wanted to turn girls into stone, anyway?
Banking ---- Follow the money (Score:3)
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.
The French (Score:2)
Politics and corporations (Score:2)
This looks like voting for a turd or a douchebag.
P.S: God bless Wikileaks.
why do fellow slashdotters vote military so low? (Score:2)
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!
Why the divide? (Score:3)
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.
Last option (Score:2)
Political Corruption Because... (Score:2)
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
does not apply (Score:2)
church, state, business, education, country, science, superstition, cults, etc.
Where was "All of the above"? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Dump truck to the media, let the media redact names and coordinate with the Government for comments.
It's "wikileaks", not "wikinewservce".
Re:Dump Truck (Score:4, Interesting)
Records can easily be forged, especially by a government who's more interested in spreading misinformation without having to be an active participant. Wikileaks isn't perfect, but I'm glad that they take the time to verify what they have and redact potentially harmful information such as the names of informants.
Completely unbiased and neutral is a nice goal, but it's practically impossible if someone else is willing to play dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
Took a trip into the deep end, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, not really. [wikipedia.org]
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
(I love making these link replies)
But because you used a URL shortener, everyone will assume that they're all links to goatse or similar, no one will click on them, and your post will be ignored or down-modded as a troll for all of the goatse links.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can that propaganda factoid just die already? Even the fucking Pentagon has given up on that line now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why so pessimistic? There has been widespread Internet censorship for decades in many countries in the world. Be it political to stifle free speech, or commercial to enforce Copyright or bandwidth caps. Yet, it didn't and couldn't stop the signal there, nor here, as far as leaks were concerned. I wouldn't worry too much about censorship... because it will ultimately prove pretty much ineffective. Annoying, yes, but never 100% crippling. And leaks-wise, that's all that matters.
Actually, I (unconventionall
Re: (Score:2)