Main > The Round Table

WikiLeaks: Heroes or Villains?

(1/5) > >>

Sir Brian:
Since we’ve had some great discussions on several of the virtues of chivalry, I thought I would solicit you fine folks for your thoughts on this entire hullabaloo over WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and the people (hackers) perpetrating all those “payback” cyber attacks?

I consider it simply espionage. He isn’t some noble martyr out to right some grievous wrongs, he is a spy and nothing more than a fence who deals with stolen information instead of material goods but he is nonetheless a fence and nearly every society has laws against receiving stolen goods. The “whistleblowers” that uploaded the information to WikiLeaks did so illegally. They “STOLE” the information and dispensed it. America has methods of disseminating information and it can be garnered legally via the FOIA. Essentially any and all information not obtainable under the FIOA or the Privacy Acts has been deemed sensitive for a reason and it certainly isn’t the province or the privilege of a select few sanctimonious and biased activists to determine what secrets are safe or even appropriate to disseminate to the general public.

As for the hackers I have a more draconian view, cut their hands off.  ;D

What are some of your thoughts?

Sir Edward:

It's really hard to say. I have mixed feelings on it. I agree, the information is typically stolen by illegal means, and some of it can be sensitive in nature. However, sometimes it takes a strong whistleblower to instigate change for the better. A lot of injustices and unethical behavior can routinely be gotten away with until someone blows the lid on it. And from what it sounds like, wikileaks takes time to verify the validity, and redact portions of it, before putting it online, to maintain some level of both credibility and responsibility in how they handle the information.

Now having said that, I haven't gone and read anything on their site, so I can't really formulate an opinion on how well they achieve those goals.

It's quite possible they've crossed the line from being a useful method of getting the truth out to something else entirely, but again, I haven't read enough to make an opinion on that.

Aside from the current debacle, I think it has the potential to be a force for good, if used responsibly. I just wonder how far is too far.

Sir James A:
As with Sir Edward, I've not read any of the site itself, though I do know a fair bit of the mess around it. Bear with me if my understanding of the content is way off base, as I'm going on what I've read in articles on the subject....

The information posted requires a clearance for a reason. It was not legally acquired through FOIA, and is not something to be distributed publicly; especially posted online. It was a gross abuse of power for those with access to that information to do what they did with it; it would be like having your bank publish your social security number, account number, name, and address, if someone working there found out you paid money to a group that they don't agree with.

There's the whole line of "if it's that important, it should be protected" logic, but as an IT security guy, there's ALWAYS somebody who puts their password on a sticky note or who transfers files through their thumb drive, loses their laptop with sensitive data ... there is always some bonehead who compromises even the best of security protocols.

My understanding of it is that the content was not to blow the whistle on anything illegal, but to publish the information of those who aid us in our mission to be a country of freedom, opportunity, power, and prestige. And that at least a few of those who had their personal information posted have been forced to flee their country or have been murdered.

The site will costs not only the lives of people who are helping us as a country, it also hurts our credibility. We can say "we will protect you if you help us" ... but they can now say that they may be revealed anyway, and killed ... as well as potentially their spouse, children, parents, and so on. That WILL cost us critical information in the future as to the operations in other countries which are at war against us, whether implicitly or explicitly. We will lose potential new allies as a result, allies in countries who do not agree with us, but have citizens who do.

While there are not a large number of people I'd be in favor of brutal executions for, there is a lot to be said for setting an example, and harsh punishments as a deterrent. Assange is one of them I think should receive a rather brutal execution, constitutional or not. Not some cop-out lethal injection, not some cushiony life in prison ... I'm talking Iron Maiden, Drawn and Quartered, Spanish Horse level punishment.

There is only so much that only respect will protect you; without some level of fear in betrayal, you leave a gap in your armor, so to speak, as those who do not respect you also do not fear you, and you pose no real threat to them. Our justice system is so lax that many people laugh at the consequences, as there is very little to truly fear any more. Steal something from a store here? Pay a fine, maybe a little jail time, slap, back out. Steal something from a street vendor overseas? Chances are you can lose your hand.

A semi-related side story - I did a report on Pershing back in high school. He is a quasi-modern iconic hero to many for this story, considering his enemies at the time are at the heart of our anti-terrorism war still (http://www.veterans-coalition.org/BlackJackPershing.jpg).

Extremely offensive and overly brutal ... and yet amazing in it's effectiveness. The question is, who has the courage to do it and take the heat, and would it lead to another 42 years free of terrorist attacks?

SirNathanQ:
Personally, I think that anything that endangers lives unnecessarily or is a threat to ANYONES national security should stay confidential. When those hackers did was on the order of treason, no matter what country he's in or belongs to. He has no good reason for putting that stuff up there other than to be malicious.

Sir Edward:

All very excellent points, but if I may play devil's advocate for a moment-- One problem with state secrets, as necessary as they are, is that it becomes very easy to hide wrong-doings and unethical behavior. For instance, what if it got leaked that there was an institution of slavery, torture, and murder of innocent US citizens occurring within our own government. Wouldn't we want to know? During WWII, most Germans claimed they had no idea about the concentration camps, for instance.

Here's an article I stumbled across last week:

http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release "Ellsberg: “EVERY attack now made on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was made against me and the release of the Pentagon Papers at the time.”"

I'm not saying that what was done was right, but I think it's worth considering what it can take to expose wrong-doings within any large institution, such as a government or large corporation.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page