What do you think of wikileaks?

[fordy]

HappySqurriel said:

fordy said:

HappySqurriel said:

Actually, I can be against whistleblowing and against the anonymous leaking of information ...

An accountant at a company (like Enron) coming forward with documentation that demonstrates that the company has been using illegal accounting practices to boost stock value is substantially different from electronic documents posted on a server somewhere by someone who claims to be an insider that supposedly demonstrate a company is using illegal accounting practices. One is someone who, at great personal cost, stood up for what they believed in to stop something illegal/immoral; the other could be an elaborate hoax designed to make someone substantial amounts of money by shorting the stock.

The hardship a whistleblower goes through is why they're trusted. If being a whistleblower was no big deal anyone with a bone to pick with their current employeer would become a whistleblower.

So in other words, whistleblowers should only come forward if they're sure that something is going to be done, regardless of blacklash such as workers angry that the whistleblower's actions caused their workplace to close down? In an ideal world, whistleblowing should endure no hardships at all, but then again, in an ideal world, there should be no need for whistleblowing.

You do realise that that kind of mentality is highly demotivational towards people who, under tremendous stress and possibly pressure, want to whistleblow but are afraid of such consequences? Allegations should come up from anyone at anytime, anonyous or not. Why do you think people are allowed to report crimes anonymously? Becuse every bit of information helps. This isn't a matter of what side it's from or what bias it gives. The point is that it's a potential one step closer to the truth.

You're treating the government like it's some kind of business. Tell me, where is this so called "government stock" that they were looking to short, and where can I buy some? Was this leaked near an election year? Did it favour ANY side, or was it just saying that the government in particular is doing bad? I'll ask once again: What were the personal gains of these people for the leaking of US diplomatic cables?

You don't seem to understand how much there is to gain and lose from the government ...

There are elections and bills, the budgets of massive pseudo-governmental bodies, gigantic unions, and hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts to corporations that can be impacted by the release of sensitive information. The release of documents that suggest inappropriate dealings with Lockheed Martin would impact the $34 Billion in contracts they have, and this would produce substantial opportunity to make money for someone who was motivated.

You live in a country with a remarkably corrupt government that is full of rent-seeking special interest groups and you believe the bullshit you're fed that the "leaked" information is for ethical reasons rather than personal gain; and you foolishly believe these people remain anonymous because of the consequences, rather than the obvious reason that they can't continue to gain from the knowledge they leak if they don't continue to work in their current job.

Until you demand transparency from your government the only information you will get is information that someone decided to give you; which will (more often than not) be to suit their needs not yours.

Had the government been doing it's job and remaining transparent, there would not be these information voids looking to be exploited. Just another phase of the capitalist system, first in gets the payouts. There are businesses constantly doing backdoor deals with each other to gain stockmarket advantage every day, and you single out the ones giving out leaked information? At least leaked information is still information that the public did not previously know about. Should we dismiss all rape allegations on the basis that the accuser may have made it up for personal gain?

Which country are you talking about exactly? Both the US and Australia's media has been on the side of incarcerating Assange for the leaks, mainly because he has highlighted things that have shown that the media has been doing a pretty poor job at this time. And what was that about believing the bullshit being fed? Look around you; the ones defending Assange did not take it from any news source, they're all against him. They studied the situation logically. 

"Until you demand transparency from your government the only information you will get is information that someone decided to give you; which will (more often than not) be to suit their needs not yours."

If you believe that government, even after being demanded to, could ever offer 100% transparency, I have one word for you: Gullible. So who will be keeping watch to ensure this government who responds to demands actually does so effectively? Or when they promise to be transparent, are we just going to take their word for it? Once again, freedom of the press is there for that reason, and this shows that it works (when actual journalism occurs).