A pragmatic outlook on Wikileaks.

As some of you know, I am not wowed by the actions of Wikileaks.

This stems from their overall behavior. I'm not talking about collecting secret information. Plenty of people do that and I have no real qualms with the concept.

The problem, from my perspective, is in how this information is handled when it reaches Wikileaks. The Modus Operandi seems to be the indiscriminate release of information to the general public.

"But, Aim, this is all done in the name of transparency!"

No - this is done for the sake of ridicule. Imagine, if you will, I were to collect all of your text messages and post them to the public. Sure - there may be some information in there that people in your life need to know about - but most of it is stuff that has no logical reason to exist in the public domain.

"I disagree, Aim."

Too bad. You're wrong. That's about all that needs to be said as we're dealing with an ideological difference.

"So, you think Wikileaks should not exist."

As it is? No. It is not conducive to the objectives many attach to it.

As it could/should be? Wikileaks should be an oversight forum/community (think of the 'hacker' group: "Anonymous") that reviews the data wikileaks collects. Little opinion factoids here and there can be mused upon - but mostly chucked by the wayside as irrelevant. It does no real good to publish such information.

However - let's say this group happens upon reports of abuse and/or other consistent problems. These should be looked into. What action was taken and by whom? Did it work, etc? Then - the final question: Do the events suggest a lack of standards necessitating a published article with supporting evidence?

If the answer to that is yes - a news article should then be drafted and supporting documents attached (after personal data and the like is scrubbed) for publishing.

In this way, the information present in the data can be used to expose lapses in oversight and other issues that the public should be informed of - in a productive and effective manner.

A dozen big-ticket issues can exist within those cables released, and few will really get the attention they deserve because of bantering over a thousand bits of ultimately inconsequential information.

In that way - Wikileaks is its own impotency. While hoping to improve transparency, they only serve to further obfuscate real issues that need to be addressed by a third-party that exists outside of the government bureaucracy and structure. Hence why I see their treatment of classified material as entirely childish and purely destructive.

Let that serve as a bit of a charge to some of you motivated types out there that believe in what Wikileaks is doing.

Originally posted by Aim64C
As some of you know, I am not wowed by the actions of Wikileaks.

This stems from their overall behavior. I'm not talking about collecting secret information. Plenty of people do that and I have no real qualms with the concept.

The problem, from my perspective, is in how this information is handled when it reaches Wikileaks. The Modus Operandi seems to be the indiscriminate release of information to the general public.

"But, Aim, this is all done in the name of transparency!"

No - this is done for the sake of ridicule. Imagine, if you will, I were to collect all of your text messages and post them to the public. Sure - there may be some information in there that people in your life need to know about - but most of it is stuff that has no logical reason to exist in the public domain.

"I disagree, Aim."

Too bad. You're wrong. That's about all that needs to be said as we're dealing with an ideological difference.

"So, you think Wikileaks should not exist."

As it is? No. It is not conducive to the objectives many attach to it.

As it could/should be? Wikileaks should be an oversight forum/community (think of the 'hacker' group: "Anonymous") that reviews the data wikileaks collects. Little opinion factoids here and there can be mused upon - but mostly chucked by the wayside as irrelevant. It does no real good to publish such information.

However - let's say this group happens upon reports of abuse and/or other consistent problems. These should be looked into. What action was taken and by whom? Did it work, etc? Then - the final question: Do the events suggest a lack of standards necessitating a published article with supporting evidence?

If the answer to that is yes - a news article should then be drafted and supporting documents attached (after personal data and the like is scrubbed) for publishing.

In this way, the information present in the data can be used to expose lapses in oversight and other issues that the public should be informed of - in a productive and effective manner.

A dozen big-ticket issues can exist within those cables released, and few will really get the attention they deserve because of bantering over a thousand bits of ultimately inconsequential information.

In that way - Wikileaks is its own impotency. While hoping to improve transparency, they only serve to further obfuscate real issues that need to be addressed by a third-party that exists outside of the government bureaucracy and structure. Hence why I see their treatment of classified material as entirely childish and purely destructive.

Let that serve as a bit of a charge to some of you motivated types out there that believe in what Wikileaks is doing.

why did you even bother starting a thread ? you`re asking and answering the questions here dude, what`s going on ? Do you want a brand new , little white "i love me" jacket ?
My view on wiki leaks has always been up and down, but i dunno, Assange is playing tag with The Powers That Be here, his real "insurance" , will be some ground breaking stuff, he`s put his life on it, now, i dunno about you dude but i would pick the cream of the crop if i was puting my life on something, and i cant believe i`m saying this, but i hope i get to see whats in the real "insurance". For some reason, the whole thing has an American wiff in the air, i cant explain it, it just feels like its definatly information on America, and its definatly, DEFINATLY, important information or he would be dead by now, or at least eating cockmeat sandwiches for the next 6 months untill he dies of shame.

Just look at the heat he`s getting, what ever information he`s got its big, and he`s been gathering it for a pretty long time, TPTB have been playing cat and mouse with this fella for quite some time now, so he`s always had an "insurance" policy, if you now anything about the REAL American government , you`d know he`d have had a fatal accident a long time ago. So he`s definatly had this thing for a while, and the preassure keeps building because he keeps adding stuff to his big ol fcuk America files. I cant wait to see what comes out, but it might kick start the NWO if its anytime soon, so........... decide which side of your brain you want to be fella , and get yo # straight.... PEACE !

did you just interview yourself?

"But, Aim, this is all done in the name of transparency!"

No - this is done for the sake of ridicule. Imagine, if you will, I were to collect all of your text messages and post them to the public. Sure - there may be some information in there that people in your life need to know about - but most of it is stuff that has no logical reason to exist in the public domain.

I disagree. Transparency of private matters is not a goal of wikileaks. The right for privacy is anchored in various international treaties and national laws. However these are not valid for public matters or are weakened regarding people of public interest. Clearly, government, war and diplomacy secrets belong into the later category. Your analogy blatantly fails to distinguish.
Moreover, publification of information doesn't require logical reasoning. Quite the opposite, withholding information from the public domain needs a logical reason. I feel that public authorities have often failed to question their need to conceal information.
Transparancy definitely isn't something found abundant regarding matters which impact the public.

In that way - Wikileaks is its own impotency. While hoping to improve transparency, they only serve to further obfuscate real issues that need to be addressed by a third-party that exists outside of the government bureaucracy and structure. Hence why I see their treatment of classified material as entirely childish and purely destructive.

See the problem is, there is no such third-party. For democracy to work, such an entity would be vital however. So long wikileaks is still better than nothing.

reply to post by Aim64C
Star and Flag!

Good OP, I am not convinced that wikileaks is on the up and up. Definitely not transparent themselves.

reply to post by Aim64C


I don't mind, in fact i would be more upset if they didn't release the whole thing and instead sifted through the documents and released only what they deemed important. Lots of work going through them but the results from doing so are important.

reply to post by TallWhiteHuman

why did you even bother starting a thread ? you`re asking and answering the questions here dude, what`s going on ? Do you want a brand new , little white "i love me" jacket ?

I take it you are not offering an "I love me" jacket? Bummer.

Why respond?

My view on wiki leaks has always been up and down, but i dunno, Assange is playing tag with The Powers That Be here, his real "insurance" , will be some ground breaking stuff, he`s put his life on it, now, i dunno about you dude but i would pick the cream of the crop if i was puting my life on something, and i cant believe i`m saying this, but i hope i get to see whats in the real "insurance". For some reason, the whole thing has an American wiff in the air, i cant explain it, it just feels like its definatly information on America, and its definatly, DEFINATLY, important information or he would be dead by now, or at least eating cockmeat sandwiches for the next 6 months untill he dies of shame.

Which only goes to further demonstrate my point. If this "insurance" file is something that damning, then Wikileaks should be drawing attention to it.

Personally, I think the insurance file is a farce. Not that it is completely fake or anything - but that the information in it is nothing much more impressive than what we have already seen.

Of course, he doesn't need an insurance file. He's too public of a figure to take out through more clandestine means. Hell - just look at Kurt Cobain - he died for whatever reasons and simply because he was a prominent public figure - the conspiracy mill continues about the circumstances surrounding his death. The same for Assange.

Hell, in all likelihood, the charges of abuse levied against him are a long shot that was taken simply to get him in custody (though it wouldn't surprise me if he really did commit the crimes he is accused of - he obviously thinks he is capable of taking on the system, and that mentality of civil disobedience tends to get people in trouble in a number of ways).

Just look at the heat he`s getting, what ever information he`s got its big, and he`s been gathering it for a pretty long time, TPTB have been playing cat and mouse with this fella for quite some time now, so he`s always had an "insurance" policy, if you now anything about the REAL American government , you`d know he`d have had a fatal accident a long time ago. So he`s definatly had this thing for a while, and the preassure keeps building because he keeps adding stuff to his big ol fcuk America files.

He really doesn't strike me as competent.

It's not that he has anything over anyone. He's simply a loose cannon. For the most part, he's not ever come across much of substance. It's his policy of simply releasing everything he finds that is concerning. The fool really doesn't understand what he has most of the time (he can't possibly look over the gigabytes of information he's released with any kind of detail).

The intelligence community would be tolerant of Wikileaks presence if it served a function other than data-dumping files like there's no tomorrow.

I do know a thing or two about the real U.S. Government - and I do know a thing or two about the intelligence community and its various enforcement arms. However, I don't think you have quite as much knowledge on the issue as you think you do.

What?! People are still going on about Wikileaks and their damn insurance document??!!

Thought Wikileaks disappeared into the mist long ago.

Most, if not all, is irrelevant... none of it affects my life directly. Like I care about some Pakistani citizen that got shot by an American Chopper... or whatever... not like I'm in any position of changing anything. I'd rather focus my attention on more important things - things that I can actually do something about..

Like it's some big secret governments are corrupt? What??! Really?!!

Governments are run by people... people are suckers to their own greed and selfishness... and why not... ever ask yourself what you'd really do if you were ever placed in position of power? and no... not those little fairy tales you have floating in your head... I mean be honest...

They haven't released anything WOW! in a long time... doesn't seem like they're even the medias time worth anymore.

reply to post by CriticalCK

did you just interview yourself?

This requires a singular definition of myself.

Any attempt to identify a singular intelligence within myself would fail upon evaluation of behavior and logic patterns within the real world.

I disagree. Transparency of private matters is not a goal of wikileaks. The right for privacy is anchored in various international treaties and national laws. However these are not valid for public matters or are weakened regarding people of public interest. Clearly, government, war and diplomacy secrets belong into the later category. Your analogy blatantly fails to distinguish.

We're simply going for the sake of relevance, here. Some of your texts may be of interest to a divorce court - but not belong in the public domain, simply because there is little/nothing the public can do aside from make a mess of things.

Take one of the examples posted on the boards here in ATS, the "sex for food" thread. Of what importance is it that we know of that particular incident? Is there a pattern of corruption? Etc.

Releasing these diplomatic cables is akin to releasing transcripts and/or Minutes from a local labor union. It's really not necessary for us to have access to the information regarding investigations into the management shortcomings of some members. However - if they are plotting a systemic takeover of the labor market - that is of note to people at large - and worth spilling to the media.

... Am I making sense, here?

[quoteMoreover, publification of information doesn't require logical reasoning. Quite the opposite, withholding information from the public domain needs a logical reason. I feel that public authorities have often failed to question their need to conceal information.

I could publish the Maintenance Action Forms we do every day in the shop. You can get a kick out of seeing how a few people out there seem to take for friggin' ever to remove a brush-block or make a patch for the exhaust manifold.

The logical reason is that there's simply no reason to publish diplomatic cables, just as there's no reason for me to publish texts between me and my CO, LPO, CPO, etc. Those, technically, function as official communication. I get yelled at if I don't text my CO back in a timely matter (not good, since I am a procrastinator and, generally, do not like to be bothered to update people on progress... I prefer radio silence).

See the problem is, there is no such third-party.

There is. The internet community is absolutely massive and distributed. Just take ATS - with the right people taking up the reigns, places like the "way above top secret" area could be used to publish collected data and sift through it in a forum-style manner. Topics deemed to have interest could be drafted up as articles and published with their supporting documents.

As evidence of this being possible and practical - look at the structure of Anonymous. While it is not the shining beacon of order and conformity - it is exactly what you would expect out of a public forum united under a few key concepts. They have their general rules for admission - just like any hypothetical third-party intelligence community would.

Wikileaks shows that some information out there can and will be leaked to "open source" networks.

Anonymous demonstrates that you can have a functioning and production 'open' group of people that still maintains an amount of internal privacy to do its work.

Combining the two is, essentially, what is necessary.

i never bought into the idea of wikileaks

things were all fine and dandy when their goal was to bring down bush and that administration and the idelogs jumped on the bandwagon.

simple fact i can create a website and make up a bunch of crap i want with NOWAY to verify the information

however people bought wikileaks and assanges bs hook line and sinker because he said what they wanted to hear

and NOT ONE ever question anything.

pt barnum once said there is a sucker born every minute assange and wikileaks COUNTS ON IT.