It’s ultimately a societal battle and one that probably is virtually guaranteed in the Information Age, whether it would come from Wikileaks or something else. The battle is over what, if anything, really should remain private, and on the defensive is our traditional governmental structure. To me, which side will win out in the long run isn’t entirely clear. It seems clear that historically, more freedom of information wins out over less, but there are instances in history when large amounts of information were destroyed, as in the fall of Egypt and Rome, and the end of the Islamic Scientific Renaissance. I don’t think that this is quite the same scope, but the conflict is there nonetheless. And this conflict seems to me to be one in which the Center For Inquiry and similar organizations have a direct stake.
I heard their next release was going to be about Bank of America.
Sounded weird, but then again, that could be the most interesting stuff yet.
That’s if they don’t get nuked first.
It’s strange, even being the leftie that I am, I’m not altogether sure if I agree, then again why shouldn’t we know, then again like my East German grandma liked saying “order must be”
guess i’m agnostic on this little political chess match
but it’ll sure be interesting seeing where this game winds up at.
I say leak everything. It’s my intuition that says that the vast majority of these secrets are at best neutral to “our”(you and I-the consumer-citizen) interests, and probably mostly detrimental to our interests.(whatever you might consider your interests to be)
I mean logically…if govt organs are saying the leaks are unhealthy…than how can keeping stuff secret be healthy? Nobody likes secrets.
I love to see bad management backfire in the face of managers.
This is indeed an interesting battle. I wonder what WikiLeaks has up its sleeve. It’s threatened to release some pretty sensitive and important information if they feel threatened. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
There is a counter to websites like Wikileaks . . . but I don’t think that most current governments in the world are capable of it.
The counter is simply to make a website like Wikileaks irrelevant.
:lol: Exactly! But that aint going to happen. So let them stew in the mess…and more innocent people will be sent to die in wars, terrorist acts, and be subject to gross disparity in the distribution of the planet’s wealth.
You know the most crappy part of this was? Having to read The NYT’s semi-condemnation of these leaks(and mostly outright condemnation from their opinion section)...all while they offer a daily disgorge, pornographic-like display of these leaks!
Biting the hand that feeds….
Now Sweden has this guy in custody…hmnnn? I don’t get it.
Skirmishes raged across cyberspace between WikiLeaks supporters and the companies they accuse of trying to stifle the group, with websites on both sides of the battle line taken out of service or choked off by attacks.
WikiLeaks’ release of more than 90,000 military intelligence reports to The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel revealed many new insights long suspected but never corroborated about the war in Afghanistan.
Mark Mazzetti was one of several reporters from The New York Times who sifted through and analyzed the documents leaked by WikiLeaks. In a conversation on Fresh Air, he details what the documents reveal about the war in Afghanistan and how the Times verified the information present in the leaks and then decided what and what not to publish.
I was going to write a crazy-long rant about all the wikileaks stuff the other day, but figured it would be a seriously TL/DNR thing…so I spewed it out onto youtube instead. If you’re bored and have 16 minutes or so to kill, check it out and tell me how insane I am or whatever. :)