Wikileaks - America the land of free speech no more?

[PilotMan]

Typically when illegal actions happen no matter who actually perpetrated them the business is to follow the chain of responsibility to it's highest levels, and make those who were or are in positions to know, responsible for what actually takes place.

I am sure that Assange didn't go out and say get me lists of secret security areas that the US operates in, but he did create an entity which makes the acquisition and publication of those items it's ultimate goal.

He didn't physically go out and get them, but he can't be insulated from responsibility either.

Jack Kevorkian never killed anyone. The machine did, or the patient did it themselves.

Sharing copy written music is deemed illegal, yet the website that arranged it get's shut down.

Employees break rules, but bosses take the fall.

Honestly, it is my opinion that a greater amount of information out there, with no regard to it's sensitivity will result in less freedoms for the people simply from the need of the government to insulate itself further from future leaks.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Is there a 'recieving stolen goods' law in America which covers information? - if for instance you told me something which was confidential could I then be prosecuted for knowing it?

.

It depends on the situation. If I told you in confidence that I committed a murder, you are obligated to report it. If you do not, they can prosecute you as an accessory after the fact. Do they do this that often? No, they don't.

Lets get rid of the obvious. . . whoever is leaking the confidential government documents could get the death penalty. It's treason and if they are caught (really, IMHO, WHEN they are caught), they are facing some really long jail sentences and God help them if the leaks can actually be traced to the death of someone.

From my years in journalism school, here is what bothers me so much about wikileaks: (and to be fair, this was pointed out above by Tigercat):

If I received a package of documents tomorrow showing proof that a local church was stealing money and using their non profit as a front for the drug trade, I couldn't just report it. My editor would fire my ass if I did.

I'd have to do an exhaustive investigation. I'd have to use the information to get sources and confirm what the documents told me. This doesn't mean I need 100% conclusive proof that the documents were correct. It does mean that I have a responsibility to the public and to the church I'm accusing that I have more than just some leaked documents from an anonymous source.

Wikileaks doesn't go by those rules. They are taking documents they know are stolen and simply posting them for the world to see. What if a document is fake? What if a document "outs" a spy and gets someone killed?

Freedom of the press carries a responsibility. A responsibility wikileaks doesn't give a damn about.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

m I detecting some secret Soviet sympathies coming from middle GA?

If you believe we haven't engaged in similar activities, albeit likely to a lesser degree, I've got some magnificent swamp land I'd really like you to look at

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It depends on the situation. If I told you in confidence that I committed a murder, you are obligated to report it. If you do not, they can prosecute you as an accessory after the fact. Do they do this that often? No, they don't.

Lets get rid of the obvious. . . whoever is leaking the confidential government documents could get the death penalty. It's treason and if they are caught (really, IMHO, WHEN they are caught), they are facing some really long jail sentences and God help them if the leaks can actually be traced to the death of someone.

From my years in journalism school, here is what bothers me so much about wikileaks: (and to be fair, this was pointed out above by Tigercat):

If I received a package of documents tomorrow showing proof that a local church was stealing money and using their non profit as a front for the drug trade, I couldn't just report it. My editor would fire my ass if I did.

I'd have to do an exhaustive investigation. I'd have to use the information to get sources and confirm what the documents told me. This doesn't mean I need 100% conclusive proof that the documents were correct. It does mean that I have a responsibility to the public and to the church I'm accusing that I have more than just some leaked documents from an anonymous source.

Wikileaks doesn't go by those rules. They are taking documents they know are stolen and simply posting them for the world to see. What if a document is fake? What if a document "outs" a spy and gets someone killed?

Freedom of the press carries a responsibility. A responsibility wikileaks doesn't give a damn about.

From what I've read that's not true. They do go to the trouble of trying to authenticate documents and media. That's why they don't just post everything that's sent to them instantly. I know much of the Iraq stuff was seen by DoD before its release.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Pilotman

Honestly, it is my opinion that a greater amount of information out there, with no regard to it's sensitivity will result in less freedoms for the people simply from the need of the government to insulate itself further from future leaks.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Freedom of the press carries a responsibility. A responsibility wikileaks doesn't give a damn about.

Two good points. There's legality, and enforceability, but there's also just a question of responsibility, ethics, and respect. I think too often we judge what is "right" by the outer boundaries of what we can get away with legally. But the press (including whatever you want to call this kind of "internet journalism") is a participant in all this too. Their actions impact freedom/democracy/free speech/information just as much as the government's does, but they often pretend it's all "fair game" no matter what.

It seems like this wikileaks guy is mostly concerned with being a rock star. If he used his resources and technology to more specifically investigate and reveal government/corporate wrongdoing, he'd still have his enemies, but he'd also have a hell of a lot more support, and he'd be doing more for freedom/etc.

[cuervo72]

Something else I don't get. Assange is calling/demanding for Clinton to resign, Obama to resign if some spying allegations are true. Foreign citizens have the right to have any bearing on how our government works...since when, exactly?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Foreign citizens have the right to have any bearing on how our government works...since when, exactly?

Well, they are pretty much free to request/demand/rant whatever they want within the bounds of the law ... just as we're free, individually & collectively, to ignore them (as well as point & laugh at them).

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From what I've read that's not true. They do go to the trouble of trying to authenticate documents and media. That's why they don't just post everything that's sent to them instantly. I know much of the Iraq stuff was seen by DoD before its release.

Really? They go through 10,000 documents and try to verify the facts of those documents?

Lets use an example here. Hillary Clinton. The latest round shows "secret" cables sent from Hillary telling delegates to spy on foreign diplomats.

Is the document forged or real? Were the "targets" questioned to see if they knew anything was going on? Were "insiders" from multiple nations contacted to see if this is a common occurrence? If it's real, does this go any higher? Did the president order this or was Hillary acting on her own? Who leaked the document, is it someone with an axe to grind against Hillary, what were their motives? Would they lie or forge? (obviously, the way wikileaks is set up takes those questions out of the mix)

I just brushed the surface here. A true press investigation over that one single document could take over 500 man hours to complete.

Look at the George W. Bush story Rather ran a few years back. I don't think he got nearly what he deserved for it, but those are the types of mistakes that are made when journalists rush to judgment. I apologize if I'm wrong, but I don't think wikileaks puts the type of care and time to make sure all of these documents are accurate Nor do they put them into context.

Some people may think that's ok. I'm not one of them.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Welcome to the new mainstream media - they've been around for the last several years. Blindly repeating whatever the government says, with no questions, etc.

Definitely a trend, but this issue really crystalizes it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

So it's ok for the USA to spy on its citizens (Patriot Act) but, it's not ok for someone to expose cover ups and lies about the same government that is spying on its own citizens? That's some obtuse thinking in my opinion.

Remember, if you've done nothing wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Remember, if you've done nothing wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.

So, Sean, does DGB properly vette his sources before going public?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Remember, if you've done nothing wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.

Then why is the government so upset at Assange if they've not done anything wrong? Oh wait, never mind, it's the 'do as I say, not as I do' thing, isn't it?

[EagleFan]

That guy is a freakin weasel that should rot in prison somewhere. He is a lowlife regardless of his website.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Then why is the government so upset at Assange if they've not done anything wrong? Oh wait, never mind, it's the 'do as I say, not as I do' thing, isn't it?

There are legitimate reasons for the government to classify information.

And I don't quite understand the comparisons between the United States Government and a private citizen. I can't even wrap my mind around that one.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by molson

There are legitimate reasons for the government to classify information.

And I don't quite understand the comparisons between the United States Government and a private citizen. I can't even wrap my mind around that one.

Absolutely there are legitimate reasons to classify information, but, that is not the argument. The argument is the outrage by people at Assange/Wikileaks, yet, don't bat an eye at the spying done by the US government on its own citizens via the Patriot Act.

[Marc Vaughan]

Really? They go through 10,000 documents and try to verify the facts of those documents?

Alledgedly yes - there was a section on the wikileaks site detailing how they tried to verify documents etc. - but I'm having trouble finding it because the google matches to it reference the 'old' main wikileaks site which is down.

(from what I understand its this need to verify information and try and avoid it causing harm to people in risky situations etc. which is why they have such a stockpile of stuff which hasn't been released yet)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Absolutely there are legitimate reasons to classify information, but, that is not the argument. The argument is the outrage by people at Assange/Wikileaks, yet, don't bat an eye at the spying done by the US government on its own citizens via the Patriot Act.

Not sure what part of "national security" you don't understand. Nothing this p.o.s. did enhances that, elements of the Patriot Act do.

Hell, even the D's in Washington understood the latter to some extent.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Alledgedly yes - there was a section on the wikileaks site detailing how they tried to verify documents etc. - but I'm having trouble finding it because the google matches to it reference the 'old' main wikileaks site which is down.

(from what I understand its this need to verify information and try and avoid it causing harm to people in risky situations etc. which is why they have such a stockpile of stuff which hasn't been released yet)

I don't care what their website says. . . there is a wikileaks version of verifying information and there is the real world. Do you really think the wikileaks site asked themselves the questions I did above on the Hillary documents? Did they spend even 20 hours trying to verify or ask questions? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Wikileaks is living on borrowed time. They are going to fall for a fake document hook, line and sinker and lose all credibility. It's only a matter of time.

[jeff061]

Is the document forged or real? Were the "targets" questioned to see if they knew anything was going on? Were "insiders" from multiple nations contacted to see if this is a common occurrence? If it's real, does this go any higher?

They verify the documents are real. Your other examples are irrelevant.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I don't care what their website says. . . there is a wikileaks version of verifying information and there is the real world. Do you really think the wikileaks site asked themselves the questions I did above on the Hillary documents? Did they spend even 20 hours trying to verify or ask questions? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Thats a fair enough stance - I'm not taking sides on their investigative journalism as to be frank I have no idea whats involved or how to judge it.

However I have yet to see any of the items released be mentioned as 'fake' - which I would expect would have occurred fairly quickly if they were?

On a personal level - With regards to wikileaks itself I'm torn - I think its important to know what is being 'done' in the name of a country, however I do share the concerns of some people posting regarding how it could affect delicate situations ... its a situation with lots of shades of grey imho.

Its the flagrant violations (such as toxic dumping in Africa and war-crimes) which I think are the most appropriate things to be 'revealed' - more recent items have been more gossip worthy than news worthy in the main tbh and I haven't seen much reason for them having been released.

What I do find more interesting than the recent leaks is the way in which countries and politicians are reacting to them and then the way in which the media are reacting to their reactions .... it does seem almost 'unified' in that its instantly accepted that someone calling for an assassination of a private individual is acceptable in these circumstances, which I find kinda weird myself.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure what part of "national security" you don't understand. Nothing this p.o.s. did enhances that, elements of the Patriot Act do.

Hell, even the D's in Washington understood the latter to some extent.

I held a security clearance for several years, I know full well what national security means.

The Patriot Act only serves as nothing more than facade of "We're keeping you safer at the expense of YOU giving up some of your liberties and freedoms". The Patriot Act doesn't affect the bad guys, it affects me and you. Sounds kind of backwards doesn't it?

What's the old saying? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

So tell me, what is the more egregious? The suspending of certain liberties and freedoms of American citizens or some dirty laundry being aired in the public forum that people in various governments already know about, but, maybe not all of the specifics until now?

The only problem that I have with Wikileaks is if they don't redact names of people that are out in the field that can compromise their safety. Countries getting butt hurt because some email talks shit about them or isn't very flattering? Who gives a rats ass.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jeff061

They verify the documents are real. Your other examples are irrelevant.

Exactly. They aren't claiming to verify the truth of everything in the documents. They merely say that these documents are legitimate and come from the specified source.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, but there should be some clarification on the connection between the PFC that acquired the info and the Wikileaks site. The person who turned in the PFC after many online conversations about the subject says that he (the third party) turned over information to the U.S. government that shows that Wikileaks actively helped the PFC get the information and let him know the best way to get the information and not be detected. There's a detailed interview from Sunday's 60 Minutes where he talks about how the PFC got the info. It appears that the PFC would have got away with it had he not been dumb enough to brag about it to this guy online.

Just thought I'd mention that interview if anyone wanted to look it up. It wasn't just some guy uploading documents. The case revolves around the possibility that Wikileaks actively recruited the PFC to acquire the documents.

With that, you can now return to your regularly scheduled melee.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Thats a fair enough stance - I'm not taking sides on their investigative journalism as to be frank I have no idea whats involved or how to judge it.

However I have yet to see any of the items released be mentioned as 'fake' - which I would expect would have occurred fairly quickly if they were?

On a personal level - With regards to wikileaks itself I'm torn - I think its important to know what is being 'done' in the name of a country, however I do share the concerns of some people posting regarding how it could affect delicate situations ... its a situation with lots of shades of grey imho.

Its the flagrant violations (such as toxic dumping in Africa and war-crimes) which I think are the most appropriate things to be 'revealed' - more recent items have been more gossip worthy than news worthy in the main tbh and I haven't seen much reason for them having been released.

What I do find more interesting than the recent leaks is the way in which countries and politicians are reacting to them and then the way in which the media are reacting to their reactions .... it does seem almost 'unified' in that its instantly accepted that someone calling for an assassination of a private individual is acceptable in these circumstances, which I find kinda weird myself.

For me the line comes at illuminating (contradictions in) government or corporate policy. I don't see the diplomatic cables as being worthy because they aren't telling us something important about policy. The Iraq stuff, though, showed clear contradictions between what the government said and what they did. That kind of secret really should be exposed IMO.

[jeff061]

I'd very much like to see that 60 minutes interview or read a transcript. It wouldn't change my mind from a philosophical standpoint. But it's interesting for the legality aspects.

[Ksyrup]

[Neon_Chaos]

Soon the entire world will be under the control of Big Brother! Watch the thought crime!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Exactly. They aren't claiming to verify the truth of everything in the documents. They merely say that these documents are legitimate and come from the specified source.

OK, then the only way they can do that is to be doing it illegally. they would need to be speaking with the exact sources who gave them the information, not some random people clicking a button on a website to upload documents.

If that is the case, they are engaged in espionage. And in that case, everyone associated with WikiLeaks will end up in a jail cell soon. (or buried in the ground when they piss the wrong person off)

[jeff061]

That's not supposedly what they are doing, I do not know how they verify it but they very strongly maintain they do. They also say they have no clue who the sources are.

That said, if the 60 minutes interview contains the information alluded to earlier, then it's clear they are not being truthful about not knowing the source.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

That's not supposedly what they are doing, I do not know how they verify it but they very strongly maintain they do. They also say they have no clue who the sources are.

That said, if the 60 minutes interview contains the information alluded to earlier, then it's clear they are not being truthful about not knowing the source.

OK Jeff, tell me how you can "verify" a government leaked document without knowing the source or someone on the inside? How can you tell me that's not a fake? Is there some magic lens they look through that the rest of the world doesn't have to show what is fake and what isn't?

There are only two ways to verify documents that I know of:

1) You know the source and get it from his mouth.

2) You spend hour after hour tracking down relevant parties and getting background information to find out it is true.

As for 1, that would be spying and he could get the death penalty for it. As for 2, that crap takes a ton of time, a ton of effort and there are no shortcuts. (shortcuts result in Rather mistakes)

I'm not trying to be an ass here, really I'm not. I just don't buy what the hell they are telling me. And the "well, they've never been caught yet" defense only proves to me that #1 is accurate because I don't believe for a second these guys are spending hundreds of hours tracking background sources to verify one document, much less 10,000.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Typically when illegal actions happen no matter who actually perpetrated them the business is to follow the chain of responsibility to it's highest levels, and make those who were or are in positions to know, responsible for what actually takes place.

So with that chain of thought shouldn't the person in charge of keeping this information private be the one being prosecuted?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

That's not supposedly what they are doing, I do not know how they verify it but they very strongly maintain they do. They also say they have no clue who the sources are.

That said, if the 60 minutes interview contains the information alluded to earlier, then it's clear they are not being truthful about not knowing the source.

Found it. I was mistaken on the program. It was actually on CBS Sunday Morning, not 60 Minutes. There's several mentions about a relationship with Assange and that the interviewee knows that there was assistance.

[jeff061]

I don't know and I don't pretend to have enough information to know. But I imagine there are ways to verify it that don't include talking directly to the source that was responsible for the leak.

It's still "espionage" if they confirm it with an insider that has nothing to do with the leak? Honest question. This is of course purely dealing with a legal discussion. Illegal or legal the idea of Wikileaks has my full support. I hope more spring up.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Found it. I was mistaken on the program. It was actually on CBS Sunday Morning, not 60 Minutes. There's several mentions about a relationship with Assange and that the interviewee knows that there was assistance.

Thanks, I'll check it when I get home.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So with that chain of thought shouldn't the person in charge of keeping this information private be the one being prosecuted?

It doesn't have to be one, anyone who passes it along with knowledge and intent to harm is subject to prosecution (doesn't mean they all necessarily would be prosecuted.)

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I don't know and I don't pretend to have enough information to know. But I imagine there are ways to verify it that don't include talking directly to the source that was responsible for the leak.

It's still "espionage" if they confirm it with an insider that has nothing to do with the leak? Honest question. This is of course purely dealing with a legal discussion. Illegal or legal the idea of Wikileaks has my full support. I hope more spring up.

If you are taking a document you know is a classified government document and getting it verified through a source inside the government, both the source and you are engaging in government espionage.

And without talking to multiple people, how are you "verifying" anything? Again, verifying without the source takes hours upon hours of investigation.

I'm the complete opposite of you. I think Wikileaks is a disaster even if they can find some loophole to make it legal. Good, solid hardcore investigative journalism is starting to go by the wayside as it is. This type of "journalism" WILL ruin innocent peoples lives at some point, because it's sloppy. And again, if it's not sloppy, they know someone on the inside and it's spying. Sorry if I'm not real thrilled about spies inside our government releasing information to a public entity.

I think both scenarios are horrific for the US and for journalism.

Sad thing? I think your beliefs will win out. Not trying to sound like a know it all here. . . but be very careful what you wish for.

[jeff061]

At the core of it all, I don't even care if it's considered journalism or not, how legal/illegal it is or anything along those lines. It's about the free flow of information and the empowerment of the masses. I'm looking at it globally, not nationally.

I fucking love it. I hope it sparks a fundamental global change. Even if it takes another 50 years. Now is the beginning of that battle. It's been awhile since something has struck such chord with me.

I understand why many may slightly disagree with this point of view.

[cuervo72]

I think Troy's concern is that those empowered masses are often going to have a lynch mob mentality, and in many cases are going to act on information that just isn't correct.

(see Jewell, Richard)

[molson]

The government just has to re-evaluate how they keep secret stuff secret. No big suprise that they're behind the times on that.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

At the core of it all, I don't even care if it's considered journalism or not, how legal/illegal it is or anything along those lines. It's about the free flow of information and the empowerment of the masses. I'm looking at it globally, not nationally.

I fucking love it. I hope it sparks a fundamental global change. Even if it takes another 50 years. Now is the beginning of that battle. It's been awhile since something has struck such chord with me.

I understand why many may slightly disagree with this point of view.

What change are you looking for and how are the masses going to be empowered by this?

Governments will still be dirty. If anything, this is going to make things far worse. Why? Because there will be no more paper trails. Access to even non critical information will be locked down harder than it ever has before.

Wikileaks isn't changing anything. Hillary may lose her job. (and the next SOS will do the same thing which doesn't help anyone in anyway) The war is still going on.

This isn't going to be some global revolution. This is either spying or sloppiness and nobody is going to win in the long term with either of those things. After a few high profile leakers get executed, my guess is the flow of information will slow. If it's sloppiness mistakes are going to be made and innocent people will be hurt. I just can't see how this is good for anyone.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think Troy's concern is that those empowered masses are often going to have a lynch mob mentality, and in many cases are going to act on information that just isn't correct.

(see Jewell, Richard)

Bingo.

Beyond that, there is no context even if something is correct.

This is beyond slippery slope for me. This is heading off a cliff.

[jeff061]

Going to say I disagree without about everything you said Troy, but I don't want to get into it . Really is a different more fanatical(on my part) discussion.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Going to say I disagree without about everything you said Troy, but I don't want to get into it . Really is a different more fanatical(on my part) discussion.

I appreciate you understanding my point of view. . . but honestly I can't do the same.

I don't see how wikileaks will make anything other than a few superficial changes. The long term harm that's going to come from those few changes just isn't worth it to me.

And spying? Sorry, anyone American who spies on their own country deserves a bullet to the brain. And I'm against the death penalty. That should sum up my feelings pretty clearly.

Oh well, to each their own.

[jeff061]

Wikileaks itself? They probably won't and very well may not exist in 6 months. I'm hoping copycats not only spring up but become the constant and accepted norm.

Where you see long term harm, I see a potentially painful breakdown resulting in a fundamental change. This is just in it's infancy, who knows where technology will be 30 years from now. The way we are trending it may become a fact of life that secrets, by anyone, can not be kept. The instant an idea is hatched it's spread the world over. Obviously that would cause a huge change in the status quo and change things rather fundamentally, which is what you may call harm. I don't.

This is going to happen at some point in time. The only way to prevent this is for all the world's governments to unite and physically take down the global technology infrastructure. Send us back to the(relative) dark ages. Those are our 2 choices. Like I said I'm talking 50 years down the road, but I do believe this is the beginning.

As for spying and treason and other nationality based notions, I'm just not viewing it at the national level.

In short, this is why I didn't want to get into it

[TroyF]

Thanks for clarifying, but I hope you aren't naive enough to think a government won't (and shouldn't) keep secrets.

Our government has been as open as any over the years. You think Israel is going to allow government secrets to get to Lybia? Please. And do you think that the US won't find the people leaking information to wikileaks and have them "removed?"

Maybe I'm just being cynical.

[jeff061]

To continue to exist the way they do now? Of course they do.

And do you think that the US won't find the people leaking information to wikileaks and have them "removed?"

They already found him, Bradley Manning. Killing him, jailing him, whatever, it may deter the bored teenagers of the world, but it will be impossible to stop them altogether. It's just to easy to transfer information now.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Wikileaks itself? They probably won't and very well may not exist in 6 months. I'm hoping copycats not only spring up but become the constant and accepted norm.

Where you see long term harm, I see a potentially painful breakdown resulting in a fundamental change. This is just in it's infancy, who knows where technology will be 30 years from now. The way we are trending it may become a fact of life that secrets, by anyone, can not be kept. The instant an idea is hatched it's spread the world over. Obviously that would cause a huge change in the status quo and change things rather fundamentally, which is what you may call harm. I don't.

This is going to happen at some point in time. The only way to prevent this is for all the world's governments to unite and physically take down the global technology infrastructure. Send us back to the(relative) dark ages. Those are our 2 choices. Like I said I'm talking 50 years down the road, but I do believe this is the beginning.

As for spying and treason and other nationality based notions, I'm just not viewing it at the national level.

In short, this is why I didn't want to get into it

Here's the problem: you view a release of secrets as a tool to a more open information society. But you're not seeing the sliding scale. If there are no secrets, no hidden information, all that is knowable is out there and public, then there is no more privacy. You and every individual in the world gain all of that information--and yet you lose your freedom. Now the governments you hope to strip of secrets is using that revolution you're calling for to strip you of your secrets, and don't kid yourself that won't happen. And they won't be the only ones. Criminals will use that, too. Anyone looking to take advantage of you in any way will be able to use that.

Do you really think the government will be stripped of all its privacy and yet you'll keep your own? I'm sorry, Jeff, but that's beyond naivete.

Some secrets need to be kept, even the ones where someone did something stupid and people got hurt/killed. There are certainly stories that should be out there (like the Iraq attack), but there needs to be a line between what should be knowable and what should not be. You are advocating for a world-wide watchdog community with no controls on what it does, good or bad, right or wrong. Do you think they will know where the line between what should be public what should remain private is? Do you think they will have the morality to stop when they reach that line?

I have to tell you, in all of human history, power without control, absolute power, will always be used to its utmost. If you have the power and no one can stop you, you will use and abuse that power. That has been repeatedly established through centuries. As they say, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." That wasn't just some thought pulled out of nowhere by some philosopher. It's a history lesson. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Dear Leader, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. and that's just the past century.

There have to be controls on the release of public information, not only to facillitate that which should be known, but that which should remain secret or private or both. This is actually what the fourth estate, the press evolved to do, and it's why people should be more concerned than ever at the fall of journalistic ideals in recent decades. Unfortunately, few see what this fall portends or what can happen when it's gone, so few worry about it.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

fcc begins regulation of internet + 'hacktivists' dos attack major cc company =

this won't end well

[RendeR]

You touch on a key element to all this Chief.

The Press. journalism in its entirety in this country and many others has been stripped of its ethical controls. There are no true journalists anymore. there are only promoters looking for a way to make ratings and in doing so make more money.

Why, as someone earlier in teh thread put it, does the media just nod and smile at the war drums beating hard about Assange and wikileaks? Why? Because as that person noted, if its not about one party or the other, they don't give a shit.

There is no standards in journalism anymore. its about hype, its about making yourself famous and its about Money.

This is why Wikileaks exists, this is why we in America can't turn on ANY news channel and actually believe more than 2 words in 10 of what we're being told.

[DanGarion]

Hey guys Mastercard deemed unsafe!