WikiLeaks

[Michael Hardner]

Zimmerman Telegram..brought the US in the First World War.

Ok. Well, I looked that one up. Germany was making a secret proposal with Mexico to declare war on the US, huh. In that case, didn't Germany get what they deserved ? Maybe secrets are just part of the game after all ?

I'm not sure whether these leaks should be considered as stolen goods, or as gossip that got out because somebody spilled the beans.

[M.Dancer]

Ok. Well, I looked that one up. Germany was making a secret proposal with Mexico to declare war on the US, huh. In that case, didn't Germany get what they deserved ? Maybe secrets are just part of the game after all ?

I'm not sure whether these leaks should be considered as stolen goods, or as gossip that got out because somebody spilled the beans.

They should be treated as violations of official secrets and the leakers imprisoned accordingly. They are doing anyone any favours.

Unfortunately the US does not have an Official Secrets Act

[dre]

yet when the climategate emails came out they ignored them.

Hmmmmm. Do you live in a cave without electricty, tv, radio, or the internet?

Because I saw stories about those emails EVERYWHERE.

[dre]

They should be treated as violations of official secrets and the leakers imprisoned accordingly. They are doing anyone any favours.

Unfortunately the US does not have an Official Secrets Act

IF the government wants the right to keep secrets they need to be forced to use it responsibly. Until that time comes services like WL are performing a crucial public service.

[M.Dancer]

IF the government wants the right to keep secrets they need to be forced to use it responsibly. Until that time comes services like WL are performing a crucial public service.

What unmitigated idiotic drivel....public service indeed, regardless if it endangers lives...

[TimG]

Because I saw stories about those emails EVERYWHERE.

When and where? It took a few weeks before the G&M even acknowledged that the release occurred.

[waldo]

Hmmmmm. Do you live in a cave without electricty, tv, radio, or the internet?

Because I saw stories about those emails EVERYWHERE.

imagine... TimG spinning the thread to play upon Hackergate!

and, yes... the stories were everywhere, played up for the initial target, the Copenhagen climate talks. Hey now, did you read about all those independent reviews that exonerated the individuals/institutions targeted by those wildly spinning their Hackergate wet-dreams? Hey now... I'm sure you realized not a lick of consensus science was "tarnished" by any disinformation, fabrication or outright lies the deniers attempted to associate with Hackergate emails. But don't let that stop TimG from continuing to flaunt the failed denier Hackergate charade.

[dre]

What unmitigated idiotic drivel....public service indeed, regardless if it endangers lives...

Youre exactly wrong, and you can stuff your insulting rhetoric right up your sacked asshole. What gets people killed is that we allow our governments to act in secrecy with very little in terms of real oversight. Look at the Iraq war... hundreds of thousands of people dead because the US government was allowed to CLAIM there was evidence of WMD's while still keeping that evidence SECRET. If the real evidence of Iraqi WMD and Nuclear programs had been released to the public that whole debacle doesnt happen, because an 8 yearold could have seen there was no real evidence.

The abuse of secrecy poses 1000 times the threat that transparency does. In fact the lack of transparency is what compromises our security. Theres literally millions of documents pertaining to the publics business that are kept secret simply because they CAN be, that have no ongoing national security implications at all.

Transparency would do WAY more to enhance our security than secrecy does.

[M.Dancer]

blah blah blah...

Yes I realize that this gave you a raging hard on..and you don't care that zero thought has been given to its repercussions....

Your glee has been noted and hope you will not have to dine on it.

[dre]

Yes I realize that this gave you a raging hard on..and you don't care that zero thought has been given to its repercussions....

Your glee has been noted and hope you will not have to dine on it.

Actually its YOU thats gonna be dining your sycophantic obsession with government being able to operate free of accountability and transparency, which is what most of the real threats to your security are rooted in.

I havent seen one single thing in this release that the government should have classified in the first place. No compelling national security information, no data on active military operations. I havent seen a single thing that warrants classification on the grounds of national security.

You advocate an environment that is guaranteed to foster large scale corruption. People do improper things when they think nobody is watching, and those things have consequences. The misadventures of our own government pose 1000 times the threat to us that any foreign government does, and the way to reign them in is to shine some sunlight on them. Its really no different than how putting cameras up behind tills in casinos is proven to reduce employee theft.

I would rather trust our own governments to responsibly classify things, only when theres a compelling national security reason, but theyve refused to do so.

Im also kinda wondering at this point of Bozo the Clown is in charge of keeping US Gov documents secure?

[TimG]

Hey now, did you read about all those independent reviews that exonerated

Right now the inquirie are subject to an inquiry in the UK because it has become clear to all how rediculuously incompetent they were. The only people who believe they were anything other than a whitewash are AGW true believers who don't really care about facts anymore because it is just a religion to them.

That said, this thread is what the difference in media response to the leaks (stolen) correspondence reveals about the ideological basis of those people who pretend to be an objective source of information.

[M.Dancer]

Actually its YOU thats gonna be dining your sycophantic obsession with government being able to operate free of accountability and transparency, which is what most of the real threats to your security are rooted in.

I have yet to see anything that compels me to believe that the compulsive obsession for transparency is anything more than a knee jerk reaction to left wing activist impotence, and even less have I seen that leads me to believe that the revealing of diplomatic secrets will be benign.

I havent seen one single thing in this release that the government should have classified in the first place.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe you are qualified to judge...but yes, lets reveal to the whole world what Saudi Arabia feels should be done about Iran...

No compelling national security information, no data on active military operations. I havent seen a single thing that warrants classification on the grounds of national security.

I'm pretty sure I already stated I don't think you know what is and what isn't dangerous....

You advocate an environment that is guaranteed to foster large scale corruption.

You will have to explain how secrecy in diplomatic briefings will acomplish that...will I need a decoder ring?

People do improper things when they think nobody is watching, and those things have consequences.

And people do improper things when people are watching....bFd

The misadventures of our own government pose 1000 times the threat to us that any foreign government does, and the way to reign them in is to shine some sunlight on them. Its really no different than how putting cameras up behind tills in casinos is proven to reduce employee theft.

Back to the idiotic drivel....

[Guest TrueMetis]

Right now the inquirie are subject to an inquiry in the UK because it has become clear to all how rediculuously incompetent they were. The only people who believe they were anything other than a whitewash are AGW true believers who don't really care about facts anymore because it is just a religion to them.

Then you should have no problem pointing out an incriminating email from the batch.

(5 bucks says he goes with one of the three that the media used)

Edited November 30, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

Transparency would do WAY more to enhance our security than secrecy does.

So you believe that the identities informants/spies/undercover operators for the government should be made public? Or that the details of government negotiating positions should be revealed while negotiations are going on?

I don't know where the latest batch of correspondence fails on the scale of 'gossip' vs. 'deserves to be secret' but I reject your blanket assertion that all government material should be public.

[TimG]

Then you should have no problem pointing out an incriminating email from the batch.

The most incriminating is where Jones sent an email asking that correspondence be deleted. This was sent shortly after an FOI from David Holland was received by UEA requesting that correspondence and is a clear attempt to subvert the FOI laws.

The problem with the media coverage is they never connected the dots between what the sceptics where publishing at the time and the emails. When one looks at both sources of information the venality and dishonesty of the CRU scientists becames quite clear.

Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

The most incriminating is where Jones sent an email asking that correspondence be deleted. This was sent shortly after an FOI from David Holland was received by UEA requesting that correspondence and is a clear attempt to subvert the FOI laws.

The problem with the media coverage is they never connected the dots between what the sceptics where publishing at the time and the emails. When one looks at both sources of information the venality and dishonesty of the CRU scientists becames quite clear.

The actual email not your summary of the email.

[dre]

So you believe that the identities informants/spies/undercover operators for the government should be made public? Or that the details of government negotiating positions should be revealed while negotiations are going on?

I don't know where the latest batch of correspondence fails on the scale of 'gossip' vs. 'deserves to be secret' but I reject your blanket assertion that all government material should be public.

I think theres a legitimate need for secrecy in some cases... an obvious one being active military or intelligence operations.

But lets face it... theres millions apon millions of documents that are still classified even going back 50 years. Are you suggesting all them pose a threat to national security? Of course not... nobody would suggest that. They keep stuff secret simply because they CAN. They got their foot in the door by invoking national security then pushed the door wide open.

Half the shit the government classifies is just to avoid their own embarassment or protect themselves politically.

Christ... most of the shit in this dump is just diplomats saying saying silly shit and acting unprofessional. If they knew it was going to come to light at some point, maybe theyd be conduct themselves in a professional manner? If they know that there will never be consequences and that nobody is watching, then they definately wont.

informants/spies/undercover operators

Those are things where you can make a legimate case for limited, temporary secrecy. But once those operations draw to a close and those agents are no longer in the field then the information should be released. Those people are on the publics payroll... if we are gonna pay their salaries we should be able to know what they are doing. And our refusal to hold our own government to account is resulting in us getting some really bad governance.

[TimG]

The actual email not your summary of the email.

What is your point? The email itself is incriminating but there remains some wiggle room for apologists in denial. When you compare it with the timeline of FOIs requests received by UEA and one realizes the email was sent shortly after receiving an FOI request the intent of the email become undeniable. Of course, you don't want to put the emails in context. You want to play word games and pretend that there could be some innocent explaination. Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

but yes, lets reveal to the whole world what Saudi Arabia feels should be done about Iran...

If a foreign government is actively pressuring our government to pursue a policy that WE would be expected to pay for, and might harm our OWN national interests then youre GOD DAMNED RIGHT we should know about it.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe you are qualified to judge

Im not. And Im not proposing that I be the one that should make the rules for whats secret and whats not. Im suggesting that theres nowhere near enough rules.

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Those are things where you can make a legimate case for limited, temporary secrecy. But once those operations draw to a close and those agents are no longer in the field then the information should be released.

Ok - I can agree with your position provided there a caveat to protect active operation or informants who's life might be put at risk. My concern about the wikileaks is there was no attempt to filter the release for such information. Edited November 30, 2010 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Hmmmmm. Do you live in a cave without electricty, tv, radio, or the internet?

Because I saw stories about those emails EVERYWHERE.

Good catch. I was thinking that myself. Certain organizations did certainly downplay or even not report it. I think the CBC was one of these.

Although I think that Climategate is a big nothing, I think the CBC would have done well to explain one or two of the salient quotes.

[bloodyminded]

Ok - I can agree with your position provided there a caveat to protect active operation or informants who's life might be put at risk. My concern about the wikileaks is there was no attempt to filter the release for such information.

Yes there was. US officials refused to help redact potentially sensitive portions of the documents.

Edited November 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest TrueMetis]

What is your point? The email itself is incriminating but there remains some wiggle room for apologists in denial. When you compare it with the timeline of FOIs requests received by UEA and one realizes the email was sent shortly after receiving an FOI request the intent of the email become undeniable. Of course, you don't want to put the emails in context. You want to play word games and pretend that there could be some innocent explaination.

I don't have the email to put in context you moron. Your word is not enough for me to assume that this email even exists. Give me the goddamn email or shut up.

[dre]

Ok - I can agree with your position provided there a caveat to protect active operation or informants who's life might be put at risk. My concern about the wikileaks is there was no attempt to filter the release for such information.

I agree thats a concern.

The thing is... Is WIKI LEAKS the problem? Or is the problem that government secrecy is way way way out of control, and they classify way too much stuff for way too long, and then dont take the right steps to secure it.

Would people be better off if Wiki hadnt exposed the fact that US government is a massive leaking sieve, that cant competently secure information? What if something really damaging got out next time?

Blaming wiki is like blaming a reporter that finds a briefcase that some stupid politician left lying around after doing too many shots of whiskey at the bar. Whos fault is it that data got out there? The reporters?

Wheres the outrage that the US government has weaker IT security than an a Denny's restaurant?

Edited November 30, 2010 by dre

[dre]

Yes there was. US officials refused to help redact potentially sensitive portions of the documents.

What? Are you serious?