Wikileaks and the US State Department

[bush_cheney2004]

If you actually read any of the wikileaks threads you would know what I support and what I dont. Im not going to explain it for a tenth time because youre too lazy to read the threads you post in.

I will assume this is a back pedal...and that's OK.

[bush_cheney2004]

Speaking for myself I would only support the release of private data of politicians or bureaucrats who try to exploit other people's private data.

Not that easy...I am challenging the high minded folk who champion "free speech rights" or make comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg. Does such bravery evaporate when the data that is compromised just happens to be your own?

By the same token bloodyminded flipped at Pliny, if there is any evidence that Wikileaks has released private data of the sort you've mentioned you should produce it.

I am discussing the larger point of data privacy, regardless of the source for the leak. Twisted pretzel logic will follow in 3...2...1....seconds.

[GostHacked]

Oh great...then you no doubt support total transparency, including exposing private data like tax records, medical conditions, offenses by minors, sexual assault victim identification, driving records, insurance claims, adoption proceedings, abortions, etc., etc.

In this day and age, all those databases are indexed and connected to each other. The more things become connected the bigger risk of this data exposed to the public through some hackery.

Your data is not as private as you think.

[bush_cheney2004]

In this day and age, all those databases are indexed and connected to each other. The more things become connected the bigger risk of this data exposed to the public through some hackery.

Your data is not as private as you think.

Correct...but why is such data at "risk"....that implies some expectation of privacy, no? To hell with that says Wikileaks and its ilk....the TRUTH outweighs any such considerations!

[bloodyminded]

Correct...but why is such data at "risk"....that implies some expectation of privacy, no? To hell with that says Wikileaks and its ilk....the TRUTH outweighs any such considerations!

What "private data" has been exposed by wikileaks?

[dre]

I will assume this is a back pedal...and that's OK.

No its not a back pedal at all. Im just explaining to you that Iv already weighed in numerous times on when I think government secrecy is acceptable and when it isnt.

The point being you dont need invent an opinion out of thin air, and attribute it to me, because Iv already posted mine a few times.

This really comes down to what you fundamentally think government is. Is it our master? Or our servant.

If its our master, then it can keep whatever secrets it wants, and tell us only what they want us to hear. If its our servant it has to have strict rules on what public information can be kept from the public, and checks and balances to make sure they dont break those rules.

Thats the fundamental difference between those that are outraged that wikileaks would dare challenge government suprmemecy, and the people that are glad that somebody is finally doing the job the western media USED to do, but has long stopped doing.

[Pliny]

Even IF the release of information HAS cost people their lives (and I have seen no evidence of this yet)... How many lives have been lost because of governments abuse of secrecy. My guess is its in the millions.

True. My reason for demanding limited government.

In this case thats correct. But this is only one of many dumps by wiki leaks. Theyve dumped documents showing the Chinese government launched a cyber attack on google, they dumped documents on the Japanese covering up the severity of nuclear reactor leaks, theyve dumped documents showing the UK government tried to hide illegal toxic waste dumping from their own citizens, documents on Myanmar, and many other items.

This is the exact kind of media I have always wanted... The ability to view raw uncensored data myself and form my own opinion of what it means, as opposed to other media in the west which is pretty much only good if you want editorializing and celebrity fluff pieces.

It's a bit seditious but with big government it's the only way you will get the raw uncensored data.

[dre]

Correct...but why is such data at "risk"....that implies some expectation of privacy, no? To hell with that says Wikileaks and its ilk....the TRUTH outweighs any such considerations!

Correct...but why is such data at "risk"....

The data is at risk, because the government has flagrantly abused its right to secrecy for so long that the body of secret data is too huge, and so many people need access to it, that it can never ben properly secured.

Government did this to itself.

Lets not forget... that before wikileaks EVER entered the picture, a US government employee had stolen a huge volume of data he probably never should have had access to in the first place, and was looking for media outlets to send it to. If wikileaks wasnt there there were thousands of other media outlets that the leaker could sent the information to.

Which underscores the sheer irony of this situation... the idiotic moral outrage against Assange, who was nothing more than a middle man. He isnt even the one that made the information public. He recieved documents from a leaker, and gave those documents to a few media outlets... those outlets then released the information. Where the outrage against the US government for having crappier security than a Dennys restaurant? Where the outrage against the media outlets that actually published the information?

[bush_cheney2004]

No its not a back pedal at all. Im just explaining to you that Iv already weighed in numerous times on when I think government secrecy is acceptable and when it isnt.

The point being you dont need invent an opinion out of thin air, and attribute it to me, because Iv already posted mine a few times.

Your opinion waffles when confronted by real world possibilities.

This really comes down to what you fundamentally think government is. Is it our master? Or our servant.

No...I am challenging the notion of placing equal or more faith in the likes of "WikiLeaks".

Thats the fundamental difference between those that are outraged that wikileaks would dare challenge government suprmemecy, and the people that are glad that somebody is finally doing the job the western media USED to do, but has long stopped doing.

That's all well and good...then why are you balking at the prospect of data privacy (legislated by big bad government) being similarly compromised by WikiLeaks?

[bloodyminded]

The data is at risk, because the government has flagrantly abused its right to secrecy for so long that the body of secret data is too huge, and so many people need access to it, that it can never ben properly secured.

Government did this to itself.

Lets not forget... that before wikileaks EVER entered the picture, a US government employee had stolen a huge volume of data he probably never should have had access to in the first place, and was looking for media outlets to send it to. If wikileaks wasnt there there were thousands of other media outlets that the leaker could sent the information to.

Which underscores the sheer irony of this situation... the idiotic moral outrage against Assange, who was nothing more than a middle man. He isnt even the one that made the information public. He recieved documents from a leaker, and gave those documents to a few media outlets... those outlets then released the information. Where the outrage against the US government for having crappier security than a Dennys restaurant? Where the outrage against the media outlets that actually published the information?

Because the media have made the proper duck-and-cover sycophantic notions (and excoriated Assange quite brutally even as they profited from the leaks)....people are willing to give them a pass.

At any rate, most of this information is of the very low classification type...the sort that could already be seen, legally, by hundreds of thousands of Americans (sometimes more).

In such a situation, leaks are inevitable.

Just to underline further what you've already said.

Edited December 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Correct...but why is such data at "risk"....that implies some expectation of privacy, no? To hell with that says Wikileaks and its ilk....the TRUTH outweighs any such considerations!

Because of the way networks get more integrated with each other. That has been happening across the board in all areas of life. City networks and administration are connected to the state and federal levels. Hospitals have connected to each other and common databases are created to make it easier for doctors to access the information. You live in Maine, but you are in California and you need to go to the hospital, the doctor puts in your ID and then has all your medical history.

All the eggs in one basket kind of thing. It's more efficient yes, but more open to abuse.

I'd rather deal with the real truth than the sanitized information we currently get.

Another way to look at this is, the government wants us to be as open as we can, The cameras are all focuses on us and everything we do. We as citizens no longer have any privacy at all. So when we want to keep government open and honest it is met with fierce resistance. Why is that? Good question.

Citizens used to have privacy and government was more open. This is now reversed. Government has all the privacy and we have none.

[Pliny]

The fallout from the Wikileaks docs will manifest itself in a way that may not be obvious to some.

It is a precursor to clamping down on information online, how it flows, and how it is controlled.

I think this will be one of the negative results of this, that and even bigger government.

[bush_cheney2004]

All the eggs in one basket kind of thing. It's more efficient yes, but more open to abuse.

You are conflating different things. I think we agree that:

1) More data (public and private) is collected, processed, and made available by government and private industry

2) Data privacy is often voluntarily compromised by disclosure for credit and consumption

3) The legal expectation of data privacy is (ironically) legislated by government

[GostHacked]

I think this will be one of the negative results of this, that and even bigger government.

Funny how that works eh?

Wonder why Assange is not in custody for holding classified documents?

Wonder why websites are getting shut down (for various means copy write infringement ect ect, questionable material)?

Wonder why you have open citizens and closed government?

Questions I have.

[dre]

Your opinion waffles when confronted by real world possibilities.

No...I am challenging the notion of placing equal or more faith in the likes of "WikiLeaks".

That's all well and good...then why are you balking at the prospect of data privacy (legislated by big bad government) being similarly compromised by WikiLeaks?

Your opinion waffles when confronted by real world possibilities

No it doesnt. Iv already dealth with all the things you mentioned. People have a limited right to secrecy, and third parties such as a government or medical clinic have to safeguard that legal right. Governments right to secrecy should be much more limited.

No...I am challenging the notion of placing equal or more faith in the likes of "WikiLeaks".

Wikileaks is completely and utterly irrelevant here. This information was leaked by a US government employee. This information is the result of a whistleblower, just like the pentagon papers was.

All wikileaks is, is a bank of servers with a secure meants to anonomously upload information. When information is uploaded, its give to media outlets who then decide what they can/should do with it. End of story.

[bloodyminded]

I think this will be one of the negative results of this, that and even bigger government.

Perhaps...when citizens push, the government might push back harder. The trick is to re-react, quick and hard.

[bush_cheney2004]

...All wikileaks is, is a bank of servers with a secure meants to anonomously upload information. When information is uploaded, its give to media outlets who then decide what they can/should do with it. End of story.

Logically then, you would support a WikiLeaks event for any private data that was compromised by somebody else. WikiLeaks would not be culpable in any way?

[dre]

I think this will be one of the negative results of this, that and even bigger government.

Well, I see the risk there, but really I think the ability to withhold information from the public is one of the reasons government got so big in the first place.

Government: "We need a large new department for this..."

Public: "Why?"

Government: "Never mind!"

Government: "We need to start another war and spend another trillion dollars on more government soldiers and hardware".

Public: "Why?"

Government: "Sorry cant tell ya".

In fact I would submit that a transparent government never would have gotten this big and powerfull in the first place. The concepts of "limited government" and "closed government" are totally incompatible because to insure government is "limited" you have to know whats its doing.

[bloodyminded]

In fact I would submit that a transparent government never would have gotten this big and powerfull in the first place. The concepts of "limited government" and "closed government" are totally incompatible because to insure government is "limited" you have to know whats its doing.

Very true!

[GostHacked]

You are conflating different things. I think we agree that:

1) More data (public and private) is collected, processed, and made available by government and private industry

Agreed, it has been a trend since the Internet was being used and utilized more by private corporations. Big backers of this are IBM, Microsoft, AT&T (with help from the NSA)

2) Data privacy is often voluntarily compromised by disclosure for credit and consumption

Get your online quote right now! Punch in all your details and your credit report will be displayed or emailed to you!

Protip : Do not put sensitive information online, try not to access your private information online.

I had a few calls from VISA saying they have a new program to check private data online to see if your personal/banking information has come up in fraud cases. They wanted to use my private information online to see if people are defrauding me. Right there it is open for abuse. What sites are they using my information in? And of course the more you look you will eventually find something. I told them that this is not a good service and the more they use my information to search online, the more insecure my data and my privacy becomes.

Kind of like how Google works, the most searched items for a topic are usually at the top. If everyone searches for my information online, then guess what, it is indexed as a popular search and will be in the top results when searched.

3) The legal expectation of data privacy is (ironically) legislated by government

Just like the health care bill in the US (and most likely Canada as well) were written by the insurance companies. Government creates a problem that they will give you a solution for down the road.

[GostHacked]

Logically then, you would support a WikiLeaks event for any private data that was compromised by somebody else. WikiLeaks would not be culpable in any way?

I don't support that kind of thing for private data. However the government works for the people, and if they are hiding shady stuff that can have major consequences,(like the information leading up to the Iraq war) then the people need to know.

The government told us they want to be more open and transparent and accessible to the public. What we see is the complete opposite.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Just like the health care bill in the US (and most likely Canada as well) were written by the insurance companies. Government creates a problem that they will give you a solution for down the road.

I don't know what federal/provincial data privacy measures exist in Canada, but the US adopted standards and severe penalties for improper disclosure under HIPAA legislation. This includes dental records.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't support that kind of thing for private data. However the government works for the people, and if they are hiding shady stuff that can have major consequences,(like the information leading up to the Iraq war) then the people need to know.

This standard would have been a real problem during WW2 as well. The US and UK wanted to overthrow Saddam no matter what and said so in public law.

The government told us they want to be more open and transparent and accessible to the public. What we see is the complete opposite.

Throwing a yellow flag here....the US government didn't promise you anything in Canada.

[dre]

Logically then, you would support a WikiLeaks event for any private data that was compromised by somebody else. WikiLeaks would not be culpable in any way?

I dont think you even understand what wikileaks is and does.

If my government was unable to keep my medical records secure, and they wound up all over the web, I would be angry at the GOVERNMENT who is the party that breached their contract with me.

Which again underscores the irony. All the fake outrage over wikileaks, and not a single person angry at the US government that leaked the information into the public domain in the first place.

Heres an analogy that even you should be able to understand.

I give a briefcase with some secret information to a third party with the promise they will keep it secure and safe. The third party gets pissed drunk then drives away forgetting that he left my breifcase on the roof of his car. It smashes on the road scattering my documents all over the highway. Some kids on the way to school pick up some of these papers and because they find some of the content interesting they circulate them. My secret is now out.

You would be outraged at the schoolkids. Id be outraged at the fuckhead that wasnt careful with my data as promised.

[GostHacked]

I don't know what federal/provincial data privacy measures exist in Canada, but the US adopted standards and severe penalties for improper disclosure under HIPAA legislation. This includes dental records.

That sounds good to me And I am not sure what is in place here in Canada, but I suspect there are flaws in both.

Why have we not complained to the US government/military for having such a leak? It's a precursor to more tight control of information, well control over what you and I as citizens of whatever country we are in. Assange is the fall guy (and not the TV show!!!) Assange will be sacrificed which will lead to a more controlled Internet.