Wikileaks - will release info in 2011 to the detriment a major US majo

[RB]

What the heck?

WikiLeaks claims next target is "big U.S. bank" - Calgary Herald

Here is some optimism from Forbes

Wikileaks Can’t Wipe Out A Major Bank

"Is there anything that Wikileaks could reveal that would actually bring down a major U.S. bank? Probably not."

Are we in for another government bailout?

[Oleg Bach]

What the heck?

WikiLeaks claims next target is "big U.S. bank" - Calgary Herald

Here is some optimism from Forbes

Wikileaks Can’t Wipe Out A Major Bank

"Is there anything that Wikileaks could reveal that would actually bring down a major U.S. bank? Probably not."

Are we in for another government bailout?

Who knows what type of manipulation this is..or who is really in control of it...I am sure the so-called powers that be - could have easily stopped the Wikileak guy....This is some sort of attempted coup - and no one quite knows who is attempting to take over what..There must be a solid purpose to these events. It can not simply be gossip that irritates supposedly important people. As this stuff leaks out - all that has to be done to counter it is release tons of other contrary garbage...which you will see soon.

[scribblet]

Obviously wiki leaks cares nothing about it's country,they seem to want it's downfall. Why haven't they shut it down, they could.

[dre]

Obviously wiki leaks cares nothing about it's country,they seem to want it's downfall. Why haven't they shut it down, they could.

I think its the people that want to stop information getting OUT that are the problem.

WikiLeaks could perform a major public service here if they become a place where whistle blowers can post information that the public needs to know. If theyres some sketchy stuff going on at some banks or elsewhere in the financial sector its GOOD for people to know about it, not bad.

[Wilber]

I think its the people that want to stop information getting OUT that are the problem.

WikiLeaks could perform a major public service here if they become a place where whistle blowers can post information that the public needs to know. If theyres some sketchy stuff going on at some banks or elsewhere in the financial sector its GOOD for people to know about it, not bad.

Who gets to decide what the public needs to know?

[eyeball]

Who gets to decide what the public needs to know?

Let the market decide. Or here's a thought, how about we let the public decide? It's our domain these secret mongers are peddling their trade in so they should play by our rules not their own.

Edited December 1, 2010 by eyeball

[Wilber]

Let the market decide. Or here's a thought, how about we let the public decide? It's our domain these secret mongers are peddling their trade in so they should play by our rules not their own.

What if the market decides the public shouldn't have known. Oops, too late.

[bloodyminded]

Who gets to decide what the public needs to know?

Well, obviously it can't be the lying, unaccountable political class, including the elitist "we're so fucking wise" diplomatic corps...because we know, without a doubt, that we cannot trust them.

Which is just what conservatives continually point out--usually correctly, by the way--until an actual incident occurs which tests their principles, after which they tend to totally support powerful government and total secrecy.

Mind you, I'm not picking on conservatives. The establishment liberals are indistinguishable in this slack-jawed sycophancy, in this deep bow to the Straussian "principles" of elitism.

Both these liberals and these conservatives (part of the identical political class, and with more converging interests than diverging ones) believe it's fine for them to understand the harsh truths about how things work; but Godzilla forfend that "the public" at large does.

Like Leo Strauss and his neocon acolytes, they think only a limited coterie of educated intellectuals can bear staring into the abyss of international politics.

Everyone else is supposed to believe in the myths, all the while Praising God, buying Goods, and supporting the Troops.

In the case of this current debate, they're more open and forthright about their elitism than is usual.

And so, interestingly, is the major news media. They have chosen to stand firm with the government against public access to information.

Why? Because the news media--yes, even the so-called "leftist" news media--are almost totally ensconced within the the political class. They depend on them for sourcing and information, so rather than investigate the government....they will get outraged anytime someone "goes too far" (ie outside their own mainstream news channels).

Edited December 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

Well, obviously it can't be the lying, unaccountable political class, including the elitist "we're so fucking wise" diplomatic corps...because we know, without a doubt, that we cannot trust them.

Rest of your rant aside, who then?

[scribblet]

Wikileaks isn't doing anyone any favours, gov't and diplomats all have a reasonable expectation of privacy, there are some issues that don't need to be made public. How attempting to destroy diplomatic relations between countries is a public service or some kind of 'whistle blowing' is beyond me, wikileaks has crossed the line, big time.

Considering Assange is a stateless person these days, any gov't could and should bring down his site, or deliver a wicked virus. I consider his actions treasonous although I don't know who would try him for that.

[bloodyminded]

Wikileaks isn't doing anyone any favours, gov't and diplomats all have a reasonable expectation of privacy, there are some issues that don't need to be made public.

I agree. And there's some issues that should be made public: for example, do US officials have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their plans to spy on UN allies, in contravention of what diplomats are supposed to do?

Obviously, the veil of secrecy is so broad and automatic that we can't trust the officials. So how is that to be remedied?

Considering Assange is a stateless person these days, any gov't could and should bring down his site, or deliver a wicked virus. I consider his actions treasonous although I don't know who would try him for that.

"Treasonous" against the United States?

A non-American is "treasonous" towards the United States?

And you wouldn't consider this an openly Imperialist (not to mention obedient) perspective?

[Topaz]

I wished he had NEW information on 9/11 and so far from I've read this is more to do with the Obama and nothing for GW Bush. He could have dug more on the US when Bush was President.

[scribblet]

Nope, and as I said I don't know who would prosecute as he is stateless at this time. There definitely is an expectation of privacy, we all expect it in many conversations we might have. What if doctor's conversations about patients were published, is that okay - don't think so. The Washington Post has quoted sources saying that Assange and others involved could be charged under the US's Espionage Act.

The only purpose of wiki leaks is damage and embarrass the U.S. there is no altruistic purpose here and even other journalists want WikiLeaks excluded from possible protection under the Shield bill as the sole or primary purpose is to publish unauthorized disclosures of documents ...

[eyeball]

What if the market decides the public shouldn't have known. Oops, too late.

Am I to believe you're voluntarily and dutifully closing your eyes sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la whenever a leak is being reported or revealed within your presence?

[bloodyminded]

there is no altruistic purpose here and even other journalists want WikiLeaks excluded from possible protection under the Shield bill as the sole or primary purpose is to publish unauthorized disclosures of documents ...

Of course mainstream journalists--elsewhere amusingly referred to as "leftist" or "too combative"--are decrying wikileaks. They are closely aligned with the elite political class, and depend on them for sourcing and information. They're stenographers of power.

Edited December 1, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

Am I to believe you're voluntarily and dutifully closing your eyes sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la la la whenever a leak is being reported or revealed within your presence?

Course not. That isn't the point. If you inadvertently see someone enter their pin number into an ATM or at a cash register does that make you a bad person? I wouldn't think so but what about repeating that number to everyone in sight?

The last three minutes of this CLIP with Aasif Mandvi is quite relevant to this discussion.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Wilber

[eyeball]

The last three minutes of this CLIP with Aasif Mandvi is quite relevant to this discussion.

How? If anything he seems to have captured a sense of the government's point of view that it should know everything about...everything. I doubt however that it would as Mandvi suggests leave its own fly down for our inspection.

[Wilber]

How? If anything he seems to have captured a sense of the government's point of view that it should know everything about...everything. I doubt however that it would as Mandvi suggests leave its own fly down for our inspection.

Seems to me that is exactly what you are advocating. As far as the government knowing everything is concerned there is a Privacy Act that spells out what and under what conditions it can share your information, including between its own departments. If you think a government should share everything it knows and does with the public, do you also think that should include what it knows about you?

[GostHacked]

Obviously wiki leaks cares nothing about it's country,they seem to want it's downfall. Why haven't they shut it down, they could.

Assange and Wikileaks are both not American.

And for websites getting shut down, that may happen because of the rash of sites the US officials have taken down over the past week or so.

[eyeball]

Seems to me that is exactly what you are advocating. As far as the government knowing everything is concerned there is a Privacy Act that spells out what and under what conditions it can share your information, including between its own departments. If you think a government should share everything it knows and does with the public, do you also think that should include what it knows about you?

Of course not. We should have it both ways not the state. We should know everything the government does in the public's name and domain. It's our domain we're talking about, the state doesn't have one in the same sense. What we need is a Secrecy Act that above all else, spells out the difference between individual privacy and state secrecy.

As I've said before Orwell's Telescreens should be pointing the other way. We should know as much as can be known about who and how and when where why and what our government does in the public's name. As far as knowing what our officials personal feelings and attitudes towards public officials in other countries are, those officials are as fair game as ours and we should be as privy to these observations as anyone.

To me this is a clash of world views and values between those who govern and those who are governed. The only question that matters is are you with them or with us?

[Wilber]

As I've said before Orwell's Telescreens should be pointing the other way. We should know as much as can be known about who and how and when where why and what our government does in the public's name. As far as knowing what our officials personal feelings and attitudes towards public officials in other countries are, those officials are as fair game as ours and we should be as privy to these observations as anyone.

Nonsense, do you tell everyone you encounter or do business with exactly what you think of them?

[dre]

Who gets to decide what the public needs to know?

Well we know it cant be the government because its impossible to police them... if we cant see the data that they classify then its clearly impossible for us to catch them classifying stuff they shouldnt.

I think the answer is to treat all government communications and documents as public accept where the release of those documents would violate a citizens rights (medical records, etc). The government would be obligated to manage their OWN site similar to wiki leaks and do their own data dumps, and they would have a certain ammount of time to get documents online. Maybe 3-6 months.

That leaves legitimate needs for secrecy such as ongoing military operations or troop movements. I dont see any other way to deal with those than through some third party... perhaps a special judicial body. If the government wants to keep some our information secret from us, then they could petition this panel for a "secrecy license" that would give them the right to keep the information from the public, and if they made a compelling case they would get one. But the license would have to expire once the license was no longer relevant (intelligence operation is over, or wars over etc) and the information would have to be released.

Edited December 2, 2010 by dre

[Shakeyhands]

Obviously wiki leaks cares nothing about it's country,they seem to want it's downfall. Why haven't they shut it down, they could.

If a "bank" is up to something nefarious, wouldn't you want to know about it and have something done?

[Wilber]

Well we know it cant be the government because its impossible to police them... if we cant see the data that they classify then its clearly impossible for us to catch them classifying stuff they shouldnt.

I think the answer is to treat all government communications and documents as public accept where the release of those documents would violate a citizens rights (medical records, etc). The government would be obligated to manage their OWN site similar to wiki leaks and do their own data dumps, and they would have a certain ammount of time to get documents online. Maybe 3-6 months.

That leaves legitimate needs for secrecy such as ongoing military operations or troop movements. I dont see any other way to deal with those than through some third party... perhaps a special judicial body. If the government wants to keep some our information secret from us, then they could petition this panel for a "secrecy license" that would give them the right to keep the information from the public, and if they made a compelling case they would get one. But the license would have to expire once the license was no longer relevant (intelligence operation is over, or wars over etc) and the information would have to be released.

No company, military or individual could function under such a system, why do you think a government could?

Edited December 2, 2010 by Wilber

[dre]

No company, military or individual could function under such a system, why do you think a government could?

Almost every private sector company functions under such a system.

My employer can read my emails, look at my web browsing habits, read my instant messages, and if they want to they can sit in when I meet with third parties. If they answer questions I answer them. If my boss came and asked me an operational question and I told him "thats classified" first hed laugh because hed think it was a joke. Second time I said it Id get a warning, and if I still persisted in refusing to answer the question Id be fired.

They pay my salary so they get to know what I do. Its a simple concept.

It seems radical to you... that the government would have to obtain a secrecy license. But If you lived in a country where the government ran roughshod over people the concept of arrest and search warrants would seem just as radical.

Edited December 2, 2010 by dre