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

[bloodyminded]

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

But no one is suggesting that some things shouldn't be secret.

Temporarily secret, that is.

Dre, to whom you were responding, clearly conceded that there are sensitive matters that need to be kept (temporarily) secret.

The point is, there is way too much secrecy. Even those who believe the poor widdle victimized US government is under attack from the terrorist mastermind Assange are admitting that there is too much secrecy. It's well understood. It's a consensus view.

The majority of government secrets exist to save the government from embarrassment and controversy.

The people who are defending this practice are servile; obedient to power.

In fact, I can't remember ever seeing so much power-worship, especially as expressed through media sources. It's quite the phenomenon.

[RB]

But no one is suggesting that some things shouldn't be secret.

Temporarily secret, that is.

Dre, to whom you were responding, clearly conceded that there are sensitive matters that need to be kept (temporarily) secret.

The point is, there is way too much secrecy. Even those who believe the poor widdle victimized US government is under attack from the terrorist mastermind Assange are admitting that there is too much secrecy. It's well understood. It's a consensus view.

The majority of government secrets exist to save the government from embarrassment and controversy.

The people who are defending this practice are servile; obedient to power.

In fact, I can't remember ever seeing so much power-worship, especially as expressed through media sources. It's quite the phenomenon.

[RB]

Fed ID's Companies That Used Crisis Aid ProgramsPrinted in The Street from the Associated Press as it were the government released some info before it really leak

[eyeball]

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

In addition to the paper and digital audit trail I leave behind I also have cameras aimed at me all day and if needs be there's even an allowance for a human observer to monitor my activities.

The government won't let me go to work under any other conditions. I don't have a criminal record, I've never been charged with a crime but people don't trust me and there's too much at stake to not monitor me so that's just the way it is. You learn to live with it or you find another job if you don't like the terms of employment.

Companies and individuals function every day under such a system. There's no reason why a government can't too.

[Wilber]

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.

All internal stuff. Do they make all that information public as well as all their other dealings and business? Do you think the military should have to ask a judge every time they want to conduct an operation and have to rely on his zero knowledge of what they do in order to maintain their security in order to do their job. Courts are qualified to interpret the law, not conduct military operations.

We don't live in a perfect world. Some things have to be kept confidential and sometimes that confidentiality will be abused. Happens all the time in peoples personal lives. Hopefully the most serious abuses will come to light and be dealt with appropriately.

[Wilber]

In addition to the paper and digital audit trail I leave behind I also have cameras aimed at me all day and if needs be there's even an allowance for a human observer to monitor my activities.

The government won't let me go to work under any other conditions. I don't have a criminal record, I've never been charged with a crime but people don't trust me and there's too much at stake to not monitor me so that's just the way it is. You learn to live with it or you find another job if you don't like the terms of employment.

Companies and individuals function every day under such a system. There's no reason why a government can't too.

Perhaps they don't trust you not to leak all their business to Wikileaks.

[eyeball]

Perhaps they don't trust you not to leak all their business to Wikileaks.

No they simply don't trust me and so we've had to come up with a system that works.

People keep doing every day what you keep saying can't be done. How do you explain that?

[bloodyminded]

No they simply don't trust me and so we've had to come up with a system that works.

People keep doing every day what you keep saying can't be done. How do you explain that?

Simple. When I worked the overnight shift at Walmart (a delightful occupation, as I'm sure you can imagine), I had my bag checked in the morning to make sure I wasn't stealing from the corporation.

When I mentioned this, here on this board, merely as illustrative that I considered it an affront to dignity, most people here stated that they had no problem with it. They were fine with it. The company, it seemed "had no choice" (an odd assertion for the "personal responsibility" crowd...sudden fatalists when convenient).

But it's when powerful people are held up to scrutiny that the Defenders of the Faith get their undies knotted in outrage. This defensiveness--deeply rooted in doctrinal obedience--is reflexive.

And it's not they always hate it; if they dislike or politically disagree with this or that leader or entity, they're happy about it, even.

It's when the power structure itself is rebelled against...that's when the inherent sycophancy springs forth to defend the poor, powerful little victims from the crime of accountability.

Edited December 2, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Wilber]

No they simply don't trust me and so we've had to come up with a system that works.

People keep doing every day what you keep saying can't be done. How do you explain that?

I'll explain it simply. You make the point that if one doesn't like the conditions they can find another job. International relations and diplomacy are conducted according to world customs and norms, not rules made by one country. Every country plays by those rules. If you are unable to play by those rules you had better find another world to be a country in.

I can't believe you guys would be so naive as to believe that our government should have all its processes and correspondence out in the open when trying to deal with countries who wouldn't dream of being that stupid, all the while laughing their asses off at us being such idiots.

[dre]

All internal stuff. Do they make all that information public as well as all their other dealings and business? Do you think the military should have to ask a judge every time they want to conduct an operation and have to rely on his zero knowledge of what they do in order to maintain their security in order to do their job. Courts are qualified to interpret the law, not conduct military operations.

We don't live in a perfect world. Some things have to be kept confidential and sometimes that confidentiality will be abused. Happens all the time in peoples personal lives. Hopefully the most serious abuses will come to light and be dealt with appropriately.

All internal stuff. Do they make all that information public as well as all their other dealings and business?

Of course not. Its a private company and the public doesnt pay the salaries. The contract I alluded to is between the payer and payee, and the concept is literally thousands of years old.

Do you think the military should have to ask a judge every time they want to conduct an operation and have to rely on his zero knowledge of what they do in order to maintain their security in order to do their job.

Yeah actually seems quite reasonable to me, and really not that hard. And the judge is there to be an expert on military operations. Hes there to be an expert on secrecy laws. You could make that same argument about search warrants. And it would almost never be necessary anyways because they have that 6 month window anyways before anything has to be released.

We don't live in a perfect world. Some things have to be kept confidential and sometimes that confidentiality will be abused. Happens all the time in peoples personal lives. Hopefully the most serious abuses will come to light and be dealt with appropriately.

I dont expect perfection, but right now probably 95% of the secrecy is abuse. You can see it in the dumps that have been released so far... Hundreds of thousands of documents that have very little in the way of sensitive information that might damage an ongoing intiative. Most of them are just documents about the government operates.

[Wilber]

Of course not. Its a private company and the public doesnt pay the salaries. The contract I alluded to is between the payer and payee, and the concept is literally thousands of years old.

Of course the public pays the salaries, how does your company stay in business. I own shares in quite a few companies and I would sure be pissed if they were continually hanging their washing out on the line to be inspected by competitors.

Yeah actually seems quite reasonable to me, and really not that hard. And the judge is there to be an expert on military operations. Hes there to be an expert on secrecy laws. You could make that same argument about search warrants. And it would almost never be necessary anyways because they have that 6 month window anyways before anything has to be released.

Warfare is not the same as excercising a search warrant. Of course he'll be personally responsible if a bad decision of his gets people killed, just like you want all other civil servants to be.

I dont expect perfection, but right now probably 95% of the secrecy is abuse. You can see it in the dumps that have been released so far... Hundreds of thousands of documents that have very little in the way of sensitive information that might damage an ongoing intiative. Most of them are just documents about the government operates.

Your ill informed opinion. How would you like it if some stranger took a random sample of your office communications and from them decided they knew all about how to do your job and whether you should have one?

[dre]

I'll explain it simply. You make the point that if one doesn't like the conditions they can find another job. International relations and diplomacy are conducted according to world customs and norms, not rules made by one country. Every country plays by those rules. If you are unable to play by those rules you had better find another world to be a country in.

I can't believe you guys would be so naive as to believe that our government should have all its processes and correspondence out in the open when trying to deal with countries who wouldn't dream of being that stupid, all the while laughing their asses off at us being such idiots.

I can't believe you guys would be so naive as to believe that our government should have all its processes and correspondence out in the open when trying to deal with countries who wouldn't dream of being that stupid, all the while laughing their asses off at us being such idiots.

Thats funny because I dont see the people in authoritarian states laughing at people in more open and transparent governments, I see them trying flee to places with more open governments, because the most open and transparent governments are by far the most effective and produce the most desirable results for the people they represent.

International relations and diplomacy are conducted according to world customs and norms, not rules made by one country. Every country plays by those rules.

That system is bankrupting us. Its NEVER worked very well, for the exact reasons being discussed here. And it doesnt promote our security either, it does the opposite. In fact most of our security issues are rooted in the fact the system works like it does.

[Wilber]

Thats funny because I dont see the people in authoritarian states laughing at people in more open and transparent governments, I see them trying flee to places with more open governments, because the most open and transparent governments are by far the most effective and produce the most desirable results for the people they represent.

I'm not talking about authoritarian states in particular. Show me any goverment that makes it's diplomat's internal correspondence public.

That system is bankrupting us. Its NEVER worked very well, for the exact reasons being discussed here. And it doesnt promote our security either, it does the opposite. In fact most of our security issues are rooted in the fact the system works like it does.

It's the system the world has and little old Canada isn't going to change it by making a fool of itself.

[dre]

Of course the public pays the salaries, how does your company stay in business. I own shares in quite a few companies and I would sure be pissed if they were continually hanging their washing out on the line to be inspected by competitors.

Warfare is not the same as excercising a search warrant. Of course he'll be personally responsible if a bad decision of his gets people killed, just like you want all other civil servants to be.

Your ill informed opinion. How would you like it if some stranger took a random sample of your office communications and from them decided they knew all about how to do your job and whether you should have one?

We arent talking about strangers were talking about the people paying your salary. The people that civil servants are servants of. My boss is welcome to my office communications.

If you insist on government not being accountable to the voters dont be suprised when you keep getting shitty government. Again look at Iraq. Thats what happens when we allow bearocrats to make decisions in secret based on secret evidence. We find out later that there never WAS any evidence... OOPS! 3 trillion dollars wasted and hundreds of thousands of people dead. Thats what your precious system results in.

And stop acting like the desire for open government is some kind of radical concept, its not. Really the problems I mentioned were the exact same problems that the freedom of information act was supposed to solve. It gives people access to the exact kind of documents that youre saying they should not have. It even works in basically the same way I described... theres rules for what can be kept from people, and for how long. Did you jump up and down screaming about THAT intrusion into "government privacy" as well? The only problem is that it doesnt go far enough, and its too slow. It needs to exponentially strengthened.

[dre]

I'm not talking about authoritarian states in particular. Show me any goverment that makes it's diplomat's internal correspondence public.

It's the system the world has and little old Canada isn't going to change it by making a fool of itself.

We dont have to change the world. All Im suggesting is that the voters have a better idea of what the government is doing so we can have a real democracy.

BTW... The pragmatic arguments youre making about why the government needs to hide the truth from people are almost word for word the same as the justifications given by authoritarian governments.

[Wilber]

We arent talking about strangers were talking about the people paying your salary. The people that civil servants are servants of. My boss is welcome to my office communications.

It's not just the bosses of our government as you call them who get this information, it's every freaking person on the planet. When is that going to sink in?

[Bonam]

If you insist on government not being accountable to the voters dont be suprised when you keep getting shitty government. Again look at Iraq. Thats what happens when we allow bearocrats to make decisions in secret based on secret evidence. We find out later that there never WAS any evidence... OOPS! 3 trillion dollars wasted and hundreds of thousands of people dead. Thats what your precious system results in.

Bad example. Even if governments classified only what really needs to be classified, as you propose, we still wouldn't have seen that evidence. Details of contemporary intelligence on the weapon development of other nations are precisely the kind of information that really should be classified, otherwise it compromises our sources as well as letting the other nation know how much we know.

[eyeball]

I'll explain it simply. You make the point that if one doesn't like the conditions they can find another job. International relations and diplomacy are conducted according to world customs and norms, not rules made by one country. Every country plays by those rules. If you are unable to play by those rules you had better find another world to be a country in.

I can't believe you guys would be so naive as to believe that our government should have all its processes and correspondence out in the open when trying to deal with countries who wouldn't dream of being that stupid, all the while laughing their asses off at us being such idiots.

I wouldn't deal with countries unless they applied the same standards. I'd start a race to the top and count on citizens of other countries to look at our government and start demanding their's clean up their acts too. Well, at least I would have counted on that but given how many people appear to be more willing to concede our rulers there olde right of Kings in the wake of Wikileaks...I only wish I could find another world to live on, I'd be out of here on the next starship if I could.

[Wilber]

I wouldn't deal with countries unless they applied the same standards. I'd start a race to the top and count on citizens of other countries to look at our government and start demanding their's clean up their acts too. Well, at least I would have counted on that but given how many people appear to be more willing to concede our rulers there olde right of Kings in the wake of Wikileaks...I only wish I could find another world to live on, I'd be out of here on the next starship if I could.

Good luck with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I only wish I could find another world to live on, I'd be out of here on the next starship if I could.

But alas, don't you know who builds and operates the starships?

[Oleg Bach]

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

I heard that Jullian the arch angel is about to release another vile of plague for the wicked to consume--bank accounts- hidden ones where our respectable crooks have stored the lucre they have stolen from every human being on earth..this should be a good one---no where is the pop corn?

[sharkman]

The wikileaks twit is becoming a major problem, and should have been dealt with after the previous release of data last summer. Now with the present leak they are finally looking to arrest him? In the old days someone in the CIA would have been directed to 'take care' of the problem and that would have been that. Anyone who ends lives with his little game deserves to die too. I'm really disappointed with Obama's response, but not surprised.

Here's a little tidbit for you. The NY times, when faced with the opportunity to print the data that showed Global warming scientists had lied, manipulated data and facts, chose not to print it because they said it had been gotten illegally. So far, fine for them to have standards. But now when faced with this illegally gotten data, they do not hesitate to print it. This hypocritical double standard is why mainstream America is tuning out such media. They simply can not be trusted to be fair and objective with the news. Bernie Goldberg presented this bit on the NY Times earlier this week.

[guyser]

The wikileaks twit is becoming a major problem,

Yes, exposing the BS is embarassing.

Security...what security, dont need no stinking security.

[bloodyminded]

Here's a little tidbit for you. The NY times, when faced with the opportunity to print the data that showed Global warming scientists had lied, manipulated data and facts, chose not to print it because they said it had been gotten illegally. So far, fine for them to have standards. But now when faced with this illegally gotten data, they do not hesitate to print it. This hypocritical double standard is why mainstream America is tuning out such media. They simply can not be trusted to be fair and objective with the news. Bernie Goldberg presented this bit on the NY Times earlier this week.

Wow...so you and Bernie Goldberg don't even uderstand the basic facts.

What really happened? The NYTimes went to the US government, hat in hand, asked their masters what they were allowed to publish, and then followed orders accordingly.

In other words, they fulfilled their stenographic role to perfection, exactly as you want them to do.

Why you believe the literal opposite of the truth is a mystery.