If we were to make decision as voters, don't you think we should have some reliable idea about what the government is doing?
What if the current administration is doing evil something behind the back of the electorate? How would we know about it?
You see, secrecy is a catch-22 proposition. If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know.
The cablegate? Hardly any reason to get angry over. It make the government looks good. But politicians are overreacting.
With the slight twist that if we didn't have all this secrecy going on we might not have engaged in the kind of behavior that made people decide it was worth forfeiting their very lives to strike at us.
With all due respect, the current problems with terrorism have roots that go much deeper than the recent activities of our government(s).
A lot of, if not most of, the current tension in the Middle East dates back to just after WWII, when someone decided it would be a good idea to stick all the people that no one wanted (but wouldn't come right out and say it) in the middle of a bunch of people who were ill-prepared to absorb them (and didn't particularly want them, either).
That pretty much paved the road to our current little slice of Middle Eastern hell.
The conflict with Israel is just a tiny fraction of the issues behind the Middle East problems.
Much more substantial were the efforts of the US government to overthrow moderate regimes for hardlines who would support them, as well the UK's efforts to deliberately screw up the decolonization efforts by drawing up national boundaries with no regards to the inhabitants' will.
It's complex, but it's ridiculously easy to see where things were wrong, and you don't need the hindsight either.
Thanks. Don't leave out France, either, inventors of the dumbest system of government possibly in world history in Lebanon, and the proximate cause of about 30 years of civil war.
We actually have an interesting topic, here - no particular need to start a long, all-consuming thread by throwing out a wildly-oversimplified bit of red meat.
The tension in the middle east dates back to when ug the cavemen decided the sun was god and zog the caveman decided the moon was god.
Take any news report about the middle east and replace the names with cananites, babylonians, persions, egyptians, romans, etc - the story doesn't change.
In fact if you read any books by Josephus - it sounds just like CNN (except better written)
If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know.
Information shall not be considered for classification
unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be
expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to
the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of
this order, and it pertains to one or more of the
following:
(a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;
(b) foreign government information;
(c) intelligence activities (including covert
action), intelligence sources or methods, or
cryptology;
(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the
United States, including confidential sources;
(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters
relating to the national security;
(f) United States Government programs for
safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;
(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems,
installations, infrastructures, projects,
plans, or protection services relating to the
national security; or
(h) the development, production, or use of weapons
of mass destruction.
You can't simply mark your shady activities "TOP SECRET". Not even the president has the authority to do that. That's an improper classification, and is illegal -- anyone who works with classified information should know that, and could be expected to report it.
Between rule of law, a law that outlines which categories of things the government is allowed to keep secret, and the fact that even really secret programs of any significant size have to ultimately be staffed with lots of normal citizens, I think it's actually a pretty safe and sane system.
Chris Hedges said it near the end of his talk on The Death of the Liberal Class at the Sanctuary For Independent Media this Fall[1]. He attributed it to his brother-in-law, if I recall correctly. However, I am sure I've heard it before.
The issue here is not about censorship on the web (ha!), it's about confidential relationships and whether, as a society and for the betterment of it, we feel some information should be confidential and protected.
Would the same arguments be made about censorship if WikiLeaks' instead posted health records, or confidential conversations between attorneys and their clients? (which are confidential and legally protected, similar to security clearances).
The debate should be whether we want to protect communications between our politicians and diplomats, not the inevitable publication of released confidential material and the vilification of the one who does it.
This release does show, however, that once this type of information is on the internet, whether it's medical records, nuclear secrets, or what the Secretary of State said to some diplomat, no one can stop its availability, as long as there are people who support its release.
I don't see how putting a button or a banner on your site is going to stop censorship, that seems to be pretty symbolic.
Saying 'no' to online censorship is not equivalent to some cosmetic changes, it's a fundamental thing to do and in the end of all we do is place some buttons then I doubt that would put a dent in to the plan of those that would have it differently.
Contributing directly to the EFF (I believe VISA and Mastercard are still processing donations to them, possibly even PayPal) would be one way, what other ways are there in which we could make more than just a symbolic stand here ?
There's a great story in Cialdini's "Influence: Science & Practice" about window stickers and lawn signs that explains this common tactic. Website buttons are the thin end of the wedge.
wikileaks.eff.org is not resolving for me. It seems inconsistent for the EFF to talk about standing up to censorship without them hosting a mirror and encouraging others to do so.
I think it's an interesting point. If the EFF is claiming that the work of WikiLeaks is good and valid, then would they encourage someone else to mirror the leaked documents? Would they mirror they documents themselves? If not, then why not? I'd be curious to know the reasoning here.
Only because something is good and valid does not mean that you automatically need to directly support it.
I think that Wikileaks is a good thing, but I can't (won't) run a mirror because right now I'm not going to risk the legal consequences (and because I think that Freenet and Tor are better ways to host such data than HTTP).
In addition, running a mirror is not the only way how you can help Wikileaks: Donate money, run Tor nodes (even if they aren't outproxies), etc.
Sure. I wouldn't necessarily expect the EFF to take on the action of mirroring WikiLeaks, but would they view mirroring it as a good action to take, if one were so inclined to directly take action?
Strange. The first time I tried I got a 404, and clicking the Mirrors link from the home page gave me mirrors.html. I wonder if a few of the servers behind wikileaks.ch don't have the /mirrors alias.
That's because the EFF exists to promote free speech, not WikiLeaks. Hosting WikiLeaks would do nothing to further their goals, and in fact would probably significantly undermine their cause.
If I have sensitive (and confidential) health records about my family members and someone steals them and posts them on the web, is that freedom of speech? Do I have the right to get them taken down, or in this case shut the website down?
If my company is working on a new product containing details we consider secret, is it OK to post those on the web?
If the gov't has secrets that could compromise our national security, is that Ok to post on the web?
Are the health records for your family members paid out of taxpayer's money? Do they have a negative impact on the lives of anyone outside your family?
Is your new product paid out of taxpayer's money?
Will it do a lot of harm to people?
putting national security at risk is a different story
"national security" is a vague concept; and either way security by obscurity doesn't work for terrorist groups with the right resources.
If "national security" is compromised from the leaks of a couple of documents to the public, than the nation wasn't so secure in the first place. After all, if Wikileaks got a hold of those documents, how hard do you think it is for somebody with a couple of millions in cash and the right connections to do it?
Is there any good that comes out of putting sensitive and classified documents that are meant to protect our citizens (if kept confidential) on the web? Let's assume that the strategy or communication didn't mention any illegal activity or corruption from within our gov't within these documents?
What if the current administration is doing evil something behind the back of the electorate? How would we know about it?
You see, secrecy is a catch-22 proposition. If you're trying to do actual real work of tracking down terrorists, you don't want the whole world to know(at least until years later). But if you're doing something EVIL behind our back, the world have the right to know.
The cablegate? Hardly any reason to get angry over. It make the government looks good. But politicians are overreacting.