Conversely, if we had Wikileaks in 1940, it would have made Hitler's career much longer.
Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb.
The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.
Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention. People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets. Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.
> Sure, but that's a lack of ability rather than intention.
I don't believe that is true. Every secret under the sun could be leaked tomorrow morning. The fact that that isn't the case is not because of ability but because people tend to self-select into job slots where they are dealing with things that they support.
The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks.
So the best way to avoid leaks is to operate within parameter that will guarantee that you have extremely wide support amongst the people that you are working with. Stay away from killing innocents, don't break in to your political opponents offices and so on.
Leaks are infrequent for a good reason: most people believe in the causes they work for. Leaks by themselves are symptomatic of problems in an organization.
> People on HN like to make idealistic arguments that governments should never hold secrets.
I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.
> Well, there are many documented cases where that wouldn't have worked out very well for a lot of people.
But there are almost no documented cases where that that did not work out well for anybody. You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.
Ok, from Nixons point of view Watergate was bad, so it's relative to the viewpoint of the persons involved but if we look at the 'greater good' then the whistleblowers find themselves on that side much more often than not.
> The times when things are leaked are when people find themselves operating in slots supporting a system that they can no longer support (because of ethics or some other overriding concern). That's when you have leaks.
If simply trusting in the moral intuitions of ordinary people was any way of solving social problems, we wouldn't have social problems.
> I think that 'people on HN' are smart enough to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis and to avoid generalizations like that.
I've read the exact argument, in exactly so many words, on HN, that governments should never hold secrets.
> You'd really have to dig to find evidence of a case where purposefully leaked information by a whistleblower led to something bad.
Given the connotation of the term "whistleblower", that's pretty much a tautology. You would not have called anyone "whistleblowers" for exposing the plans for Normandy.
That might be what they say, but actions speak louder--for instance, indiscriminately publishing gigabytes of diplomatic cables, most of which are inconsequential.
Also, I'm pretty sure any secret that would have had strategic importance in WWII was of "political significance".
The cables were selectively published until the point that the encryption keys were disclosed. There was a front page story every week at least for several weeks.
Locations of radar installations have no political significance in themselves. Obviously where exactly the line should be drawn is up for debate but I see no one claiming the line is where you say they are claiming it is.
Firstly, there were German and Japanese spies, but there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler. Unlike the case of the Soviet Union, which the Manhattan scientists did think it was whistleblowing, and did leak the nuclear bomb secrets, Wikileaks or no. Also unlike the case of the German military, which was riddled with anti-Hitler resistance who leaked what they could to the Allies, again Wikileaks or no. So if Wikileaks existed in 1940, it would have made easier the life of Schulze-Boysen acting against Hitler, not Bomber Harris acting against Churchill.
The French Resistance was useless. Besides, traitors amongst them could easily have dropped off an anonymous tip to the Gestapo or even turned double agent. Wikileaks would have been a lot less decisive in this case.
Finally, the Germans already had lots of evidence about their enigma code being broken, and about the British radar system. Hitler himself told the generals the attack would come at Normandy.
However, the German generals could not bring themselves to believe it. They had too much hubris to believe that their codes had been cracked. And they could not believe that the British would use such shitty old fashioned radar. The German counter measures were designed to work against good radars such as their own, and no one had thought of building counter measures against the British crap. This gave British airpower the advantage. Sadly I don't have references on me for these, but I do have a reference for the Normandy landings.
The German generals refused to believe Hitler because landing at Normandy would be insanely expensive in Allied blood. Only a complete idiot would decide to land at Normandy. The fact that Hitler told the generals is made a point of in Shirer's book:
So World War 2 is a really lousy example for you to use.
Besides, to protect against this sort of thing, Wikileaks have a disclosure policy. For example, when they released the diplomatic cables, they tried to go through the newspapers first: anything the newspapers redacted, they redacted too.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admitted that "the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure" and later stated
"Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."
So frankly, Wikileaks are mitigating your fictitious Hitler-in-1940 scenario anyway. And I trust them way more than I trust the politicians telling me what I don't need to know.
Admittedly, the "Wikileaks in 1940" is such an anachronistic idea that it doesn't hold up to analysis. The WWII era not only lacked the technology necessary for Wikileaks, but also the ridiculous notion that governments should be completely disabled from keeping secrets at all. Since you've moved the goalposts and aren't even defended that notion, you've tacitly conceded that governments should be able to keep some secrets from the public, so I don't see the purpose of your quibbling.
> there was basically nobody on the Allied side who thought it was whistleblowing to leak secrets to Hitler
To Hitler directly? Perhaps not, but I'm discussing releasing information to the public as a whole, which would have the secondary consequence of revealing the secret to the Axis. This is also why the selective release of information to the Soviets is an irrelevancy on your part, since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole.
The basic threat of Wikileaks is that "basically nobody" is still somebody, and somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody.
Your refutation is that, based the incomplete information they had, the Germans could have potentially chosen to bet correctly on everything they were uncertain of. Are you really incapable of distinguishing that scenario from one where they were able to make a more informed decision because the secrets were revealed decisively?
Regardless of Hitler's initial opinions, the fact remains that a large proportion of the German defensive force on D-Day were garrisoned in the Pas de Calais region and remained there even after the landing was underway, convinced that Normandy was a diversionary attack. It would seem that Hitler himself changed his mind, since the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation.
Empowering individuals to release information to the public makes it harder, not easier, to keep secrets. How can you argue otherwise? Keeping secrets was vital to the Second World War. How can you argue otherwise?
"Since we're discussing the impact of revealing secrets to the public as a whole."
No, you were discussing that. Military plans are irrelevant to the public as a whole. They are only actionable by the opposing military.
The case discussed that originated this three posts up was about use of Wikileaks as a vector to reveal US/Israeli military secrets to the Iranian government. The idea was never to get US military secrets to Old Farmer Sassan from Onion Village in Iran. What on earth would he do with them?
"Somebody is all you need to release secret information to everybody."
No, a whistleblower is what you need to release secret information. The difference being that the whistlebower is someone who doesn't want the secrets kept, because he/she has decided that the secret keepers (the whistleblower's own side) are the criminals. Someone like Bradley Manning. Or Wilhelm Canaris. Who on the Allied side wanted to reveal Allied war secrets? This is your flimsy argument against empowering whistleblowers?
"the failure of the German forces to abandon Pas de Calais was decisive to the operation."
You seem to get all your history from Action Man books
Do you have any idea of what a fiasco World War Two was?
If there had been a Wikileaks leaking government secrets to EVERYBODY (gasp!) in 1940, I'm certain World War Two would have been smaller, because Japan and the USA would not have gotten involved. The American public would not have tolerated it.
And maybe Britain might not have starved those 7 million Indian people by diverting their food to the British Army.
Let's just name some of the allied secrets that were instrumental in defeating the Axis: the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code, air patrol schedules and radar locations in Britain, Allied radar technology, the fact that the Allies had broken the Japanese codes and Midway was a trap, the fact that the bulk of the Allied landings in northern France were indeed Normandy rather than across the straits of Dover, the fact that the landings would occur on June 6, 1944, the identities of and means of communications with members of the French Resistance, and last but not least, the secret of how to make an atomic bomb.
The fact is, Wikileaks is always going to collect and reveal more secrets from relatively democratic and transparent societies than it could ever do to entrenched dictatorships. If we had Wikileaks in 1936, it would have had just as much to say about Hitler as Wikileaks of 2013 has to say about North Korea.