Why I will not analyze the new WikiLeaks data

Re:Why I will not analyze the new WikiLeaks data by anthonyb on Monday November 29, 2010 @12:11AM (#1949457)

Except that whistleblowing is widely protected legally. Where do you distinguish between leaking and whistleblowing? Is it leaking if the government is involved? Or where there's public interest? Who decides what's in the public interest? The government? And which public - just the US? or are Afghanis covered too?

It's much safer IMO to have blanket protection for leaking/whistleblowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I will not analyze the new WikiLeaks data by nickpinkston on Monday November 29, 2010 @12:49AM (#1949520)

Good point surely, but I'm trying to think of something that will actually happen in our political climate. Of course I'd prefer complete openness, but they'd never do it...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I will not analyze the new WikiLeaks data by anthonyb on Monday November 29, 2010 @01:52AM (#1949618)

The problem is that the government gets to decide what's super secret and what's not, so you'll get a gradual erosion of information as more and more stuff gets marked as secret, even when it's just embarrassing or difficult to handle.

A similar thing happens with FOI requests here in Australia - there's an exemption for material which is 'commercial in-confidence'. Now pretty much everything that the government produces is marked as commercial in-confidence, and it's back to the old system of suing the government to release information.

Far better to have people leak stuff and then be protected under whistleblower / freedom of the press laws if it's in the public interest (with presumption that it is in the public interest, so the government has to bring a case to prove that it's not).

[ Parent | on HN ]