How is finding bad things within the deluge of cables going to win someone with that opinion over?
We have learned that (in the case of the Iraq/Afghanistan releases), much of what was deemed "secret" was done so simply to prevent embarrassing info from entering the public domain. In other words, for propaganda reasons. There was not any national security or safety reason to keep the information secret.
Filtering the cables to reflect what one group deems "incriminating" would be just another form of propaganda, something Wikileaks does not wish to engage in.
Exactly. And it is certainly news to me that anyone here on HN is critical of WikiLeaks as they have done what any journalists do: by shining a light on the worlds most powerful for the benefit of all of us. There is no real difference between how WikiLeaks or The NY Times achieve their goals, except WikiLeaks is not beholden to anyone, so the have more credibility. Unlike Bill Keller and the NYTimes, they don't work with the White House to see if it is OK to print something. Because they are a stateless entity, they are able to break more stories than any news agency, and this year have broken more than all of them combined. But they have done so at great personal sacrifice. Julian Assange (and WikiLeaks) whatever your personal feeling are about them, have made an enormous personal sacrifices so that we may all benefit. Aside from the usual arguments that have been soundly debunked about the dangers of mass dumping un-redacted documents, what fault could anyone at HN possibly have with WL?
I don't see how any good whatsoever comes of trying to create an environment where diplomats and other government employees have to worry that by given an honest opinion in a report they put their jobs at risk, and hence see no reason whatsoever for Wikileaks to have published that cable.
If the government compromises their own secrecy by abusing it, that is the government's own fault. How many bones the journos throw them is far aside from the point.
The unstated but obvious leaning of wikileaks, Assange, and a large portion of the hacker community is towards anarchy be it anarcho-capitalism, crypto-anarchy, some variant.
To find wikileaks dangerous and counter productive simply requires being opposed to anarchy. You can obfuscate and spin the issue all you want but the most parsimonious explanation is that the motivation, to put massive amounts private information out in the public's view, is political.
The clear intention is disruption not reform of the establishment. Now one can agree or disagree with the political goals of the organization or players involved (and these are quite well known btw) but that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Be political, advocate for anti-establishment causes, spread anarchy if you believe in it, but be honest about it. I can respect that even if I disagree.
The point is not the create anarchy but to make the system leak. His point (and I tend to agree) is that technology can be used by those in power to conspire against their population. The better the technology the bigger the conspirations.
So the goal of Assange is to make sure that there is soo much leak in the system that it slows it down and thus make it harder for those with bad intentions to conspire.
You really should spend some time actually reading about what he want's instead of fighting strawmen.
The person who had security clearance and violated it to leak the materials has committed a crime, and sometimes such crimes are committed by people who discover an abhorrent practice and decide that revealing it is worth the price (possible prosecution).
Any organization will have rules that prevent insiders from leaking certain information, but ultimately every employee must be guided by his/her own moral compass. Loyalty to the institution would ideally result in the employee pursuing things internally within the organization first. But in some cases the crimes are so deeply rooted or so broadly ignored that the employee faces the tough decision of whether to blow the whistle or to become complicit in the abhorrent acts.
No legitimate organization would wish to commit abhorrent acts, and so we must recognize such acts as an artifact of bureaucracy and corruption. Thus, like lymphocytes in an organism's immune system, whistle blowers benefit the organization by helping rid it of such toxins.
US law protects the press b/c this phenomenon is understood to effect organizations of all sizes, including governments. Individual whistle blowers are often viewed as heroes because of the personal risks they endure to save their beloved organizations from corruption and malice.
What self-respecting member of the military would countenance such abuses as Bradley Manning learned of when he viewed the war logs when he decided to release them? Loyalty is perhaps a virtue, but it comes below a person's own individual integrity and sense of right and wrong.
Is it? I'm not 100% sure on Assange, but I've always seen the leanings of the (large portion of the) hacker community as more towards libertarianism than towards pure anarchy.
> The clear intention is disruption not reform of the establishment.
I will give you this, but I'm not sure if there are many effective ways to achieve reform. You can write about idealist reforms all you want, but people won't be convinced without something big happening.
You can cure cancer by killing the patient, but it is a lot better to try to treat just the problem, not kill the whole organism.
Except that's not remotely true.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07...
"Currently released so far... 11214/251,287"
That would be less than 5%. Not "all".
(of course, this means a lot less in Brazil, because it's a major hassle to do it)
From where did you get that voting is the only thing I do?
If you think voting "works" then you are in their fingers. If you abstain from voting, they simply don't give a shit.
Stop wasting your time, and do something that will make a difference.
Any suggestions?
I see your problem appears not to be with the candidates you can vote on themselves, but with the process of electing them by vote. I agree some parts of the system can be broken, but I don't think representative democracies are so bad, specially when compared to the alternatives in current use.
Hire lobbyists.