Leaking Classified Information via the Internet

[hairybob]

Human history tells us that strong nations - particularly those emerging from the economic wilderness - tend to look for "living space".

Population
China: 1.5 billion people
Australia: 20 million people

Population density
China: 186 people / sq km
Australia: 2 people / sq km

Sitepoint's headquarters in Melbourne could well become the frontline!!!

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

Guys, just to remind everyone, discussions about politics aren't ordinarily allowed on Sitepoint.

Please try to speak generally and avoid throwing around accusations.

It's an interesting discussion and we don't want it turning into a flame war.

No-one's crossed the line yet, but just a reminder.

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

Retaliating by immoral means is still immoral. It leads to war and there's nothing moral about war.

What would you say is the moral way of bringing information to light then?


Suppose you're a private in an army and accidentally come upon classified photos of immoral actions done by a company in your army against innocent persons.

It would be immoral for you to steal or copy the photos, right?

So, how would you effectively blow the whistle, who should you rightfully blow the whistle to, and how would you supply evidence of the incident you learnt about?

[php_daemon]

If the actions are against someone else, you'd be making a sacrifice by doing something illegal/immoral to help them. And then you have to accept the consequences.

If the actions are against you specifically, then maybe you can call that self-defense, especially if your life is threatened. I wouldn't say that's immoral.

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

you'd be making a sacrifice

Not necessarily. It depends on what you value.

You mightn't specifically value those persons, but you might value an idea of justice.

If not that, maybe the prevention of another wrong committed by the same squad.

If the actions are against you specifically, then maybe you can call that self-defense, especially if your life is threatened. I wouldn't say that's immoral.

But you'd be using the same means, though.

What would make it moral in this case, but immoral in the other?

[hairybob]

If the actions are against someone else, you'd be making a sacrifice by doing something illegal/immoral to help them. And then you have to accept the consequences.

Good point. Sometimes we need to step outside the framework society has constructed. In WWII Germany not everyone was capable of stepping outside the framework in place, but some were. It's easy to forget that some of the greatest heroes of WWII were actually Germans who assisted the allies.

One of my favorite quotes (from a movie):

Sometimes you have to think like a hero merely to behave like a decent human being. The Russia House

[CyberToolz]

Another interesting point would be why am I supposed to trust them? Like in any newspaper, there's not way that I can't guarantee that the information is not manipulated or that it is the very personal point of view of the journalist, or maybe that the journalist is publishing something for his/her own interest.

I don't believe most of what I read on the internet

I believe that the crux of the matter centers on the issue of control. It's not that Wikileaks is out of control, it's that no political pressure can be applied to them, which is something that tends to keep the more traditional press organisations in line.

The world would probably be a different place if the "media" wasn't "controlled"

omg what kind of monster has been created here that we can't shut down ?

G filters got that

Instead focus on the parts of your own organisation that are weak enough to allow such leaks to occur, and potentially (though unlikely) improve your business practices so that there are no grounds for such leaks to even exist.

Exactly, quit blaming every one else for your mistakes

[php_daemon]

It depends on what you value.

It definitely does. It might not even be immoral at all depending on one's values. But the consequences are the same in any case.

But you'd be using the same means, though.

What would make it moral in this case, but immoral in the other?

Your life at stake.

[molona]

I would normally say that the end doesn't justify the means... but that really depends on the end as well as the means...

It is not the same to steal information that will save thousands of lives, than killing someone to get that information. Yet, it is a very tough decision.

[awasson]

The Wikileaks issue fascinates me.

I think regardless of whether you like the idea of this type of transparency or not you have to admit that the release calls attention to a number of things:

1) The 4th Estate is dead - Traditional news outlets are far more interested in abiding by their corporate sponsors than investigating and reporting the truth of what goes on in the world.

2) A number of people threatened by the leaked memos are just plain bad. I think it would be a good idea to remember the government officials and/or public figures who suggested assassination or execution for the people exposing the information. That's just not a mature, rational or appropriate response.

3) Things are not remotely what they seem... There is a great deal of "tails wagging the dog" going on with regard to worldwide relations.

4) A lot of the diplomats named in the cables should be more diplomatic when discussing their foreign counterparts. Some of the comments were just rude and uncalled for.

Personally, I support the idea that we need more transparency and that world citizens should educate themselves on what goes on in their world. I'm more content knowing the bad things that are going on rather than sticking my head in the sand and hoping that the governments are governing in my best interests or at least the way I expect them to.

[awasson]

The method of this website is to encourage those with access to important, relevant information to "leak" it. In some cases that is considered illegal, but would you consider it immoral as well, and how necessary are these kinds of methods to journalism on the whole?

Perhaps it's a wakeup call to journalists that they aren't really asking hard questions, investigating stories and taking risks to dig through the smoke and mirrors to uncover what's really going on.

[molona]

Perhaps it's a wakeup call to journalists that they aren't really asking hard questions, investigating stories and taking risks to dig through the smoke and mirrors to uncover what's really going on.

Unfortunately, this type of journalism is necessary. That's the sad part of the story.

Yet, I'm not convinced that leaks are the solution.

Let me explain

How many of those leaks were given because an employee was unsatisfied or unhappy and wanted to take revenge?

How much of the story are we missing? Sometimes a piece of information can make the whole difference and change your point of view.

Is that part of the story not being published by the leaker for some reason?

I would have tons of questions similar to these ones but at the end of the day I don't trust Wikileaks in the same way that I don't trust newspapers and that I don't trust governments.

I think that information is always manipulated, sometimes intentionally, sometimes with good intentions, and sometimes because the journalist understand things in a certain way... but at the end of the day, everything is manipulated.

[engg_fahd]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

[paul_wilkins]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

The information is real enough, but whether the info is accurate or not is up for grabs. See for example the Cuba banning Sicko movie (actually not) debacle for example.

[molona]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

It is not about WikiLeaks itself... we're talking about leaking information in general. But it is natural the WikiLeaks gets more of the attentions because of the amount of information "disclosed" and the way it has been done.

To be honest, this is real revenge for me. You never this huge load of info leaked just like that. I can't help to think that there's something behind this and that we're all manipulated to think in a certain way.

[Shaun(OfTheDead)]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

Perhaps an antagonistic "Wiki-verify" site is needed for that and future "leaks" sites?

[donboe]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

If it wasn't real, then why are there several people in custody?

[lorenw]

I think it boils down to whistle blowing or releasing info that can actually put someones life in danger. Take the Valerie Plame scandal, the White house blew her cover and put her in danger, and then all was quickly forgiven. This is clearly not whistle blowing. On the other hand, a helicopter opening fire on civilians would be a case of whistle blowing.

Whistle blowing = good.
OT
perhaps if Scooter Libbey was behind "that" website all would be pardoned.

[Stomme poes]

This is off-topic. But possibly true.

Off Topic:

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...on-d34xwuj.jpg image of teh WikiLeaks story from DeviantArt

[dheyjim]

Wikileaks will forever have many positive and negative reactions. Well, depending on individuals point of view. Technology create new communication perspective and we will never know the limitations. Let's face it!

[elantechnologies]

I surely Respect what Wikileaks has done in past few Months and there should be nothing unshared within the people and the Government other than some serious private issues and if you shoot the messenger or try to suppress the site it means that you are hiding something that you are afraid to tell public.
And that's not good at all...

[tke71709]

Oh! Your talking about that 'Wikil***s'?Do you really think that it has some real information?I am unable to decide whether the information is real or not

Is the WikiLeaks information real? Most likely yes.

Is what you are being told about the WikiLeaks information correct? Not in Pakistan (which is where you are from). There was an interesting article a while back about how the Pakistani media was making up embarrassing Wikileaks items about India and reporting them as facts.

[tke71709]

4) A lot of the diplomats named in the cables should be more diplomatic when discussing their foreign counterparts. Some of the comments were just rude and uncalled for.

The whole point of diplomatic cables is to provide an unvarnished and accurate view of the situation on the ground to people back in the home country.

Once you start sanitizing everything, it loses it's value. If a leader is a pedophile douchebag with a foot fetish, then let them write that instead of having to massage this sort of information just in case someone decides to leak the cable later. That's going to be the end result of this leak, things will cease to be written down and when they are they will be completely innocuous just in case.

[Stomme poes]

If a leader is a pedophile douchebag with a foot fetish,

So what if he is, one country is not doing business (or not doing business) because of pedophile douchebag or not.

Diplomats can privately tell their spouses that they sat in a hot smelly room with a pedophile douchebag but you don't put it in official reports, sheesh.

Now saying that the populace of some country considers Dear Leader a pedophile douchebag is something different. That's useful intelligence.

[tke71709]

Diplomats can privately tell their spouses that they sat in a hot smelly room with a pedophile douchebag but you don't put it in official reports, sheesh.

Now saying that the populace of some country considers Dear Leader a pedophile douchebag is something different. That's useful intelligence.

Intelligence is just that, intelligence. It's not a diplomat's job to censor the facts, it's their job to report them in an unvarnished and accurate fashion. Asking that these reports be politically
correct because they might hurt someone's feelings is ridiculous. The amount of time and effort required to sanitize everything that might hurt someone's feelings somewhere is better spent elsewhere.

Also I would suggest that reporting that a leader is a pedophile douchebag if it's not well known is much more valuable than reporting that his countrymen think he is.