Slashdot Mirror
Human Rights Groups Join Criticism of WikiLeaks
e065c8515d206cb0e190 writes "Several human rights organizations contacted WikiLeaks and pressed them to do a better job at hiding information that endangers civilians within their leaked documents. From the article: 'The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication. ... An [Amnesty International] official replied to say that while the group has limited resources, it wouldn't rule out the idea of helping, according to people familiar with the reply. The official suggested that Mr. Assange and the human-rights groups hold a conference call to discuss the matter.'"
I hate the need for wikileaks, if not wikileaks directly.
Freedom of the press was supposed to be a balance between this and the traditional media. However, with the major news outlets falling over themselves to appease different market segments, real news gets lost in the translations. Real information is not reported when it should be, letting situations like Iraq happen.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Amnesty International are an incredible organization that are making real change on a daily basis. I haven't read much of the leaks, but if they're worried about this then suddenly I'm worried.
Mr. Assange should show a little respect for an organization that have educated and mobilized so many people around the world with real life consequences for human rights. Guess he's too busy talking about himself to every journalist he can find.
it's under construction
More importantly, wasn't Obama supposed to have the most transparent administration?
To be fair, all the information comes from 2006 or earlier; way before Obama came into power.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
It's time that people understand that information wants to be free. And we the people should want information to be free.
One of the secrets released was that the Taliban are quite a bit more violent and willing to kill innocents than has been reported. It has sums of civilian casualties created by the NATO (US) forces and the Taliban. Yeah, these guys are scum bags.
More importantly, wasn't Obama supposed to have the most transparent administration?
But most importantly, government secrets in the open are inherently good for the People. Why is there not an understanding of this? 9/11 did not teach us how bad the terrorists were. We already knew that. Instead, we should have learned that government cannot, under any circumstances, be trusted.
Information wants to be free is a ridiculous quote coming from a person who does not understand the concept of the GPL. Information is power, in some cases the power over life and death. In some cases information released about you, can help your enemies plan to kill you. Personal information like names and identities have to be protected. The fact that these documents stored the names of informants is ridiculous in itself because all names in these sorts of documents should be replaced by code names, code words, etc. Redacting the names is not good enough. Also locations have to be changed so as to confuse the enemy. Anything which can allow the enemy to determine anything has to be changed.
Only a government or spy agency has the tools and skills necessary to deal with this. One man, Julian Assange, cannot possibly be qualified to do this type of work. If he is qualified then qualified through what experience? The point is that the global community is losing trust in Julian Assange. Unless Julian Assange can be trusted Wikileaks cannot be trusted. If Julian Assange cannot handle the task of declassifying the documents through a strict secure process, then he needs to find someone or some entity with the expertise to do just this.
Wikileaks and Julian Assange own this now. The good, and the ill, from publishing that information are on them. And it looks pretty ill to me.
According to Newsweek, a man named Khalifa Abdullah was killed after the release of these documents. So that's one man dead already. The Taliban has vowed to hunt down and kill anyone who is a "spy", and they are using the Wikileaks information to do it, so there will be more. Some of the people listed in Wikileaks have disappeared, hopefully into hiding rather than dead.
Julian Assange's stance on this is callous. He "insisted that any risk to informants' lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information." Okay, at least one man is dead now. What is that "overall importance"? I sure don't see it.
I'm also not buying his idea that this is really the US military's fault, together with Amnesty International, for not helping him redact the critical info. Much of the info is years old. What was the big rush? If Wikileaks didn't have enough volunteers to vet the info carefully, why rush ahead and publish it anyway?
If I were Julian Assange, I wouldn't be sleeping well at night.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
t's time that people understand that information wants to be free. And we the people should want information to be free. O
Great - go ahead and start by posting your SSN, home address, and full medical history. Then we'll talk about how much information "wants to be free"
huh? today is 10/8/9..
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
That's a terrible analogy. People's lives aren't at stake if an OSS project comes out with shitty documentation. If Wikileaks lacked the manpower to properly scrub names from the documents, they shouldn't have released them.
Yeah, see, and here's the thing... information, just like any other inanimate object, doesn't want anything. it simply *is*, and personifying it is akin to using the passive voice to try and sound authoritative when you're really just pushing your own opinion.
There is no real reason that everyone should be able to know everything all the time. First off, that's on its face impossible, and when less hyperbolic is merely impractical. Plus, the facts of the matter are:
- Most people aren't interested in actually knowing what's going on
- Most people aren't clued in to understand even if they suddenly develop an interest
- Facts without context aren't particularly helpful
- Some things shouldn't be known by some people (particularly the proverbial "them"; the outsider. the "not us")
Would it be nice if citizens had more information about the workings of their government? yes. and on domestic policy that's totally fine. However, documents dealing with the prosecution of a war are different, and putting them on the internet is completely irresponsible. This should be perfectly evident by the fact that the Taliban have stated their intention, and probably have already started, killing Afghan civilians who are mentioned as helping NATO forces.
So, now we have a situation where people who were helping us are going to get killed for helping us. That makes our job over there harder as we won't have those sources, and people are going to be a lot less willing to cooperate in the future because what if another pissed off nerd who never should have joined the army decides he's going to go all Deep Throat and leaks those names onto the internet, thinking he's doing something noble?
Well, you know, I think I'm OK with *NOT* having that information if it means there is less chance that those people are going to be killed and that the job that my friends over there are doing is going to become harder than it already was.
Information wants to be free my ass. This isn't a math formula and isn't a basic, universal truth about the universe. Some stuff needs to be secret. Loose lips sink ships and all that jazz.
The correct answer, and ideal situation, would be for the Pentagon to be redacting the personal information and releasing these documents themselves in the first place. Instead, they choose to classify documents in order to manipulate public opinion. Manipulating public opinion blinds voters to the reality of the situation. If voters don't have the complete picture, they can't make an informed vote and we have a de-facto totalitarian state. Military personnel intentionally trying to manipulate public opinion by hiding information (as they've admitted that they do) should be considered an act of treason. Wikileaks is doing what they can because the Pentagon refuses to do their job.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
There was a simple solution to this... Let the US government go through the documents redacting sensitive names and locations.
Unfortunately they refused putting those afghans in danger.
That's the same line of thinking that says "Well you didn't shovel your walk -- so it's YOUR fault I slipped and fell.". Nobody made Assange post the documents. His actions are his own responsibility; no matter what fingers are pointed or what excuses are given, he is the one that published them.
Assange needs to take some responsibility for his own actions and quit playing the martyr. His irresponsible behavior, by not redacting the documents, will quite likely get people killed. That is not the US government's or Amnesty's responsibility. It is his and he needs to man up to it and quit being such an ass.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
Right. Guess we've just hallucinated the last hundred years or so.
Only fools see such issues as black and white. The statement you've just made sounds every bit as retarded as Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" nonsense. Mature adults understand that life is a series of compromises rather than a list of ultimatums.
Does an Afghan civilian prefer to die from a US missile or a Taliban bullet? How can wikileaks estimate the number of deaths in each alternative?
It's still a bullshit response.
One doesn't need to know how to find a solution in order to identify a problem. It's rather how the human species gets from point A to B. Fundamentally, this is why criticism is generally valid, and "the typical OSS response" is so reviled by developers and non-developers alike. It's a response that's aggressive, unhelpful, and, frankly, quite rude. No person is going to be inclined to help someone who is so rude. I understand that application support is tiresome and draining on developers who often answer the same question over and over or make the same argument over and over. It sucks, but reacting rudely is simply the worst possible choice. You alienate rather than build a community. It's anathema to the basic ideals behind OSS.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
Wow, talk about false dilemma! You have a serious lack of imagination if you cannot think of any way the press could responsibly report on the actual conduct of the war without endangering operational details and local friendlies? Let's try this:
American troops swept into this village in NW Afghanistan today after receiving information about a Taliban arms cache. Three insurgents were killed, as was a civilian caught in the crossfire.
versus
The 23rd Brigade of the 101st Airborne (strength 120 men, two APCs, 10 HMMVs), based in gridsquare* 423-12 sent a single platoon (strength 18 men, 4 HHMVs) swept into the village of Almar after receiving a tip from local tribal elder Khalifa Abdullah. Three insurgents were killed after they called in Apache support that is 16 minutes away from the airbase at 412-22 in Herat, as well as one civilian. The soldiers seized 12 AK-47s and 4 RPG-7s and an IED kit that was reverse-engineered and so now they are jamming the particular RF bands used to trigger it.
Do you see the difference? There's just no need for that kind of detail, especially where it's irrelevant to reporting the actual story. I will be the first to say that I don't trust the Army not to overclassify the hell out of the operation and generally apply a coating of whitewash. The logic that means that therefore it's OK to release sensitive operational details, however, escapes me entirely.
*I read the Wikileaks documents, most of them had 10-digit grids. I have no idea how anyone could consider that having locations down to the centimeter is at all relevant to the journalistic story. The events happened, the American public absolutely deserves to get the clean truth. I'm not disputing that bit.
That's a lot of words. I've seen those before, many times. They are often used in the stead of, "pragmatic".
When your time is valuable and accounted for, get back to me on why you aren't working in a 3rd world country to save the lives of other people. It's quite rude to be so self-centered about your limited efforts in this lifetime.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Yeah. But all those soldiers that are dying over there in the war are expected, right? We can just ignore all of those deaths, and just focus on the informants.
The information was leaked because it is critical that the voters know what they're supporting over there. Otherwise, we could be told that "everything is rosy!" and given the government control over media, we'd be none the wiser.
Do you really want to be in that position?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Assange had the power to say "no, we will not release these". He also had the power to wait to release until the documents had been carefully scrutinized to remove names and identifying details of anyone who might be endangered. At the very least, he is accessory to any crimes that might have been committed by the sources of leaks.
Which thousands of people do you trust to do this without exposing the data themselves?
maybe you might want to look at what the real issue is here.
That's exactly what I was doing.
Of course, YOUR idea of "the real issue" is every bit as silly as the actual issue (which I discussed). The idea that governments should just freely give out all classified information in order to avoid having it leaked is only surpassed in foolishness by the idea that freedom of the press and protection of civilians are incompatible.
Seriously: What, exactly, is your point here? Is Assange wrong to infer that other organisations are distancing themselves because the US is bringing heat on them, quite likely through threats of reduced funding or cooperation?
Well, first of all, yes, if he thinks that he is wrong to think that Amnesty International is distancing itself because of US pressure he is astoundingly ignorant of AI and its relationship to the US.
But what I meant by narcissism is his demanding not that AI work with him to rectify the problem, but rather that he dictates what they will do, and if they don't accept unconditionally his demand they are "covering their ass." Refusing to take a phone call because he's too busy? Doing what, giving interviews? He exhibits an unfortunately common hacker stereotype; the neurotic moralizer who is convinced of his own moral superiority to everyone else.
If that's the case, then perhaps you could explain the merits of declining to support an organisation on the grounds that you don't like one of its members because you find him rude?
Oh, you've gleaned my lack of support of Wikileaks because I called Assange a narcissistic jerk? Overextrapolating a bit there, eh?
Finally, if they released redacted documents. they would lose the credibility they have gained by releasing ALL the facts, no matter the consequences. Then people could (rightfully) question what they redacted and why.
And they could have answered "we only redacted the names of specific Afghani civilians, because revealing those names does not serve any greater purpose, and these people would face grave danger." You really think that shows they lack credibility? I think it adds moral credibility.
Greetings and Salutations.
I have read a number of the opinions posted here, and, my first reaction is "Have any of these people actually even LOOKED at the documents posted on Wikileaks?"
I have read quite a number of the documents available on line, and there are a few things that have popped out at me.
1) the only names that I have run across in the documents have been known taliban, insurgents and supporters of the insurgency.
2) A huge percentage of the reports are recording general suspicious activity picked up by routine patrols both on the ground and in the air.
3) There have been some interesting notes about aerial vehicles being shot at with missiles positively identified as stingers ( a little fact that has been, shall we say, downplayed, by the official military sources).
4) On the other hand, there are quite a number of reports of Afghan nationals (so far, all un-named) with war-related injuries being flown out for medical attention. Pretty much all the ones I have read have apparently been civilians caught up by accident.
Now, there may be some military usage in the times and dates and such listed with each event, but, I suspect that any decent intelligence service will already
HAVE the time and location details listed in the reports.
I was also interested to see the number of times when fairly suspicious behavior, or serious weapons of war were observed, yet, no action was taken to kill the enemy, or, destroy the weapons (tanks, howitzers, etc).
Overall, it seems to me that the biggest issue with Wikileaks is that they have dumped out a bunch of information, concealed by our government, that shows that some of the positive spin put on the situation in Afghanistan is a bit thinner than they would have us believe.
Pleasant Dreams
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
I prefer 2010.09.08 (yyyy.mm.dd)...P.S. I'm an "American".
I'm guessing you were also educated in the public school system?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
heya,
Well said, and ever so witty =). Lol, however, a better way to think about it, and one that's a little more honest is, would the Afghanistan's prefer to:
1. Live under the Taliban, and suffer the consequences there (random killings and maimings for various implied crimes against Islam's, a gutted education and medical system, and rampant abuse of women's right)
2. Live under the current situation, and suffer the consequences there (a US military that is apparently hamstrung by it's own regulations and moral strictures on one side, and on the other sides acts rashly and causes avoidable collateral deaths while trying to bring the Taliban to justice), in the hopes for a better future.
I think ultimately that's a question you have to ask the Afghan people. And look, at the end of the day, we gave them the vote, and they voted in one of their own, and by and large, they seem happy the Taliban is gone.. Now, you might not like the Afghan president, but you're not a Afghan resident, and neither am I. It's up to them who they want to vote in. And if they say the Taliban can go get stuffed, who are we to stop them.
My hope is that the Taliban will ultimately be brought to justice for their crimes, the Afghans will have a democracy and a government that they feel ownership in, and we can pack up our bags and leave.
The recent time cover, with a woman's nose cut off really highlights why we don't want the Taliban coming back - they frigging cut off her nose, because she tried to run away from her wife-beater of a husband. And the husband watched, while the Taliban lackeys held her down and cut off her nose? Like, seriously, what the heck? That's just sick..by anybody's standards. Who the heck watches happily, while government people cut off your wife's nose?
Is that the sort of barbaric government we really want to inflict back on these people?
And now the US government is talking about giving the Taliban a say in government again, because they can't beat them (or rather, they won't, since the US public is so sissified and gutless these days that any military deaths or collateral damage is means to end the war). I'm not saying those things aren't tragic, and we shouldn't do everything we can do avoid them, but let's not try and dress the situation up - we're at war here, against an opponent who has no qualms about capturing and beheading civilians, in the name of propaganda. I'm glad we haven't sunk to that level.
It's very, very regretable that there are casualties in war, but really, the alternative is what, to pack up and leave, and let the Taliban sweep in, and carry our retribution against anybody that helped the Americans? Great plan. And they'll also begin dismantling the education and health systems again, like before we arrived. Just brilliant. And then the drug trade will flourish, and our criminal syndicates will start buying up drugs, which are then used to buy munitions to kill us. Awesome....not.
Notice how it's the Afghan's themselves who are crying "NO, NO! Don't let the Taliban back!". And now we're trying to legitimise the Taliban, and say, look, if you clean yourselves up, and stop cutting off people's limbs, fine, you can be part of the government. I say we finish the job, find them, and let the Afghan people deal with how to bring them to justice.
Look at how happy the Iraqi's were to hand Saddam Hussein. Now personally, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I think he should have just sat in a small cell somehow, thinking about all the horrible things he, his sons, and his commanders inflicted on his own people (and all the neighboring countries). But look, I have a feeling that the Iraqi's probably hated Saddam even more than we do, just like the Afghan's seem to hate the Taliban even more than we do - and probably with good reason.
Cheers,
Victor
Look at how happy the Iraqi's were to hand Saddam Hussein. Now personally, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I think he should have just sat in a small cell somehow, thinking about all the horrible things he, his sons, and his commanders inflicted on his own people (and all the neighboring countries). But look, I have a feeling that the Iraqi's probably hated Saddam even more than we do, just like the Afghan's seem to hate the Taliban even more than we do - and probably with good reason.
Cheers, Victor
Aside from everything else that was wrong with the Iraq war, this was one of the biggest for myself - Saddam Hussein, regardless of who he was or what he had done, should not have been subjected to that particular court.
Both Chief Judges in the case were ethnic Kurds, so there is an immediate uncertainty of bias, but the second Chief Judge (Rauf Rashid Abd al-Rahman, and the one who presided over the courts verdict) was from Halabja and suffered loss of family and friends during the 1998 gas attacks ordered by Hussein, which strengthens the uncertainty of bias.
You do not *ever* subject someone to a court of their victims - for a court to be legitimate, it should be completely independent of both victim and accused.
There "journalistic integrity" is right up there with the best of yellow journalism of the late 1800s yearly 1900s. Those that get offended by that statement and defend them don't realize that it is simply because they agree with the agenda of Wikileaks and that they are convinced that what they are trying to deal with a "bigger problem" aka that the ends justify the means.
Hmmm...in my mind you've got Wikileaks and the MSM (main stream media) organizations reversed here. The MSM organizations have shifted to producing the best of what's historically been known as yellow journalism. They print sensationalized crap that has been poorly research with almost zero fact checking simple because they think that's the way to get people to look. In most cases it's simple press releases from the main players in the story. As an example, stories about file sharing and digital piracy read like press releases from the RIAA with absolutely no challenge of even the most blatantly false propaganda they spew. The MSM also tends more and more strongly to having an editorial slant in what they're producing as news stories.
I really don't see an "agenda" for wikileaks. Nor are they a journalistic organization in the traditional sense. They're providing a function that the MSM use to provide. It's a secure place for people to distribute secret information about things that they feel are wrong. Wikileaks publishes the raw material. They don't report on it or editorialize. They simple make it public and let others do the that. In my mind that's a very important function. That is the purpose of a free press. It helps keeps those in power accountability for their actions. They make an effort to publish the material in a manner that doesn't directly harm anyone. In this case they offered to let the fricking Pentagon redact the documents but the idiots refused. Who's fault is that? I find it hard to blame wikileaks.
Who is John Galt?