My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:
A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American
or
B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American
There's a lot of room in between those two. There's a huge difference between exposing current operational details and exposing details that have no current operational relevance anymore. Consider publishing the plans for Operation Overlord on Juni 3 1944, and publishing them on June 3 1946.
The tendency of military information remaining secret indefinitely (or for 30 years, which amounts to the same thing) is stupid, but exposing them while the operation is happening, means you're picking sides in the conflict. Did Assange really intend to side with the Taliban? I'd rather see him remain neutral and only publish for the sake of accountability (which is good!), rather than actively endangering the missions and the people involved (which is bad!).
I hope that makes my position in this matter clear.
Those articles sound like they're mostly about how RSF is unfair to oppressive regimes. As far as I remember, the US isn't at the top of their list of countries that respect a free press. If it's really a neocon front, I'd expect it to claim the US is better than European countries.
This is a good read, and pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Wikileaks has done a lot of good in the past, and can do a lot of good in the future, but they can't dodge the responsibility for their own actions.
Just throwing random stuff out there doesn't have anywhere near the impact nor the importance as the "collateral murder" video had. That stuff is good to expose; operational details and names of Afghan civilians who picked a side aren't.
When groups like Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders start warning you, it's really time to stop and consider whether what you're doing is really helping or hurting freedom.
An even more likely explanation for the fires to get this big, is the fact that Putin fired a lot of firefighters and forest guards a few years ago. All the fire lanes that kept the forests compartmentalized are now gone, and that allows forest fires to get this far out of control.
There's more. Bush lied about the pretext to start a new war, and started two wars. Obama is merely having trouble continuing or finishing what Bush started.
Yeah, I'm disappointed about Obama too, and certainly not happy with Biden, but whichever way you turn it, they're not nearly as bad as Bush and Cheney.
But if they go down, you go down too. The US and China need each other. It's a weird relationship, but the end result is that the US still has the most advanced military, while China owns all the money and production capacity. Which is worth more in the end? The US can't really use its military against China without going down too, but China can produce stuff for other countries.
So would you say the correct response is to endanger more civilian lives?
Wikileaks leaking the video of the helicopter gunning down unarmed civilians is great. That's something that needs to be exposed. But leaking the names of civilians who provided the US with info about the Taliban and Al Qaeda? I don't see what good that does. Not as long as the Taliban are in a position to kill those people, at least.
Amnesty isn't small. They've got a lot of supporters world wide, did a lot of really good work on human rights, and are highly respected by practically everybody. I can't think of an organization that's less controversial than Amnesty yet manages to challenge governments and get results.
Putting Amnesty down like that puts you in the wrong corner. Bad idea from Assange. When you're in competition with the heaviest funded, most ruthless intelligence agency in the world, you need all the allies you can get, and blowing off Amnesty like that could cost you other allies as well. Teaming up with Amnesty might gain you other allies, and makes it harder for the US to paint you as a bad guy.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
This isn't about giving up freedom of press. It's about taking responsibility for your own actions.
Free press is necessary because you need to be able to expose the actions of governments, officials, and other people with power; not because you need to be able to endanger the lives of ordinary people.
Side note, careful with the word "application" here, since it's generally got a different meaning in patent contexts. Let's just grit the teeth and say "iPhone ap".
My wife recently used the (Dutch) word "applicatie" to describe patches/badges on our son's shirt. I was thoroughly confused.
Nobody's national anthem begins with "We're Number Two!"
Our national anthem includes the phrases: "I'm of German blood" and "I've always honored the king of Spain". I don't think it mentions the name of our country anywhere (which might be because it didn't exist yet when the anthem was written; I think we have by far the oldest national anthem in the world).
2/3rd is meaningless in itself, unless they gave us the breakup country-wise.
Exactly. What if all of China and India are for government hacking, whereas all of the EU and US are against it? Surely our votes should count for more, right?
Because Microsoft pushes it aggressively. Who cares what the superior technology is? What matters is what people use and what companies push. And that's not Wave.
Slashdot Mirror
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:
A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American
or
B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American
There's a lot of room in between those two. There's a huge difference between exposing current operational details and exposing details that have no current operational relevance anymore. Consider publishing the plans for Operation Overlord on Juni 3 1944, and publishing them on June 3 1946.
The tendency of military information remaining secret indefinitely (or for 30 years, which amounts to the same thing) is stupid, but exposing them while the operation is happening, means you're picking sides in the conflict. Did Assange really intend to side with the Taliban? I'd rather see him remain neutral and only publish for the sake of accountability (which is good!), rather than actively endangering the missions and the people involved (which is bad!).
I hope that makes my position in this matter clear.
Those articles sound like they're mostly about how RSF is unfair to oppressive regimes. As far as I remember, the US isn't at the top of their list of countries that respect a free press. If it's really a neocon front, I'd expect it to claim the US is better than European countries.
Open letter from RWB secretary general to Wikileaks founder
This is a good read, and pretty much sums up how I feel about it. Wikileaks has done a lot of good in the past, and can do a lot of good in the future, but they can't dodge the responsibility for their own actions.
Just throwing random stuff out there doesn't have anywhere near the impact nor the importance as the "collateral murder" video had. That stuff is good to expose; operational details and names of Afghan civilians who picked a side aren't.
When groups like Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders start warning you, it's really time to stop and consider whether what you're doing is really helping or hurting freedom.
An even more likely explanation for the fires to get this big, is the fact that Putin fired a lot of firefighters and forest guards a few years ago. All the fire lanes that kept the forests compartmentalized are now gone, and that allows forest fires to get this far out of control.
No, the trick is in suing nobody, winning because nobody is defending, and then filling in the names after you've won the case.
So sue John Doe, and after you've won, decide that Gates is that John Doe.
There's more. Bush lied about the pretext to start a new war, and started two wars. Obama is merely having trouble continuing or finishing what Bush started.
Yeah, I'm disappointed about Obama too, and certainly not happy with Biden, but whichever way you turn it, they're not nearly as bad as Bush and Cheney.
But if they go down, you go down too. The US and China need each other. It's a weird relationship, but the end result is that the US still has the most advanced military, while China owns all the money and production capacity. Which is worth more in the end? The US can't really use its military against China without going down too, but China can produce stuff for other countries.
Pretty sure this wasn't the result of Obama.
He did pick Joe Biden as his VP, though.
Cut it up into small enough pieces.
So would you say the correct response is to endanger more civilian lives?
Wikileaks leaking the video of the helicopter gunning down unarmed civilians is great. That's something that needs to be exposed. But leaking the names of civilians who provided the US with info about the Taliban and Al Qaeda? I don't see what good that does. Not as long as the Taliban are in a position to kill those people, at least.
It's okay to kill innocents if there's a small chance that it reduces other killings?
Amnesty isn't small. They've got a lot of supporters world wide, did a lot of really good work on human rights, and are highly respected by practically everybody. I can't think of an organization that's less controversial than Amnesty yet manages to challenge governments and get results.
Putting Amnesty down like that puts you in the wrong corner. Bad idea from Assange. When you're in competition with the heaviest funded, most ruthless intelligence agency in the world, you need all the allies you can get, and blowing off Amnesty like that could cost you other allies as well. Teaming up with Amnesty might gain you other allies, and makes it harder for the US to paint you as a bad guy.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
This isn't about giving up freedom of press. It's about taking responsibility for your own actions.
Free press is necessary because you need to be able to expose the actions of governments, officials, and other people with power; not because you need to be able to endanger the lives of ordinary people.
Nobody is saying that a specific kind of technology is impossible. Just that it's impossible that that technology will never kill anyone.
He's a nice guy. Soft spoken, almost shy. Not someone I'd consider a fame whore.
I don't know how they intend to save face by claiming they shouldn't be held accountable, and will make people pay for embarrassing them.
The fact that they consider embarrassment a bigger issue than accountability or civilian lives, is a clear sign they have their priorities wrong.
But will it fit in his motherboard?
Ooh! I love that strategic view! So why did they put all the 3D stuff in?
Heh. I still remember the first time I played Master of Orion. Started at 10 pm, stopped at 10 pm.
Side note, careful with the word "application" here, since it's generally got a different meaning in patent contexts. Let's just grit the teeth and say "iPhone ap".
My wife recently used the (Dutch) word "applicatie" to describe patches/badges on our son's shirt. I was thoroughly confused.
Nobody's national anthem begins with "We're Number Two!"
Our national anthem includes the phrases: "I'm of German blood" and "I've always honored the king of Spain". I don't think it mentions the name of our country anywhere (which might be because it didn't exist yet when the anthem was written; I think we have by far the oldest national anthem in the world).
"Treat others like you want to be treated yourself" is what I tend to think in these cases. I think that goes for countries too.
But there is. Either spying is an acceptable thing for governments to do, or it isn't.
Considering spies tend to get locked up or shot, I'd guess it isn't.
2/3rd is meaningless in itself, unless they gave us the breakup country-wise.
Exactly. What if all of China and India are for government hacking, whereas all of the EU and US are against it? Surely our votes should count for more, right?
Because Microsoft pushes it aggressively. Who cares what the superior technology is? What matters is what people use and what companies push. And that's not Wave.