Assuaging The Wiki-leaks

by trans-parere | December 5, 2010 at 05:29 pm

981 views | 5 Recommendations | 25 comments

With all the latest fervor over wiki-leaks and their assault on institutional privacy. Whether it is posting banking, industrial or governments communications. The unspoken question begs -what more private information can be gathered and released under a flag of morality, the assumption of the peoples right to know, free speech, or the freedom of the press. All of which Wiki-leaks Julian Assange has used to justify his actions and for which individuals donate money to facilitate.

How secure is a business when any disgruntled employee can anonymously send private corporate material onto wiki-leaks for public consumption? Trade initiatives and strategies that are essential to a businesses survival. Information about trends and future buying on the stock exchange or sought for resources planned ahead of industrial demands related to production. Future products or models in the works or just data recording a public companies fiscal viability that if known would have it's shares plummet.

How secure is a country under the very same circumstances where a disgruntled employee of the government. Any government. Can send vital data to Wiki-leaks and Julian Assange for public distribution?

Assange declares of Wiki-leaks. "We get information in the mail, the regular postal mail, encrypted or not, vet it like a regular news organization, format it - which is sometimes something that's quite hard to do, when you're talking about giant databases of information - release it to the public and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks."

Obviously Julian Assange realizes he is doing something wrong, amoral and illegal, if he must gird his actions from inevitable legal attacks. Which in of itself asks, if Julian Assange's behavior wasn't illegal, would he be operating as he is with such disregard for state and business data and communications? Does Assange, Wiki-leaks or the disgruntled employees who collate and transmit these secrets have the moral authority to be the arbitrators of what is public knowledge and circumvent the laws of nations to distribute such privately held material?

If the idea of good as stated by Assange is, "Well, there's a question as to what sort of information is important in the world, what sort of information can achieve reform. And there's a lot of information. So information that organizations are spending economic effort into concealing, that's a really good signal that when the information gets out, there's a hope of it doing some good."

Has he been successful? Has he altered the course of reform? No.

All Wiki-leaks has accomplished is to drive secret keeping further underground as governments, banks and corporations plug the holes in their systems, create further distrust and for a brief moment caused some unnecessary and unfruitful embarrassment. Wiki-leaks biggest success has to be that they have become an international pariah who themselves must hide and operate under a veil of secrecy.

Wiki-leaks double standard inherent in their moral authority. We need our privacy and secrets to do our job. Nation states, banks and corporations don't.

in the morning gather thyself to purpose,
in the evening discuss the manner,
that thou hast been this day,
in word, work, and thought.

trans-parere

December 5, 2010

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 18:26 on December 5th, 2010

Who uses the information and for what purpose? The reality is no matter to Wiki-leaks perhaps but, the fact is they are liable for the use such information they leak gets used. And yes. Morally too.

trans-parere

at 19:22 on December 5th, 2010

I don't think many have actually understood the consequences of revealing a nations secrets or those held by private institutions. I appreciate the addendum.

flying solo (not verified)

at 07:15 on December 7th, 2010

i would like to know the consequences. Here i was under the impression that God was in charge i belive in keeping me and mine safe as i can (i pray) and i will fight even have for this country (hindsight is something) although i hope never to again but if i do fight it will be for what is right and does not matter what the other side says or even if the rest of the people on the earth think think im wronge for i will know. Its hard to admit that something you stood or stand for is wronge but opens a understanding that i am thankful for there is good and evil witch one do you think would take advantage of whatever it can. and make it look good,right,just ect. would good or evil hide things

trans-parere

at 12:54 on December 8th, 2010

Your impression that God is in charge is mistaken. God relinquished control when God gave us free will.

flyiing solo (not verified)

at 06:49 on December 7th, 2010

Arent we all reasponable for or own actions or is someone else responable because they gave info. i happen to know that banks keep money in them if i tell somebody and they steal it should i go to jail with them? the u.s. govt teaches some people how to kill should the so called comander and chief sit time for every vet that came back and killed someone

trans-parere

at 13:03 on December 8th, 2010

There is a very big difference between knowing banks hold money and disclosing my account information. I'd say your use of moral equivalency is suspect. To follow your logic, Wiki-leaks is not only saying banks hold money, they are saying you have an obligation to steal it and that they will pay you and keep you safe from the consequences.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 01:22 on December 6th, 2010

According to wikileaks Assange, he not only vets all incoming data he reformats it prior to making it public. Therefore the people do not have actual full disclosure of all data delivered. What is julian Assange hiding from the public under the guise of his own interpretation of need to know? He holds himself and wikileaks as moral judge of information value if and when it brings about the most embarrassment. He himself is not honest in his moral outrage against the machine he rages against but has placed himself as moral middleman of stolen intel. He and wikileaks are no different operationally than those they attempt to embarrass. Julian Assange is a big fat phony. Thanks for the posting. TAS

Piobar

at 08:03 on December 6th, 2010

A personal aside here, but "question begging" is not the correct term... the questions you mention are definately raised, but not begged, as that term refers to a form of circular argument.

However, I agree, Mr Assange editing data for maximum shock value, and releasing it, without concern over who reads it, or what THEIR intentions are, and hiding behind "Freedom of the press" is problematic. And as you say, if what he was doing were legal, he would not need to use threats of further damaging information being released.

He admits to the information being reformatted. In other words, he is well aware that he is taking it out of context, and is doing that for a reason. What is his reason? It certainly is not protecting peoples rights to privacy. The only privacy and security he has shown any concern for is his own. He is a hypocrite, and a criminal.

Thanks for the great post!

trans-parere

at 13:27 on December 6th, 2010

Thank you for your comment. I'm thinking of starting a new business. I will accept stolen property and then redistribute it. This will be a moral crusade for I think I am a better judge of who ought to have what. If you agree with what I'm doing please donate so I can pay off the thieves who need to be supported in their good work. I can't promise you your house wont be robbed but, in the long run think of all the good I will be doing for the people. When the cops come for me I hope you will stand up and support my moral outrage against a unfair system that is keeping this property from the people. My battle with the owners of said property and the legal system proves the unjust society we live in and the necessity of my work. Send all stolen property and donations to @wiki-loot.com.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 14:23 on December 6th, 2010

Not to worry. Apparently many are willing to rob their own house to further the cause.

if choosen someday all will know (not verified)

at 06:30 on December 7th, 2010

i think that their alot of people in bus. and exspeicaly in the polical field that realy dont want this info. out or want it stoped befor some info. is out that may lead to charges from the people who they are suppouse to be serving. this goes right to good vs. evil and ive never heard or seen where anything other than the truth was used by good. We will all pass one day and no matter if were looked at as good, bad or indifferent really wont matter in the end its how we lived cause if you think santa see all think about what CHRISTMAS is realy about.

flying solo (not verified)

at 06:35 on December 7th, 2010

is a country any different than a gang? both have the same things some countries live by different rules same as some ganges could someone please tell me the differance

trans-parere

at 10:33 on December 7th, 2010

Have you ever seen a gang of Nuns?

Piobar

at 08:21 on December 8th, 2010

I always thought a group of nuns would be a flock... like penguins? I've seen a mob of monks, one time I saw a pack of priests, and on television I've even seen bands of bishops. One time I was even lucky enough to see a racket of Rabbis... but I do not think that this adds any credibility to the point Flying Solo is making. Quite the opposite, to be honest. Someone invading the privacy of an ecclesiastic Entante, (sorry, no more assonance or alliteration, I promise) would be expected to answer for their actions as well. Privacy laws, and official secrets, are there for a reason. There are better and more lawful ways to bring up concerns over the legality of a group’s actions. The fact is, despite what Mr. Assange has said, by leaking those documents as he did, the security and safety of many people was put at risk. Also, he has undermined the relationships between many would-be allies. That also is damaging to the safety and security of many people around the world. However, Mr. Assange seems to think such things are irrelivant.

trans-parere

at 12:34 on December 8th, 2010

It seems many have a difficulty separating whistle blowing from internal espionage and abuse of access to classified data. The blow back from this will only make it harder in the future for genuine whistle blowing on illegal activities. It will more than likely also raise the level of distrust of employees tenfold. I have just finished reading an IT white-paper that outlines new measures for segmenting, controling and recording access to and distribution of corporate data. All data to be related on a need to know basis with employees restricted to very limited read only file access and all editable file work run through secure file servers that will record access names, times, files and duration. It looks like the most mundane data has taken on a new value. Secrecy and privacy everywhere. Wiki-leaks agenda has backfired. Information doors everywhere will be shut and guarded.

Piobar

at 14:26 on December 8th, 2010

And now the information that SHOULD be made public is less likely to be, and those who know it are less likely to bring it forward. The information that needs to be kept secure, however, is now to be so guarded that even those with a need to know will likely not have access to it. The result, more bureaucracy and delays when dealing with government, or big corporations. Oh joy! Not that I am opposed to tightening up security where needed; and Wikileaks definately highlighted a need. But the response is always to swing too far.

trans-parere

at 16:31 on December 8th, 2010

I'm afraid you are correct. If you remember, one of the earlier issues with intelligence dissemination was a lack of open, frank communication and intel sharing between governments and their agencies. As example; The purpose behind the creation of the Dept. of Homeland Security was to mitigate that bottleneck for the Americans. Now, how much of that openness and easy transmission of intel has been put in jeopardy? It's a good thing Wiki-leaks has the UFO conspiracy to fall back on because everything else is going to dry up like the Sahara. Open democratic government is going to become an active conspiracy of need to know. Anything! The people who distrusted government have proven they can not be trusted. Wonder who is going to win that one?

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)

at 02:44 on December 9th, 2010

It ain't goin' to be Joe Citizen. In any country after the fall out.

flying solo (not verified)

at 06:40 on December 7th, 2010

just a note that all laws are not good. remmber slavery? the war was about money as now and befor but some would and did die to try and keep people as slaves (to make money?)

trans-parere

at 10:34 on December 7th, 2010

Are you really equating official secrets and privacy law with slavery?

trans-parere

at 10:31 on December 7th, 2010

Sort of a general observation here. IMO I think many people misunderstand the criticisms of Wiki-leaks and Julian Assange. It isn't in my opinion that such information is being disseminated. Though it certainly is where the security info is concerned. More though it is the method of "getting the data" and it's further encouragement. We have privacy laws for a reason. We have the Official Secrets Act for a reason. Wiki-leaks isn't a news organization, though it hides behind freedom of the press and freedom of speech. It's a rat line that financially rewards and encourages treasonous behavior. There is a lot to be said for the old adage -It's Not What You Say, But How You Say It. And can be extrapolated to -It's Not What You Do, But How You Do It. What Julian Assange and Wiki-leaks is doing, is wrong on many levels, and that outweighs any right one may attach to the whole.

The 1

at 12:48 on December 7th, 2010

Who said..

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

and..

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

and..

"This I believe: That the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual."

All excellent quotes by the way trans-parere ! Thanks for that ! 1

trans-parere

at 15:05 on December 7th, 2010

With social and individual freedoms comes responsibility. While Julian Assange and Wiki-leaks may hold themselves as revealer's of the truth. There are consequences for doing so. Like posting on their web the list of critical Canadian sites. This action deliberately places both Canadian and American security at risk with zero value to the general public for having this knowledge. Responsible journalist would know this and not published, and without having suffered any moral angst.

Dr Cromwell (John) (not verified)

at 03:13 on December 8th, 2010

I watched the latest tv direction with the founder of wikeleaks and i agree with him and your foundation within such leaking of information. I personally would like to join your organization as long as it is free as now being unemployed due to doing the same thing by whistle blowing on a severe scaled on the nhs due to chronic patient abuses. I was not only sacked and discredited and placed the court system. I was then locked up in a secure home office prison for some time, but they had to eventually let me out due to my non cooperation. Basically i have never worked since which they then distroyed a long standing medical career just because i refused to accept what was going on and is still going on within the nhs and our hospitals. contact me on 01642614089 or 07903592264