I guess the point is that the ethical ramifications of this whole ordeal are not as simple as hacking = bad.
WikiLeaks to release two million ‘embarrassing’ hacked Syrian government emails
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I guess the point is that the ethical ramifications of this whole ordeal are not as simple as hacking = bad.
Someone has to. Do you really trust someone like Stephen Harper to actually let the Canadian public know what he is doing? If governments were more open they wouldn't have to fear organizations like Wikileaks. I still can't understand why meetings of the Canadian cabinet are kept secret for 30 years. I remember that details of the October Crisis were not released until November of 2000. Can't say that delaying that knowledge did us a hell of a lot of good.
What I find galling is that almost every party runs on a platform of more open government and yet completely fail to deliver once in power. If I remember correctly open government was one of the founding principles of the Reform Party. And it seems to me that Mr. Harper was once a member of that party.
To start, I don't trust any politician of any stripe. To date, there is only 1 leader (provincial) that has generally lived up to their word and he was much like a bull in a china shop (Klein)... Like him or not, by in large, the man pretty much lived-up to his promises or made a strong effort to do so.
In regard to Wikileaks, I think that you would agree that there are simply certain things that the general public need not know about. That said, this is not a wholesale excuse to with hold all info, but it does draw a clear line on things.
My problem with Assange et al is: who the hell do they think they are to make that decision for the gvt and citizens of a foreign nation? He has published high level gvt/diplomatic docs as well as private military communications on an indiscriminate basis. In my view, that puts lives in direct jeopardy (ie; some of the Afghan aides and insiders whose names were released).
Wikileaks believes that they have no responsibility for their actions to Canada (or any nation for that matter). It sure is easy to play the role of do-gooder when he/she doesn't have to answer to the consequences of their actions.
You're not alone on that, in fact, I'd suggest that every Canadian is sickened by the perpetual lies and con-jobs by every politician that has assumed office (or hoped to) over the last number of years. I for one would be strongly tempted to support any party that promised (hahaha; I know I just used the word promised) to implement a condition that entailed that the party platform and future plans were formatted in a document that was essentially a formal contract.
Break the contract and suffer the consequences based on an understanding or formula (read: trigger an election and eliminate the chance for the leader - contract signer - to run again). It would go a long way in prohibiting these clowns in making unrealistic promises to get into office.
I think we have to disagree on Klein. He may have kept the promises you favoured, but he certainly didn't so far as the health care and education system is concerned and he fudged many other promises.
So far as government secrecy is concerned I will admit that some things do have to be kept secret. Certainly details of the budget should not be known beforehand, and there are some issues of national security. But it seems to me that modern governments seem to want to keep everything possible secret. Governments are certainly not elected to hide the truth from their citizens, so why do they do it? As I said before there is very certainly something wrong with a system in which governments keep secrets for decades.
People like Assange exist because of this very secrecy. If governments actually practiced the open government they all yack about then he and his ilk would have nothing to report.
Assange and Wikileaks seem to have no moral or ethical views other than that governments are not supposed to have ANY secrets. It's not about increasing transparency and accountability, but about eliminating the power of governments to hold any secrets, including those that are necessary to keep their populations safe and defend us against nations and groups that consider democracy the enemy. Assange and his group don't care whose life is endangered and who they empower with their leaks. That's why I have a serious problem with Wikileaks and see them as unethical frauds.
Is there a WIkileaks on Wikileaks? It would be fascinating to see behind the wall of secrecy of this group. Why are they so against freedom of knowledge? They should reveal their sources, their methods, their personal emails, the whole thing. We the people demand transparency!!! End the secrets, Assange!
I am sure the Syrian regime is quaking in their boots at this development. I am sure it is their #1 problem right now.
Well said. A lot of people have quit and/or distanced themselves from him over his methods.
Well if they're as dull as the big cable leaks were, it may actually help them to sleep at night.
I think it's kind of nice to know that the big, bad government is just as mundane as the rest of us.
Hell some of the real 'nasty' stuff in those cables pales in comparison to good troll fight on here! LOL.
No way Wikileaks could reveal its sources considering the fact that the secrecy obsessed regimes they expose regard such leaks as treasonous. Take a look at what happened to the US soldier who leaked all the info on Iraq. People who are brave enough to leak such info are taking very high risks.
As I said. I have no problems with some aspects of government being kept secret for a time. But keeping everything secret for decades or even forever is simply a no go.
Wikileaks has no transparency, no accountability to the public, not responsibility for anyone's safety or well being and it functions like a dictatoirship, an autocratic entity with top-secret everything tand it claims this is necessary in order for it to do its job of exposing the secrets of democratic governments which do have problems, do have areas that need to change, but nonetheless have accountability, far more transparency and responsibility for the lives of their citizens and the well being and security of their countries. I think we have to work on more transparency, more accountability in democratic governments but empowering a dictatorial organization whose only goal seems to be exposing secrets and disempowering democratic governments to do their job of protecting their countries and peoples is dangerous and countereffective. All the people who are leaking info are doing is empowering a destructive group that functions and believes in its own self proclaimed power over the world, really. The soldier who leaked information to Wikileaks endangered his fellow soldiers and others in Iraq with no regard for his responsibility and commitment to protecting people at a time of war with Islamist extremists who behead humanitarian workers and butcher with intent tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Wikileaks does not have the complexities and context that can be behind issues. It just throws out little bits here or there for maximum effect. If you agree that there are times governments need to keep secrets, then I would imagine the first step would be to have a very clear understanding of what those times are. To do so, you have to know the context. You have to have a set of criteria and then you have to compare the secrecy to that criteria and evaluate it as having met it or not. Wikeleaks doesn't do this. It doesn't have access to all the context in any case, so it can't. But you think they should have a sort of world domination dictatorial power over the world's people to decide when and what should or should not be exposed. Who are they? Who is Assange? What trust and credibility has he earned to be the world police over transparency? The guy's a dictator and a fraud. So is his group.