cyberwar! who do you side with?
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: cyberwar! who do you side with?

  1. #1

    Default cyberwar! who do you side with?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/a...stercard-site/

    thats right, a wikileaks thread.
    who do you think is in the right? on one hand i agree with wikileaks' overall goal of transparency, on the other, i understand a governments need to have secrecy for internal communications (though such a leak should never have happened in the first place). now that the "cyberwar" is on, whos side will you take?

  2. #2
    Brushlicker noneedforaname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    I live down in Dorset with the cider and the combine harvesters yaargh!
    Posts
    1,332
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    I dont really have a side but will be a hilarious when Obama kills his political career putting a man on trial for using his first amendment rights.

  3. #3

    Default

    Treasonous blackmailer. Blood will be on his hands. Covert sources and such may be jeopardized. How many people die as a result of this stunt?

    Broadcasting stolen secrets isn't what the 1st amendment was about.

  4. #4

    Default

    Obama is killing his political career by ignoring what he campaigned on and basiscally acting like a republican.

    Wikileaks could have been an amazing example of modern journalism if they had actually edited the stuff themselves instead of just releasing everything (I still think it does an ok job).

    Personally I think there is to much secrecy in the world, sure some is needed, but in general I think it is about people protecting themselves from public scrutiny rather than protecting national security.

    Oh and I dont believe the Swedish charges for a second.

    How is he treasonous - he isnt American. There is a long history in the US of journalists broadcasting stolen secrets and it IS protected by the 1st amendment, the person who made the leaks may be prosecuted (and even that doesnt always happen) but the actual news organisation will not be.
    Last edited by DrEvilmonki; 12-08-2010 at 12:38 PM.
    ScottRadom - "Like when my wife calls me by my brothers name when we're gettin' busy. It's just a mood wrecker."

  5. #5
    Superfreak!!! Torn blue sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    7,214
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    I have to agree with Dr E. There is far too much secrecy in the world, things that have a direct impact on our lives that are kept from us. I reckon people deserve to know what the governments have in store for them. Instead of awaiting the next kick in the teeth with trepidation, they could do something about it first. I don't like the way it all seems to be turning into a global dictatorship whereby Americas serfs all pay tribute to keep favour.
    That said, it's understandable that some things just shouldn't be for the eyes of the general public. If there wasn't such a thickening shroud of secrecy in the first place, none of this would have even happened more than likely. So who's really to blame?
    I have a cunning plan...So cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a Weasel...

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn R. L. View Post
    Treasonous blackmailer. Blood will be on his hands. Covert sources and such may be jeopardized. How many people die as a result of this stunt?

    Broadcasting stolen secrets isn't what the 1st amendment was about.
    Would like to point out it's not treason. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." As far as I know he (Assange) hasn't committed treason against Oz. The 1st amendment doesn't really apply in this instance. If there is an Australian Law that specifies he may not disclose governmentally classified secret material without governmental authorization then he may be in deep. Otherwise, he hasn't committed a crime that I know of as defined by the US current legal system or the Australian legal system. Not that I'm much of an expert on either.

    Private Manning could be guilty of treason. There have been cases where a person has been convicted of treason even when a foreign government is not aided. The problem is that by admitting that evidence to convict Private Manning, even in a military Court Martial, it can then be used by Manning as a justifiable reason to leak classified information when the actions of his comrades and superiors was in direct conflict with the LOAC. Treason wouldn't be a likely outcome (though he is more than likely guilty of many other punishable offenses)

    As for my personal feelings on the matter:

    We've for far too long intertwined deception and governance. There are indeed secrets that the government should work well and hard to keep from the people for security reasons, but if there are those who have the knowledge and wherewithal to pry those secrets and reveal them to the public then it is a failing of the government. Yes, Wikileaks has released information that could end up costing some lives. Wikileaks has also unveiled a glaring problem in United States classification policies, information security, and the deceptive nature of diplomacy and governance that people should be angry about. In short, if you're too incompetent to keep things secret then you deserve the fallout. Especially when you consider the crap that many governments consider "
    Such material that would cause grave damage to national security if it were publicly available."

    People may consider Wikileaks evil, but I for one call it a necessary and welcome evil.
    Last edited by IdofEntity; 12-08-2010 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Included bit about Private Manning
    Nosus decipio - We Cheat

  7. #7

    Default

    i disagree wikileaks is dangerous and irrisponsible
    LAAARRFF, I SPLIT MY SIDES!!

    cassar [demigod] |ˈdemēˌgäd|
    noun ( fem. demigoddess |ˈdemēˌgädis| )
    a being with partial or lesser divine status, such as a minor deity, the offspring of a god and a mortal, or a mortal raised to divine rank.
    • a person who is greatly admired or feared.
    ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: translating Latin semideus .

    on a serious note, i do commissions, no really i do, ask and ye shall receive


  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cassar View Post
    i disagree wikileaks is dangerous and irrisponsible
    lol well argued points.
    ScottRadom - "Like when my wife calls me by my brothers name when we're gettin' busy. It's just a mood wrecker."

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funnymouth View Post
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/a...stercard-site/

    thats right, a wikileaks thread.
    who do you think is in the right? on one hand i agree with wikileaks' overall goal of transparency, on the other, i understand a governments need to have secrecy for internal communications (though such a leak should never have happened in the first place). now that the "cyberwar" is on, whos side will you take?
    The problem is this conflates Wikileaks - and the huge can of worms its activity already engenders - with a DOS attack by hackers, which is a different kettle of fish entirely. One is a freedom of speech/information issue, the second is quite simply a criminal act.

    Which one are we to argue about? Both in the same thread, no thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by noneedforaname View Post
    I dont really have a side but will be a hilarious when Obama kills his political career putting a man on trial for using his first amendment rights.
    Uh uh, no sir.

    Einion

  10. #10
    Superfreak!!! lizcam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Moved to the land of Oz in March of 2014. Interesting place, Kansas.
    Posts
    5,549
    Blog Entries
    29
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    I haven't read the replies yet so if I'm repeating someone I'm sorry.

    I think that this is a very complex issue. On the one hand there is censor going on that I feel may (without knowing all the details) be unfair. After all, he was arrested on sexual abuse, not for wikileaks. Trying to financially shut down wikileaks at this point seems to me like wolves tearing apart the calf when the mother isn't watching. I guess it's kind of like trying to impeach a president for getting a BJ from an intern when he's actually doing a descent job as a president (oooo. opening another can of worms). One thing really doesn't have to do with the other and it seems unfair and unfounded. I hope that makes sense.

    On the other hand this may open up a new era of finacial instability for a world economy that is in no position to cope with more instability. I understand WHY they are doing what they are doing but it's negativly affecting not only the financial institutions but also the average guy on the street. At a time when the average guy is already down. The economy of the world works because we believe in it. We believe that a piece of paper is worth something so it is. We believe that credit is valid so it is. We believe in the financial power of internet banking so it has power. Now something ELSE has shaken that belief at a time when our faith in the power of money when that belief is already weak. This could be the thing that kills the euro or the dollar or the pound or whatever. It seems to me that the group that is attacking these financial institutions is not taking that into consideration.

    I don't know if that puts me on either side. I feel for both sides of the issue and believe strongly in peoples freedoms. But I also believe in peoples right to thier money when they need it. How do you choose between principals and eating? Of course that's not an argument a rich person would understand. But anyone who's been living paycheck to paycheck and counting on credit to get them over the rough times would surely understand.

    But remember, I have read very little about any of this. Didn't iinterest me untill it looked like my money would be involved. I'll do some more reading and see if I'm just blowing crap out there or if I have a valid point. Wouldn't be the first time I've babbled on without any valid understanding of anything.

    Now I must get ready for the onslaught of spam emails I always get when I submit an oppinion on something other than minis and sex. It's hard being blonde.
    We done done it now. We're finally hitched. We are now the dreaded two headed Roger - Liz - Bunting monster you have all feared.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lizcam View Post
    It's hard being blonde.
    You said it, sister.
    Nosus decipio - We Cheat

  12. #12

    Default

    Neither but I guess the sexual assault charges are marginally less obvious than a .50 cal in an aldi carpark.

  13. #13
    Superfreak!!! Torn blue sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    7,214
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Well yeah, they have to pin something on him. I have the ever so sneaky feeling they'll stick fast and he'll be given a rather long term too...
    I have a cunning plan...So cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a Weasel...

  14. #14

    Default

    all i have to say is damn you norwegians for making us beleive you were interrested in these JAS fighters. LOL
    ...keep talking
    Forever remains

    Instagram

  15. #15

    Default

    Oi, this thing is a mess.
    According to the govt the docs are still classified...
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/08/...ex.html?hpt=T2
    Sooooo we can't read them, but the rest of the world can.....kinda silly at this point.....
    The more I reflect on the growing scandal ( wikileaks claims to have released less than 1% of the docs so far) the more I am inclined to believe that wikileaks is in the wrong. What is the benefit (to the global community) of releasing this sensitive information? Entertainment? Seriously, im asking.

    Frankly I think secrecy/privacy is a good & important element of individuals & organizations. If my private emails were leaked I'd be pissed. If my work correspondence regarding MY research were leaked, I'd be downright venomous. If national security were involved, I'd expect some toothless bodies to be found. Such is the case. IMHO, governments are entitled to the same privacy afforded individuals to ensure their successful functioning. Of course, the leak never should have happened. Period. Ergot the govt doesn't have any business pointing fingers at it's citizens who have read or commented on the docs. Global politics is a free-for-all, wild west environment, so both sides are "playing fair" as far as I'm concerned ( no treason charges, just dark alleys). Us citizens directly involved in the leak (which logically must be the case), however, should be tried for treason. Those engaged in cyberterrorism should also be charged appropriately. regardless of wikileaks proclaimed motives they have, undoubtedly, endangered lives. The so called "retaliatory attacks" are thinly veiled idealistic juvenile outbursts or, more likely, profiteering.
    Really I guess Im divided.
    I'm more than happy to pay taxes to fund guys in very black suits with very silent guns to plug said leaks ( or ass raping, shank wielding, criminals working pro bono), but I also believe the intelligence community has no one to blame but themselves.

    As a related issue, It's interesting to see so many people bitching about transparency while simultaneously demanding more privacy. My opinion, as if you care, is that too much or too little is a bad thing for both.
    Last edited by funnymouth; 12-09-2010 at 02:15 AM.

  16. #16
    Brushlicker noneedforaname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    I live down in Dorset with the cider and the combine harvesters yaargh!
    Posts
    1,332
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    I think there are three distinct types of material that have been made available.

    1)non damaging but embarrassingly funny which should probably have been treated as personal communication and left private.
    2)damaging to politicians/possibly criminal (ie Hillary Clinton ordering spying at the UN) definitely should be released.
    3)active military secrets which should not be released ever.

    The first one however does seem to paint a broader picture giving us some insight into the real political global scene like the common feeling in the middle east to deal with Iran, as such has good points along with small bad points. Trust me the British media says worse things about the royal family lol

    The second one can be seen as an important check on those abusing there powers.

    The third, of which as far as I'm aware only one document came close to being is were the line should be drawn and wikileaks should have self censored.

    The problem arises when you are aware of the volume of information they are releasing. There is no way they could have checked the content of each and every document before release.

    So overall wikileaks should be free to publish exercising freedom of speech, the individual who leaked the documents should be prosecuted in accordance with whatever military statute this falls under.

    As an aside the US government should not lean on countries to press false charges, those of you who followed the original leak and original allegations will know that the women involved withdrew there "allegations" and all but revealed in the press that the charges had been trumped up by "other parties". Suprise surprise another leak and the "allegations" resurface. If he's goes to Sweden expect to see him in the US real soon.

  17. #17

    Default

    So overall wikileaks should be free to publish exercising freedom of speech, the individual who leaked the documents should be prosecuted in accordance with whatever military statute this falls under.
    I don't know, it sounds an awful lot like receiving stolen goods; fences aren't thieves, but they're still criminals. I really don't think freedom of speech is universal: we're free to express opinions and make arguments, but information is another matter. That's why we have patents, copyrights, intellectual property, confidentiality, privacy, secret family recipes, and so on. Not only that, but free speech does not indemnify us from the consequences of our actions, hence libel/slander laws, incitement to violence, etc.

    Personally, I think Assange is an arrogant, egotistical ass. If they manage to make a charge stick, he won't keep that smirk on his face for very long once he goes inside; he'll either have to be in solitary the entire time, or... well, I'd prefer not to contemplate the other possibility. Either way, he won't enjoy himself at all.

  18. #18

    Default

    Sure there's always two sides of things but It's imperative for any citizen in a democratic country to try your best on making decisions based on facts rather then what people tell you to think. So thus the need for accurate information and not information filtered out by people who supposedly "knows your best". Without information the choices you make are ill-informed and democracy becomes a sham.

    Wikileaks have gone to length to preserve and protect the anonymity in the released documents not to jeopardise individual lives and I for one cannot fault their claim that not one life has been lost because of their releases. In fact they have looked through every piece of paper they've released so far, it's evident if you look at the material. Sure they might be tiptoeing the line but they've stayed on the right side so far. If the truth about the reasons of say a war can prevent people from supporting it and it ever taking place is that not in the best interest of the constantly quoted "national security"?

    Even if I do think some wars are necessary that doesn't mean that every action in a war is a necessity and of these actions we need information too. There is a slippery slope from controlling information to controlling people - all information, all people. I'm not surprised at the giant out lash against Wikileaks as they have borrowed their thumb squarely in the eye of the people in power and neither I am not surprised that public opinion can be swayed against something that is in their interest but I cannot help to feel utter disgust when company after company quote TOS to close Wikileaks down despite the fact that they haven't done anything illegal as of yet.

    My biggest regret with Wikileaks is Julian Assange. Judging his character and actually knowing from where the accusations come I suspect there might be some truth to them. He should have stepped down long ago.

    And damn you Norway!!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noneedforaname View Post
    ...that the women involved withdrew there "allegations" and all but revealed in the press that the charges had been trumped up by "other parties". Suprise surprise another leak and the "allegations" resurface.
    Hm. That needs looking into. For what it's worth, crimes like rape and child sexual abuse are very very tricky to deal with. I don't know what the numbers are like with adult rape victims, but in children who make allegations of sexual abuse, fully 90% of those who retract their story will eventually re-assert it.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gearhead View Post
    Hm. That needs looking into. For what it's worth, crimes like rape and child sexual abuse are very very tricky to deal with. I don't know what the numbers are like with adult rape victims, but in children who make allegations of sexual abuse, fully 90% of those who retract their story will eventually re-assert it.
    One of the two allegations was that he didn't use a condom when the woman made it explicitly clear that she wanted him to use one. Is there really any conceivable way for this to be more than a 'he said, she said' argument? Can evidence really assert her claim? He very well may have done exactly that, but I just can't imagine it sticking.

    The fact of the matter is the US government has publicly stated that while the contents of the leaks are damaging on a diplomatic front, it is merely a nuisance on the military front. There has been no evidence to prove that the military information leaked will directly endanger our forces. Plenty of people are suggesting that this endangers real people on the ground, but how many people have died because of it? You can argue risk all you want, but where are the actual damages? When you can prove that the actions of Wikileaks have caused measurable damages to our military then it's understandable to demonize them. Much of what was leaked is embarassing to nations, but it's a lame excuse to blame the leak when you shouldn't have been acting like a tart to begin with.

    Assange and the Wikileaks crew believe that the only higher power a government is responsible to is the public. In a sense, they're right. It's not as if NATO is going to call the USA to task for slaying innocents because of a bad tactical call. Governments around the globe hide actions from the public under the pretense that the citizens shouldn't know the dirty secrets for the safety of all. Some are better about it than others. China is one of the worst. This episode should teach the government two things. 1) Screw up less and you'll have less to hide. 2) Tighten up security. Those two points combined will probably save more lives in the long run than the leak will cost. It's conjecture on my part, and I don't have hard numbers to assert that conjecture. The only way we'll know is to wait for the fallout to clear.
    Last edited by IdofEntity; 12-09-2010 at 10:11 AM.
    Nosus decipio - We Cheat

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->