On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 03:05:00 PM russ...@coker.com.au wrote: > Jason, your analysis is insightful and well written. But I disagree with > this > paragraph. The above article gives a clear example of the problems with > a "release all information" approach. Releasing government information > that has no relevance to security (EG the amount of money spent on coffee > and biscuits for government employees) might be harmless, but releasing > information on citizens can be dangerous. Releasing the addresses of most > women in a country has an obvious risk of facilitating stalking and rapes.
Russell, I don't disagree with the article about the dangers of releasing unfettered information. But the problem with having a secretive, unaccountable body deciding what is worth releasing to the public, and what isn't worth releasing to the public is that we have no idea what decisions are being made, why they are made, or what they are refusing to release. Which is kind of exactly the problem that wikileaks usually argue they are addressing. Governments are collecting information about us, and are then - in a secretive, unaccountable manner - deciding what information we may or may not have. Governments usually cite the argument, when they say they can't release some information, that by releasing the information they would be causing harm to the people they are supposed to be protecting. Strangely similar to the article you link to, and the argument about managing what is released. It's a legitimate point for governments to be making - except that we never find out what information governments happen to have chosen to keep from us for our own protection. And in that gap lies the problem wikileaks want to address. However we'll also never know what information wikileaks have chosen to keep from us for our own protection. So what's the difference? There is a slight difference. In a democracy, at least we have the thin veneer of an opportunity to influence our decision makers. And we have laws and systems designed to try and ameliorate the excesses of the dreaded establishment. Imperfect maybe. Let's face it, however crap they are, they all far exceed any public oversight or power we happen to have over wikileaks or Julian Assange. I'm not sure when the next election for the 'board' of wikileaks is happening, but I know for a fact that I don't get a vote. If we are replacing one flawed, failing, not-very transparent information overlord with another flawed, even less transparent overlord, we are really not doing ourselves any favours, no matter how beautiful the core idea behind wikileaks is. And when that organisation starts to play partisan politics with information it possesses, well it's turned into a monster that - if it isn't far worse than what it claims to be protecting us from - it's a least definitely no better. If wikileaks want to protect individuals by withholding some information, or holding it until they have vetted it - well great. We all support not hurting innocent people through thoughtless and rash actions. So do it "as soon as practicable". And if by releasing information two days after President Trump claims he was spied on by the CIA, then it makes wikileaks look like they are complicit with the new US administration, then wikileaks should wait a few weeks and do it at a time where it doesn't play into the hands of one political actor over another. As others have pointed out, it's not like anyone is astounded at this news. I know I'm not. Frankly, if the US government weren't doing exactly what the Chinese government, the Russian government, the French Government, the [insert any country's name] government is doing wouldn't we all be far more surprised? Anyway, that's all off topic. The point is, if wikileaks want to remain "above politics" then they have an obligation to do everything that they can to not only BE above politics, but also to APPEAR to be above politics. Jason Cleeland -----Original Message----- From: Russell Coker [mailto:russ...@coker.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, 8 March 2017 3:05 PM To: free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au Cc: ja...@cleeland.org Subject: Re: [free-software-melb] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: WIKILEAKS, Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 02:39:58 PM ja...@cleeland.org wrote: > If the information is all that matters, wikileaks will release all > information it obtains as soon as practicable and will do all things > possible to ensure that they do not release information at times that > just happen to suit partisan political interests. ESPECIALLY when > those partisan political interests also appear to align with the > partisan interests of the media star of wikileaks. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zeynep-tufekci/wikileaks-erdogan- emails_b_11158792.html Jason, your analysis is insightful and well written. But I disagree with this paragraph. The above article gives a clear example of the problems with a "release all information" approach. Releasing government information that has no relevance to security (EG the amount of money spent on coffee and biscuits for government employees) might be harmless, but releasing information on citizens can be dangerous. Releasing the addresses of most women in a country has an obvious risk of facilitating stalking and rapes. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
