Wikileaks due to leak another 2.8 million documents

[No Limit]

So just to be sure, you understand that net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this leak? You are simply saying that the american people are so dumb they might think that it does? I wonder why the american people never had this problem with things like child pornography and exploitation, but now that wikileaks releases the truth suddenly the government must be able to block sites!

What other judgements do you make about what is right and what is wrong based on how the american people will perceive it?

I just wanted to requote that because it's such an awesome statement. It's the epitome of every electoral campaign from the first day anyone made a campaign. If we lived in a world truly of full disclosure... wow would that ever be ugly. I don't even want to imagine that. I'm fairly cetain no one would ever be elected to any position of power...

Yeah, politicians being forced to tell the truth. What a ****ing nightmare that would be.

 

[StarBob]

So just to be sure, you understand that net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with this leak? You are simply saying that the american people are so dumb they might think that it does? I wonder why the american people never had this problem with things like child pornography and exploitation, but now that wikileaks releases the truth suddenly the government must be able to block sites!

What other judgements do you make about what is right and what is wrong based on how the american people will perceive it?



Yeah, politicians being forced to tell the truth. What a ****ing nightmare that would be.

Well how long has Government Internet been on the table with child porn growing all around it? How long has child porn and pedophilia been illegal? Things like this don't just happen. Remember when To Catch a Predator first came around? Most states didn't even have laws against arranging sexual meetings with children. Then it came along and made it something for people to gawk at, now it's crazy to not have a law.

This is the same principle. Child porn was always bad. There just hasn't big some super popular exposing news flash bonanza to push Government Internet. Now we have a big fancy scape goat to push it all on. Yes it's stupid. Yes people are stupid. YES NO LIMIT, NOT EVERYONE SPENDS THEIR EVERY MOMENT CONSIDERING THE GOOD AND BAD OF SITUATIONS THAT DON'T AFFECT THEM DIRECTLY. That's how people work. That's why there's greed and lust for the lavish things in the world while others starve. That's why there's wars that kill innocent people because of petty things. The only thing that ever changes that is when something big happens. That's why it's possible for the Wikileaks to promote the death of Net Neutrality.


And yeah... can you imagine what kind of hell it would be if every aspect of government was full disclosure? Every politician campaigns on the platform of "I will do whatever my party agrees with the most and nothing else. I won't listen to what you say and I will keep my agenda outright. Taxes will sway to whatever keeps my party in the majority. Wars will start because of whatever is most profitable or improves my bid for re-election. Please, vote for me so I don't have to write a book to keep my mansion."

It's a terrible world we live in... but such is human nature.

 

[No Limit]

Well how long has Government Internet been on the table with child porn growing all around it? How long has child porn and pedophilia been illegal? Things like this don't just happen. Remember when To Catch a Predator first came around? Most states didn't even have laws against arranging sexual meetings with children. Then it came along and made it something for people to gawk at, now it's crazy to not have a law.

The keyword in what you just said is "law". If wikileaks breaks actual laws then legal action can be taken against them. That is the only type of control the government has over websites. They can not force ISPs to block websites. They can issue legal injunctions against providers for those websites if infact the website hosts illegal content. That's the way the internet is today and that's exactly the way it would be if net neutrality was implemented.

This is the same principle. Child porn was always bad. There just hasn't big some super popular exposing news flash bonanza to push Government Internet. Now we have a big fancy scape goat to push it all on. Yes it's stupid. Yes people are stupid. YES NO LIMIT, NOT EVERYONE SPENDS THEIR EVERY MOMENT CONSIDERING THE GOOD AND BAD OF SITUATIONS THAT DON'T AFFECT THEM DIRECTLY. That's how people work. That's why there's greed and lust for the lavish things in the world while others starve. That's why there's wars that kill innocent people because of petty things. The only thing that ever changes that is when something big happens. That's why it's possible for the Wikileaks to promote the death of Net Neutrality.

I asked you a question that you didn't answer. What other moral judgements do you make based not on what is right and what is wrong but on what the american people might perceive? Yes, I know there are people in this country that will see the release of classified material as reasons not to have net neutrality. Just as people will see child porn as reason not to have net neutrality. Just as people will see illegal file sharing as reasons not to have net neutrality. All these reasons are totally misguided but as you know you can't change stupid. So why does this matter?

And yeah... can you imagine what kind of hell it would be if every aspect of government was full disclosure? Every politician campaigns on the platform of "I will do whatever my party agrees with the most and nothing else. I won't listen to what you say and I will keep my agenda outright. Taxes will sway to whatever keeps my party in the majority. Wars will start because of whatever is most profitable or improves my bid for re-election. Please, vote for me so I don't have to write a book to keep my mansion."

It's a terrible world we live in... but such is human nature.

WTF are you talking about? We are talking about forcing politicians to be honest. You are actually taking the position that we should have a system where they are freely allowed to lie get elected. Like I said, WTF?

 

[StarBob]

The keyword in what you just said is "law". If wikileaks breaks actual laws then legal action can be taken against them. That is the only type of control the government has over websites. They can not force ISPs to block websites. They can issue legal injunctions against providers for those websites if infact the website hosts illegal content. That's the way the internet is today and that's exactly the way it would be if net neutrality was implemented.

Well making public and stealing confidential information is a pretty big law to break. Granted the people who broke the laws are the ones responsible for the leaks. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of legal brick walls they could run in to with the right lawyers considering they disseminated illegally obtained information.

I asked you a question that you didn't answer. What other moral judgements do you make based not on what is right and what is wrong but on what the american people might perceive? Yes, I know there are people in this country that will see the release of classified material as reasons not to have net neutrality. Just as people will see child porn as reason not to have net neutrality. Why does this matter?

When did I ever even mention a moral judgement in the point I've been repeatedly making? How is there any morality or lack of morality in my statement that the probability of net neutrality ending is going to increase? Do you have to be morally aligned to look at the history of law making and use some of the most basic elements of probability? I guess in some strange way you could find establish that, but certainly not in a way I'd acknowledge

WTF are you talking about? We are talking about forcing politicians to be honest. You are actually taking the position that we should have a system where they are freely allowed to lie get elected. Like I said, WTF?

I like that you read what you wanted there and just got all angry.I never said they'd get elected. I said that's what they'd campaign upon if they didn't lie. You see the part where I aid "Every politician campaigns on the platform of..." The reality is that no one would want to elect anyone. Everyone that got up there would say the same thing until some person shows up with no idea how things are accomplished each day in our government and says "I will do my absolute best to ensure the things you want the government to do come true." But the reality is that the big ol' majority of Americans want tons of social programs that don't raise taxes and the choice of whatever high payin job they want from an infinite pool. They want clean air, water, and forests full of trees - but they want big industry, a big house, and all of the newest shiniest things to put inside of it. So the government does what the majority party decides is best and some people are mad and some people are happy but we all keep moving forward hoping the next guy makes the unhappy people happy.

 

[No Limit]

Well making public and stealing confidential information is a pretty big law to break. Granted the people who broke the laws are the ones responsible for the leaks. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of legal brick walls they could run in to with the right lawyers considering they disseminated illegally obtained information.

Which specific law is wikileaks breaking? What jurisdiction does the US government have over wikileaks which is hosted in Australia?

If you answered none and none you are correct. Therefore the US government can't block wikileaks, with or without net neutrality.

When did I ever even mention a moral judgement in the point I've been repeatedly making? How is there any morality or lack of morality in my statement that the probability of net neutrality ending is going to increase? Do you have to be morally aligned to look at the history of law making and use some of the most basic elements of probability? I guess in some strange way you could find establish that, but certainly not in a way I'd acknowledge

You are saying that information showing crimes and abuses commited by our government should be kept hidden because it might affect the argument for net neutrality. That's a moral position you are taking. I am trying to understand why. People might mistake illegal file sharing or child porn and exploitation as reasons for not having net neutrality. Does that mean we should cover up or minimize the fact that child pornography exists on the internet? And you don't think child porn has more of an effect on this than wikileaks does?

I like that you read what you wanted there and just got all angry.I never said they'd get elected. I said that's what they'd campaign upon if they didn't lie. You see the part where I aid "Every politician campaigns on the platform of..." The reality is that no one would want to elect anyone. Everyone that got up there would say the same thing until some person shows up with no idea how things are accomplished each day in our government and says "I will do my absolute best to ensure the things you want the government to do come true." But the reality is that the big ol' majority of Americans want tons of social programs that don't raise taxes and the choice of whatever high payin job they want from an infinite pool. They want clean air, water, and forests full of trees - but they want big industry, a big house, and all of the newest shiniest things to put inside of it. So the government does what the majority party decides is best and some people are mad and some people are happy but we all keep moving forward hoping the next guy makes the unhappy people happy.

Yes, we keep moving forward. If you call where we are moving "forward", I would say we are moving backward. Net neutrality won't be passed. Global warming will continue to be a huge problem. Taxes for the rich will be extended even though they will cost hundreds of billions of dollars which we don't have. We will continue to stay in Afghanistan for the next decade without any goal. Iraq will continue to be a cluster****.

Now why is that? Because politicians lie to us on just about everything to get elected. That is the system we live in now, and that system is totally ****ed up. That's why I don't understand why you think if we changed that system it would be a nightmare. Maybe if these people were actually forced to tell us that giving the rich huge tax cuts will add hundreds of billions to our deficit without really creating any jobs these tax cuts wouldn't be extended. Maybe if they were forced to tell us that there is nothing that can be done in Afghanistan we wouldn't be there for the next decade. Maybe if they were forced to acknowledge that global warming is a serious problem we would actually do something about it. But the national discourse on all these issues is filled with lies and misinformation. And when an organization such as wikileaks tries to expose some of the truths these asshole politicians aren't telling us you have a problem with it because it might hurt net neutrality. Give me a ****ing break.

 

[VirusType2]

Sorry, but that's not endangering anybody and that is a massive bullshit argument.

OK, right.. they just say things like that ... why? So the 'whistle-blower' will feel bad about what he's done?

The cable said both sides discussed the need to avoid publicity for an “upcoming delivery” of GBU-28 bunker-buster bombs to Israel “to avoid any allegations that the U.S. is helping prepare for a strike against Iran.”

That's like arguing that we should allow water-boarding because there might be a ticking time bomb 24-style situation one day.


These leaks are far more mundane, yet still warrant national interest.

Don't compare communications to torture. And the US has no obligation to submit its top secret communications with the entire world. Jesus.

In fact, they're probably going to help the U.S. deal with one of it's biggest problems in a better manner than they could have predicted. Every single leak that's coming out about Iran suggests that everyone thinks Iran is a serious, serious danger and for once it's not the warhawks saying that Iran is a danger. It's every one of Iran's neighbours that think it's Ahmadinejad is nuts and they're the ones pressuring the U.S. to waste him.

I agree that it might turn out to be helpful overall, but that's not a reason to be glad that all our dirty is hanging out to dry. That's like saying, "well, if my wife hadn't have left me, I wouldn't have met you."


side note: You guys ever think they were leaked on purpose? Well, I consider things like that a possibility. The way governments operate - it's just a bunch of chess moves.

Yes, because two U.S. Secretary of States Condaleeza Rice and Hilary Clinton both ordering diplomats to gather DNA, credit card numbers and email passwords on foreign UN diplomats for espionage purposes, or revealing that the Palestinian Authority has the secret backing of the Israeli military and was approached to cooperate in Operation Cast Lead, or that the U.S. has been carrying out drone attacks in Yemen, all of those things are clearly equivalent to water-cooler gossip and my girlfriend reading my email. Yeah.

After the US sends Russian spies home on a plane with a slap on the wrist, this should not surprise anyone.

all of those things are clearly equivalent to water-cooler gossip and my girlfriend reading my email. Yeah.

The point is that it's nobody's business because they are private discussions. I never compared the severity of the two. Nice work trying to miss the point.

Have you read any article on Wikileaks?

By almost any news organization?

Anywhere?

Ever?

Last time I checked (which was, RIGHT NOW) EVERYONE is holding Wikileaks accountable for what they're doing, my god man.

I've read all the ones that discuss the documents inside them (as of yesterday). Have you read any of them yourself? I've never heard anyone condemning wikileaks, sorry. More like oh shit, oh shit, oh shit.

Of course the US government doesn't want them released, and there are news articles saying how it's 'bad' and dangerous and is a huge embarrassment for us - not only because there is a lot of talking behind each other's backs, but because we allowed a leak at all - and a huge one at that. People are worried. It's true some people are mad at the messenger, but they are holding the person who leaked them, and the computer administrators and whoever else that allowed it to happen accountable, right?

Or were you making the ridiculous argument that Wikileaks should be as transparent as they want world powers to be? Because Wikileaks and the U.S. are obviously the same thing.

I don't even know what this means, so no.

"It could be worse" is not a good defensive argument. It's not even an argument, it's just lame.

Well what do you expect, it's the truth. Should we just patch our top secret communications through Twitter? Is that what you expect? Is that accountable enough for you?

 

[CptStern]

reading that text block it's hard to resist yelling

SPAAAARTAAAAAA

 

[VirusType2]

>Is it illegal to host top secret US communications?

I would think so, but I wouldn't know. Posting top secret shit could be illegal, if Wikileaks is under the jurisdiction of the US government.

Wikileaks, the site that has infuriated the US government by releasing thousands of US diplomatic cables, is being hosted by one of the symbols of that country's internet success - Amazon.

And by the way, this is my object view on the whole shit. I'm not arguing that Wikileaks is bad; Wikileaks should be shut down; etc. I would argue that leaking classified information is potentially disastrous. It worries me a little. It worries me that it could screw up relations with the rest of the world, and that is the extent of my give-a-damn.

 

[StarBob]

Which specific law is wikileaks breaking? What jurisdiction does the US government have over wikileaks which is hosted in Australia?

If you answered none and none you are correct. Therefore the US government can't block wikileaks, with or without net neutrality.

Granted the people who broke the laws are the ones responsible for the leaks.

I guess you missed that part. It's not like leaks just magically happen... like you can connect to a server and secret documents just start pouring off of it. Someone is responsible. They'll go after them just like they did before. Considering the power of the government I'm sure they could find ways to make Wikileaks difficult to access, but certainly not impossible. If something is on the internet, it's accessible.

You are saying that information showing crimes and abuses commited by our government should be kept hidden because it might affect the argument for net neutrality. That's a moral position you are taking. I am trying to understand why. People might mistake illegal file sharing or child porn and exploitation as reasons for not having net neutrality. Does that mean we should cover up or minimize the fact that child pornography exists on the internet? And you don't think child porn has more of an effect on this than wikileaks does?

I can't even figure out how you put that together. The only point I've been reiterating is that wikileaks will spark a push for a government controlled internet. I also believe that the entire LEAK aspect is pointless and does nothing but spark a firetorm of media attention that will ultimately help politicians make boundless arguments against net neutrality. I don't really get how any of this implies a moral position. I don't see the morality in saying that something has the probablity of happening because something is else is happening. You seem to be telling me what I'm saying when I'm saying something else. That's... not really my problem. There's pretty much no right or wrong in this situation from my point of view, just no point to the entire process. This knowledge isn't doing anything for anyone. If someone could come back to me in a month or a year or ten years and say "this leak of classified information did this positive thing" maybe I could look back and see... but I sure as hell don't see anything great coming from this.

Yes, we keep moving forward. If you call where we are moving "forward", I would say we are moving backward. Net neutrality won't be passed. Global warming will continue to be a huge problem. Taxes for the rich will be extended even though they will cost hundreds of billions of dollars which we don't have. We will continue to stay in Afghanistan for the next decade without any goal. Iraq will continue to be a cluster****.

Now why is that? Because politicians lie to us on just about everything to get elected. That is the system we live in now, and that system is totally ****ed up. That's why I don't understand why you think if we changed that system it would be a nightmare. Maybe if these people were actually forced to tell us that giving the rich huge tax cuts will add hundreds of billions to our deficit without really creating any jobs these tax cuts wouldn't be extended. Maybe if they were forced to tell us that there is nothing that can be done in Afghanistan we wouldn't be there for the next decade. Maybe if they were forced to acknowledge that global warming is a serious problem we would actually do something about it. But the national discourse on all these issues is filled with lies and misinformation. And when an organization such as wikileaks tries to expose some of the truths these asshole politicians aren't telling us you have a problem with it because it might hurt net neutrality. Give me a ****ing break.

Before I get in to this, I'd like to show you another example of you summarizing my statements into things they aren't: "That's why I don't understand why you think if we changed that system it would be a nightmare." I didn't say that at all. I said that if every politician was forced in to full disclosure, we'd never have a successuful election. I voted for Barack Obama based solely on the fact that he sought change. Removing partisan politics and creating a government where it was easy for the average person to see what we're doing and where we're going was something I thought would be fantastic. We both know it didn't work out that way. However, that doesn't mean I think change would be a nightmare. I'm just imagining a crazy wold where politicians said exactly what their intentions were. I thought I made that clear

The important part I need you to grasp here is that you have this delusion that... just because we have this massive amount of information, things will be different. It's not. I said a bunch of posts back how most people would never read an actual page of this leak, and others who read excerpts that came from news sites. And the majority would just talk about people's reactions to those excerpts from the most sensational bits. Unless there's something about how the government's been secretly feeding us mind control drugs or manipulating the economy to change voting habits, I don't think anyone's gonna riot in the streets. It's just going to be another thing CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC bury their heads in for a while until everyon can't stand hearing it anymore... I don't have a "right or wrong" view of this, I just think it's a big waste of time that people are going to use to make things difficult later on. The US government has always done a lot of things to push it's agenda. If you think this is bad, just go look at some of the crazy ass Cold War stuff we did.

 

[CptStern]

>Is it illegal to host top secret US communications?

no. why do you think US jurisdictions extends globally? and even then what crime would he be guilty of? "passing the buck-ism", "unlawful mediatoring"

I would think so, but I wouldn't know. Posting top secret shit could be illegal

and this is where you are at odds with everyone else. even if that information was a cover up to a crime? even if that information could stand to change accountability policy? if the government was made for the people and by the people state secrets shouldnt exist at all unless they pose a direct threat to national security. backdoor shennanigans dont count.

if Wikileaks is under the jurisdiction of the US government.

it's not and I dont see what crime they have committed. why do care so much about the organisation and not the people leaking the material?

And by the way, this is my object view on the whole shit. I'm not arguing that Wikileaks is bad; Wikileaks should be shut down; etc.

you just said it should be illegal

I would argue that leaking classified information is potentially disastrous. It worries me a little. It worries me that it could screw up relations with the rest of the world, and that is the extent of my give-a-damn.

it doesnt seem to worry you that some of this might point to your government doing something wrong in your name? you're worried what the canadians might think?

 

[StarBob]

you just said it should be illegal

Actually... he didn't at all. He asks if it's illegal to post top secret stuff. Says he thinks it could be.

Doesn't say should at all. But I guess some people in this forum don't really read what people say but just pick a few words then say what they pretended to read. It's fascinating to me. I can't even describe it. There's so many of these situations where people are like "you said this!" and they say "I didn't say that." Then they look back and can't find the quote they pretended to read so they attack some other random thing.

 

[No Limit]

Granted the people who broke the laws are the ones responsible for the leaks.

I guess you missed that part. It's not like leaks just magically happen... like you can connect to a server and secret documents just start pouring off of it. Someone is responsible. They'll go after them just like they did before. Considering the power of the government I'm sure they could find ways to make Wikileaks difficult to access, but certainly not impossible. If something is on the internet, it's accessible.

Yes, that someone is the person that leaked the documents to wikileaks. Not wikileaks itself.

You keep insisting that the government can do something about wikileaks. What exactly?

I'm going to stop the quote wars and just respond point by point.

You keep repeating that there is a push for government controller internet. No there isn't. The reason people are against net neutrality is exactly because it would give government control over the internet. Currently the government has no control, net neutrality would give them control. As I repeated above and you ignored not control in the sense it could block sites, but in the sense that it would regulate how traffic on the internet should flow. Any push to have government decide what sites can be accessed and which can't would be dead on arrival as everyone would be against that.

As far as you voting for Obama. You said you voted for change, but change did not happen. Do you think it was right for Obama to lie during his campaign? For example. He campaigned on allowing drug reimportation. As soon as he came in to office he made a deal with big pharma that would actually block drug reimportation. Do you think that you should have had access to this information before you cast your vote for him?

Do you think we have a right to know that we are selling weapons to Israel in secret to prevent people from thinking we are supporting a Israeli strike against Iran?

 

[VirusType2]

no. why do you think US jurisdictions extends globally?

I didnt' say that. You are misreading on two different things that I said.

Actually... he didn't at all. He asks if it's illegal to post top secret stuff. Says he thinks it could be.

Doesn't say should at all. But I guess some people in this forum don't really read what people say but just pick a few words then say what they pretended to read. It's fascinating to me. I can't even describe it. There's so many of these situations where people are like "you said this!" and they say "I didn't say that." Then they look back and can't find the quote they pretended to read so they attack some other random thing.

This.

Plus, I generally agree with StarBob that it's entirely possible that Net Neutrality come at risk.

Net Neutrality is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Net Neutrality is already highly contested as it was. And if you don't think so, hundreds of thousands of bloggers have been shut down (AKA Silenced) because "there was a lot of piracy" at the host.

73000 Wordpress blogs shut down by U.S. Government
I wonder if some of those bloggers held some views US government didn't want on the internet? Well, who knows now?

I am very, very strongly opposed to censorship. However, classified government information is not the same thing. It's not the same as (for example), denouncing the administration with an extreme opposing view.

 

[CptStern]

I didnt' say that. You are misreading on two different things that I said.

Wikileaks is hosted on Amazon (as I stated). Amazon is a US host, so at the very least, I think they can shut it down. YES.

privately owned. free speech issue. still I dont see what Wikileaks is guilty of. they're not the ones leaking the information they're just posting it

This has nothing to do with crime in this case (I don't think).

wikileaks didnt exist solely for this latest release. they've been around for years

I don't understand why you are wrapping it together in an all or nothing deal. Whatever I argued in the other Wikileaks thread is contained within the context of whatever leaked that time.

but it is a black and white issue; they either release the material or they dont

Plus, I generally agree with StarBob that it's entirely possible that Net Neutrality come at risk. Net Neutrality is already highly contested as it was. And if you don't think so, hundreds of thousands of bloggers have been shut down (AKA Silenced) because "there was a lot of piracy" at the host.

73000 Wordpress blogs shut down by U.S. Government
I wonder if some of those bloggers might have had some information that the US government didn't want on the internet?

I am very, very strongly opposed to censorship. However, classified government information is not the same thing. It's not the same as (for example), denouncing the administration with an extreme opposing view.

jurisdiction issue. assage is no stranger to moving servers due to security issues

 

[VirusType2]

privately owned. free speech issue.

If they host illegal content, they can be shut down, as I proved. And collateral damage - they might take a bunch of other stuff with it.


Sorry, I forgot to respond to this

if the government was made for the people and by the people state secrets shouldnt exist at all unless they pose a direct threat to national security. backdoor shennanigans dont count.

Are you trying to say there shouldn't be any state secrets, no top secret or classified information - as long as no one is at risk? Seriously? I can't even comprehend this viewpoint, really. Sounds like Utopia... or foolishness, I'm not sure which.

So (for example) every time you talk on the telephone to anyone: employer, wife, children, friends, etc., you should be on a 'party line' with everyone you know listening in? Wow.

You know, you've said some things on this forum that I'm sure you wouldn't want your wife to read.

wikileaks didnt exist solely for this latest release. they've been around for years

I'm not arguing against wikileaks, as I've already said.

 

[Mr. Djees]

Wikileaks is hosted on Amazon (as I stated). Amazon is a US host, so at the very least, I think they can shut it down. YES.

They are hosted in Sweden, precisely so they can't be shut down.

WikiLeaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing “highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services.” PRQ is said to have “almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs.” The servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden. Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site". He talks about the Swedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection. It is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper. These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult to take WikiLeaks offline. Furthermore, "Wikileaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."

 

[VirusType2]

I was wondering what the heck about the Amazon host info. Must have been something else. Thanks for the info.

Controversial leaked information about the Iraq war is being mirrored on Amazon servers in America

Wikileaks taunts Pentagon with server mirrors in USA

Ah, OK.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/25/wikileaks_hosting_on_amazon_web_services/

 

[StarBob]

I think I've been a victim of misleading information when it comes to Net Neutrality. I'm going to have to do some research.

Outside of that, I do still believe this leak was a pointless endeavor - though as I'm unsure about my current standpoint on net neutrality - I am also unsure about its potential impact.

 

[VirusType2]

Clinton Says U.S. Relations Will Survive Leak ‘Attack’

While declining to comment on the details of the cables, Mrs. Clinton said the disclosures painted a picture of American diplomats doing their jobs: collecting information and impressions and communicating them in an unvarnished way to policy-makers in Washington.

“I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge,” Mrs. Clinton said.

In one conversation with a foreign official, she said, he laughed off the disclosures, saying, “Don’t worry — you should hear what we say about you.”

Mrs. Clinton also made clear that whatever the contents or conclusions of the cables, American foreign policy was made in Washington, not in its embassies, and that the published documents should not be read as a guide to that policy.

Mrs. Clinton indirectly rejected comparisons of the leaked documents to the Pentagon Papers, saying that the latest leak of documents was not intended to highlight or prevent wrongdoing, as the leak of the Pentagon Papers was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/30reax.html?src=mv

I think I've been a victim of misleading information when it comes to Net Neutrality. I'm going to have to do some research.

Outside of that, I do still believe this leak was a pointless endeavor - though as I'm unsure about my current standpoint on net neutrality - I am also unsure about its potential impact.

Yeah, shit is real, StarBob. Giving the government power to 'make sure everything is unfiltered and uncensored' sounds even more ridiculous when you say it.

I had been a strong supporter of Net Neutrality at first (after all, the gov't doesn't censor and filter our telephone calls, do they?). Now, I am not 100% sure. I keep up on the news. But I only want what is best in the fight against censorship.

 

[No Limit]

I think I've been a victim of misleading information when it comes to Net Neutrality. I'm going to have to do some research.

Don't worry, it happens. Especially on an issue such as this one.

You are welcome to do research on this but what net neutrality boils down to is this:

Every packet on the internet is to be treated exactly the same no matter what service that packet is (web, torrent, video) or what source it comes from. The government nor the internet service provider can block packets or give priority to certain packets over others.

I can understand how this can be confused with a fight over government control over blocking certain sites, since this proposes that the government would not be able to block content. You would assume the counter position is that it should and that is already what is happening. But as it stands the government has absolutely no authority to regulate the internet (as the supreme court recently found). They can only go after websites using the justice system and only a court could remove any online content. Net neutrality would not change this in any way.

Outside of that, I do still believe this leak was a pointless endeavor - though as I'm unsure about my current standpoint on net neutrality - I am also unsure about its potential impact.

How was it pointless? You don't think that having this information will be beneficial to you when you go to the polls in 2012? I personally don't like my tax dollars going to Israel. I sure as hell don't like my tax dollars going to Israel through secret channels that can't be traced (as this leak showed). I now have more information for when I go vote. Is that not how democracy should work?

I had been a strong supporter of Net Neutrality at first (after all, the gov't doesn't censor and filter our telephone calls, do they?). Now, I am not 100% sure. I keep up on the news. But I only want what is best in the fight against censorship.

What are you unsure about?

 

[StarBob]

How was it pointless? You don't think that having this information will be beneficial to you when you go to the polls in 2012? I personally don't like my tax dollars going to Israel. I sure as hell don't like my tax dollars going to Israel through secret channels that can't be traced (as this leak showed). I now have more information for when I go vote. Is that not how democracy should work?

That information is useful, but it's not anything game changing. This isn't something that's really a point-finger-style situation. It wasn't "This guy said this so he's bad and she said that so she's bad." It was more like "Everyone has been saying everything so they're all bad." So I mean you can vote every single person out and bring in new people, but they're still going to be politicians and they're still going to vote in their party's agenda and use the same means to meet their goals. If we got a whole shipment of new congressmen, a new supreme court, and a new president... I bet if the same thing happened in three years we'd see the same kind of stuff showing up. This is still just a big mess that's going to cause more drama than it's even worth.

 

[No Limit]

And how do you undo that system?

 

[VirusType2]

I personally don't like my tax dollars going to Israel. I sure as hell don't like my tax dollars going to Israel through secret channels that can't be traced (as this leak showed). I now have more information for when I go vote. Is that not how democracy should work?

You don't think Israel pays for the US weapons it obtains? What are you referring to?

 

[No Limit]

You don't think Israel pays for the US weapons it obtains? What are you referring to?

A lot of the weapons they get are part of aid packages, they do not pay for them. These memos also revealed that they were trying to raise this aid package to 30 billion dollars over a span of a few years which they did.

Here is a very good read about what these leaks say about Israel and Iran:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wikileaks-cable-reveals-israel-pushing-regime-change-iran/

 

[Krynn72]

So (for example) every time you talk on the telephone to anyone: employer, wife, children, friends, etc., you should be on a 'party line' with everyone you know listening in? Wow.

You know, you've said some things on this forum that I'm sure you wouldn't want your wife to read.

Jesus. Do not even pretend to imply that a representative government that is supposed to be a tool of the citizens is anything like the private lives of individuals.

 

[VirusType2]

A lot of the weapons they get are part of aid packages, they do not pay for them. These memos also revealed that they were trying to raise this aid package to 30 billion dollars over a span of a few years which they did.

Here is a very good read about what these leaks say about Israel and Iran:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/wikileaks-cable-reveals-israel-pushing-regime-change-iran/

You bastard. I read that entire thing, and the only thing even related to that was this very line.

Dagan began the meeting by thanking the US for its support of Israel, as well as for a recent $30 billion aid package.

here we go

The money must be used to purchase military equipment from the US defence industry, although Israel will also be permitted to use 26.3% to buy equipment from local companies.

Washington says it wants to help its allies in the Middle East meet their security needs and counter the growing power of Iran in the region.

'Investment in peace'

The Bush administration said last month that it was offering weapons aid to other countries in the region, including $20bn for Saudi Arabia, $13bn for Egypt and $20bn to be shared between Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.

Do not even pretend to imply that a representative government that is supposed to be a tool of the citizens is anything like the private lives of individuals.

If anything, it should be at least as private as individuals. Pass that chicken Parmesan you're smoking.

I am a very strong advocate of privacy and a very strong opponent of censorship. Deal with it.

 

[No Limit]

I gave you that to read because I thought it was interesting. Yes, it talks about the $30 billion dollar aid package, much of that in weapons.

The bunker buster story is here:

Among other things, the cable said the sides discussed "the upcoming delivery" of GBU-28 bunker-busting bombs to Israel, noting that "the transfer should be handled quietly to avoid any allegations that the United States Government is helping Israel prepare for a strike against Iran."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/11/israel-wikileaks-the-israeli-angle.html

 

[VirusType2]

The bunker buster story is here:

Yeah, I posted that same quote.

side note: You guys ever think they were leaked on purpose? Well, I consider things like that a possibility. The way governments operate - it's just a bunch of chess moves.

Hmmm.. Iran seems to agree with me.

Iran Calls Leaked Documents a U.S. Plot

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/middleeast/30iran.html

“We don’t think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals.”

The documents seemed to show several Arab nations, notably Saudi Arabia, Iran’s rival for influence in the Persian Gulf, displaying such hostility that King Abdullah repeatedly implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake” while there was still time.

Nonetheless, Mr. Ahmadinejad said at a news conference on Monday that Iran’s relations with its neighbors would not be damaged by the reports.

Though I'm just speculating on the possibility; after all, much of it seems to work in our favor. Basically exposing the double-talking Arab countries who are pressuring US intervention while playing neighbor; trying to rile up all communities to gather support against Iran, it would seem.

If anything, it should be at least as private as individuals.

Going back here for a moment, the conversations between US embassies and Washington is hardly the business of the entire world. I mean, look at this:

For example, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, was characterized in the cables as “risk averse and rarely creative,” and Mrs. Clinton’s counterpart in Germany, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, was dismissed as having little power. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy was described as “feckless” and “vain,” while President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was called thin-skinned.

 

[Krynn72]

If anything, it should be at least as private as individuals.

Why should it? Its for the people, by the people. Why should we not be allowed to know what its doing? Thats like a company saying the investors should not be allowed to know what the company they created is up to.

 

[VirusType2]

So you should know what Pizza Hut's sauce recipe is? Or what the next big idea is - stuffed crust? There's a reason and that's because it's a huge competitive advantage to have secrets. Look what Apple does compared to everyone else - Apple does not announce products until they are beginning shipment. Look what Sony did - Nintendo announced the motion controlling Wii well before it launched, and then Sony adds simple gyroscopic motion tech to the PS3 controller to counter and steal some of Nintendo's thunder.

Look, it's a difference of opinion, I guess, but I'd rather talk about video games or something, so I'll just leave you to disagree.

 

[Warped]

Or this is all plain obvious that the Celebrity Gossip angle in now breaking into politics. Started before Palin, but as of recently it has started to blossom into a whole new industry. Now just about everyone can discuss the shit that goes on behind closed doors.

 

[No Limit]

So you should know what Pizza Hut's sauce recipe is? Or what the next big idea is - stuffed crust? There's a reason and that's because it's a huge competitive advantage to have secrets. Look what Apple does compared to everyone else - Apple does not announce products until they are beginning shipment. Look what Sony did - Nintendo announced the motion controlling Wii well before it launched, and then Sony adds simple gyroscopic motion tech to the PS3 controller to counter and steal some of Nintendo's thunder.

Using an analogy where our government is a corporate entity. Bravo!

 

[VirusType2]

Using an analogy where our government is a corporate entity. Bravo!

God damn it. Do you people even read? I was responding to Krynn.

Why should it? Its for the people, by the people. Why should we not be allowed to know what its doing? Thats like a company saying the investors should not be allowed to know what the company they created is up to.

There's a reason and that's because it's a huge competitive advantage to have secrets. Look what Apple does compared to everyone else - Apple does not announce products until they are beginning shipment. Look what Sony did - Nintendo announced the motion controlling Wii well before it launched, and then Sony adds simple gyroscopic motion tech to the PS3 controller to counter and steal some of Nintendo's thunder.

And I'll give you an example, Krynn:

Whatever the case, these unnamed sources told Reuters that such a service "may not arrive for another 12 months, but early discussions have been productive." That ought to give currently-available competitors plenty of time to either react or hammer out their own deals.

(just something I happened to be reading)

Now, if this rumor is true, this leak could be a huge setback because it gives all the players insight into what they are doing and planning.

Jesus, this is elementary stuff here, guys.

http://techland.com/2010/11/29/microsoft-looking-to-undercut-cable-companies-with-xbox-tv/

And I don't even understand how you can run a country in total disclosure without every single God-loving country putting their comments in whether for or against. It would turn into some big cluster**** of shit talking. You guys are dreaming of something that won't work.

 

[Sparta]

OK, right.. they just say things like that ... why? So the 'whistle-blower' will feel bad about what he's done?

YES. Not so much that the whistle-blower feels bad, but that the whistle-blower IS THE BAD GUY! They've always done this. Look at what the Nixon Administration said about Daniel Ellsberg at the time the Pentagon Papers were leaked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlmQeSpqI4

Don't compare communications to torture. And the US has no obligation to submit its top secret communications with the entire world. Jesus.

Except that none of these communications are top secret. Most of them are unclassified, meaning that most of this information would be free to find in decades time.

And the whole reason I made the comparison in the first place is because you were the one saying this was telling all the terrorists and bad guys where we keep the save the world button.

side note: You guys ever think they were leaked on purpose? Well, I consider things like that a possibility. The way governments operate - it's just a bunch of chess moves.

I doubt it. U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic political operations have a history of being rather transparent (hence why a lot of people are saying, we already know a lot of this stuff) or rather stupid in comparison to this.

After the US sends Russian spies home on a plane with a slap on the wrist, this should not surprise anyone.

Yeah because since Russia spies on the U.S., the U.S. should be allowed to spy on the entire U.N.. That's equivalent.

The point is that it's nobody's business because they are private discussions. I never compared the severity of the two. Nice work trying to miss the point.

Except that YOU DID COMPARE THE TWO.

For example: "we are hiding the bombs that will save the world here." Don't tell me that isn't endangering anybody.

How about if the entire world finds out what you've been thinking or what you do in the bathroom. Is that whistle blowing? The conversation between your friend that's a girl - your girlfriend spying on your email OK with you?

So now the leaks are both dangerous and useless? Right.

I've read all the ones that discuss the documents inside them (as of yesterday). Have you read any of them yourself? I've never heard anyone condemning wikileaks, sorry. More like oh shit, oh shit, oh shit.

Then you cannot read.

Of course the US government doesn't want them released, and there are news articles saying how it's 'bad' and dangerous and is a huge embarrassment for us - not only because there is a lot of talking behind each other's backs, but because we allowed a leak at all - and a huge one at that. People are worried. It's true some people are mad at the messenger, but they are holding the person who leaked them, and the computer administrators and whoever else that allowed it to happen accountable, right?

Yeah I guess that's why some U.S. Republicans want to kill Julian Assange, while Australia wants to revoke his passport and several countries want to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organisation.

Well what do you expect, it's the truth. Should we just patch our top secret communications through Twitter? Is that what you expect? Is that accountable enough for you?

Because by supporting Wikileaks, I'm advocating for a more transparent government, therefore I must want to know every single mundane and shitty pointless detail about government bureaucracies, in twitter form.

I am a very strong advocate of privacy and a very strong opponent of censorship. Deal with it.

A government is not a person, it shouldn't have the same rights to privacy as an individual. Especially when that government is waging wars and colluding with outside forces to overthrow democratically elected governments.

 

[lord_raken]

I'm all for a transparent government. I want to know where my tax dollars go. They have exposed quite a bit of nasty stuff. Some of which is just war (the helicopter incident was tragic but not sinister)

But sometimes information is kept secret for a reason. Lives are on the line. The security of our relationship with the rest of the world could be affected.

The person who leaked the documents could easily be charged with treason and/or espionage and I wouldn't really complain.

First line of business is to clamp down on document security (I'm sure the Government is doing just that).

I want a transparent government, but I think Wikileaks has actually hurt that effort. As a result the Government will be even more reluctant to disclose their documents.

 

[No Limit]

I'm all for a transparent government. I want to know where my tax dollars go. They have exposed quite a bit of nasty stuff. Some of which is just war (the helicopter incident was tragic but not sinister)

Shooting up a group of unarmed men because of a hunch you got based on a choppy video from 2 miles away sure is unfortunate. It is also rather unforutante that they later shot up a makeshift ambulance that came to help without any kind of provocation or justification. In that shooting they injured 2 little children and killed their father. That made the total kill count of totally innocent people what? 13? Yeah, unfortuante.

 

[No Limit]

YES. Not so much that the whistle-blower feels bad, but that the whistle-blower IS THE BAD GUY! They've always done this. Look at what the Nixon Administration said about Daniel Ellsberg at the time the Pentagon Papers were leaked.

Wow, crazy video. I need to try and find the movie.

 

[lord_raken]

Shooting up a group of unarmed men because of a hunch you got based on a choppy video from 2 miles away sure is unfortunate. It is also rather unforutante that they later shot up a makeshift ambulance that came to help without any kind of provocation or justification. In that shooting they injured 2 little children and killed their father. Yeah, unfortuante.

Very unfortunate. The whole situation was a tragedy. But war is ****ed up and this shit happens... no matter how much we try to stop it from happening. I don't mind Wikileaks leaking that video, but they have leaked information that put people in danger and gotten people killed. Based on that the Wiki leaks founder (and those involved in the leak) should be extradited for trial.

 

[Mr. Djees]

I don't mind Wikileaks leaking that video, but they have leaked information that put people in danger and gotten people killed.

I think you'll have to document that claim.

 

[Krynn72]

So you should know what Pizza Hut's sauce recipe is? Or what the next big idea is - stuffed crust?

You're not getting my point. The Government is a representation of the United States' citizens. It is made by them, for them. It BELONGS to the people. A business is made by its owners, for its owners, and belongs to its owners. To use your own analogy, the owners of Pizza Hut should know the sauce recipe and the owners of the US Government should know its foreign policy.