Hacker News Reader

The blame rests squarely with governments abusing the trust that citizens normally give them. There has been a tendency over the last bunch of years of increasing government secrecy.

Here in Canada we've had a de-facto Information Minister for quite some time. Any government official that wishes to speak about anything must submit a request to the PM's Communications Director, who'll edit it, vet it and put an appropriate political spin on it. Whereas it was expected that Ministers, MPs and other government officials would stop by and chat with reporters after the daily parliamentary session, this is not allowed anymore. Everything is a scripted, fake photo-op and journalists frequently are only allowed to ask pre-approved questions. So what's the end result? We can't trust anything these people say, we can't get answers, we just get infantile bullshit thrown at us. It is not just Canada, the Washington Post's "Top Secret America" shows you have similar problems down south as well.

Maybe you're fine with the way things are, but I and many others certainly are not. The way to bring about change isn't to politely sit around saying you'd like something to change - you go ahead and do what you think is right. And I do hope Assange's latest leak hurts governments - maybe after they've been burnt enough times, they'll learn to be more open, transparent and accountable so that when they do actually need privacy, the people will trust them.

Now excuse me while I go donate a few bucks to wikileaks.

What good is chatting to the media if they will go, edit the interview and show whatever they want that fits their own agenda? I don't know if this is a problem in Canada but it certainly is in my country and I know that it is an issue in the US.

Personally, I can understand why the public figures would not want to talk to the media. However, I don't understand why they aren't finding new ways to communicate more directly with the public.

I disagree that deception is necessary in almost any (if any) situation.

I don't think anyone's actually being fooled by it. I highly doubt Kim Jong is under the impression that the US supports him or is even remotely sympathetic to his motives. It's just a game being played by both sides.

Most of the time we create our own complexity, and then build even more complexity on top of it. Eventually it becomes impossible to explain our motives for anything without attaching an enormous amount of context to it. Context which few people have the attention span to fully understand, so you can eventually do whatever you want via abstraction and just blame it on complexity. "Here's a 50 page legal document which clearly shows why I lied to you ok? Anyone who calls me a bad guy just lacks the proper context."

If our diplomacy practices are so complex that they require underhandedness, deception, head-fakes, etc. then it's time to refactor. I'm sure there's a certain level of necessary complexity, but not to the point where being dishonest is justified.

Honesty and transparency are practically a religion to me and this may come across a little zealous / attacking, so I apologize for that.

I'm sensitive to this viewpoint. However let's say you are running a company. There are a huge number of situations where secrecy is necessary. Negotiations with an aquirer, pending layoffs, legal wrangling, customer pipeline, etc. If someone got a hold of this information and released it in an untimely way, they would be fired and possibly prosecuted. I'm completely in favor of honesty and transparency but it is unfortunately not always the best policy.

In a corporate setting you're totally right that secrets may be necessary (not always, depending on your business model), but even then we're talking about witholding information and not deception. In fact you can be totally up front about the fact that you have trade secrets, and while some people may criticize that, I won't be amoung them.

This argument would hold more weight if US foreign policy actually had something to do with bringing freedom to subjects of oppressive regimes, but as it stands, the US government's actions are largely cynical, self-serving, supportive of some of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, and harmful to many millions of people around the world. They don't deserve sympathy.

This isn't just about US foreign policy. Let's take a different example that removes the interventionist "bad smell" of the NK example. Let's talk peace.

E.g. Imagine A and B want to negotiate a peace treaty. They represent large and diverse constituencies. Officially, they're not talking to each other -- there is ongoing violence, and hard-liners in both the A camp and the B camp will replace the A or B negotiators if they are deemed to be too soft.

So, there's a secret summit of A and B negotiators. Publicly, neither side can budge. However, because the talks are secret, the negotiators are free to make initial concessions to get the ball rolling.

How could making those talks public possibly be a good thing? It might actually scuttle peace and result in more violence.

It's easy for rogue elements to spoil a sensitive negotiation. There is a real need for secrecy in order to have productive negotiations on sensitive topics.

The Chatham House Rule - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

Your example relies on the idea that government negotiators will be more benevolent and peaceful - will work more towards the common good - in secret than in public.

Maybe that happens once in a while. The far, far, far more common case is that secret negotiations amount to a conspiracy by the powerful against the weak.

Obviously, there are many bad things about secrecy, but:

1) Are you arguing that there should never be secret negotiations?

2) If (1), what system do you propose that would allow negotiators to break deadlocks in the pre-conditions for negotiation?

For example of (2):

A opening position: we won't recognize you unless you first give us what we want.

B opening position: we can't give you what you want until you recognize us.

Secretly, both A, B, their constituencies, et. al. would accept solution X, but they can't even start to get to X.

You comment assume that the hardliners are wrong, and that the negotiators should talk behind their backs. Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?

That's not the point -- it's symmetric. Replace "hardliners" with "conciliators", if you like.

The point is that what people can say publicly is often much less than what they might concede privately.

This causes deadlocks, and offers griefers the ability to scuttle publicly-made plans.

UPDATE> > Without knowing what they talk about, how can you know that?

Essentially, they'll talk differently if they know everyone's listening, so that information is not as useful as you think.

How much money did you make before taxes, last year?

Perhaps, but creating enemies of the US does more to damage its citizens than it does the government.

If you damage the citizens enough, maybe they'll actually hold their government accountable. Then again... probably not.

Give us some credit man, some of us aren't stupid...it's just that so many are.

Can you name a government that isn't cynical, self-serving, and supportive of bad actions?

Bhutan seems (mostly) pretty nice.

Yeah, there's not a lot of them.

Hah - I knew bhutan would be mentioned. It's the exception that proves the rule.

Wow Hacker News... I did not expect this to be the most upvoted comment when I opened this thread. Underhandedness, deception, head-fakes a necessity, because that's just how things are?

Really?

Talk about throwing your ideology out of the window. Attitudes like this are never gonna change the world.

I didn't agree with him, but I did upvote him. Why? While I may think differently, he argued well and added to the discussion.

Arguing "well" for evil is still evil.

The foreign governments already know, more or less, which dissidents are being supported by whom. It doesn't take WikiLeaks to tell Kim Jong Il where his enemies are getting their M4s or whatever. Secrecy mostly gives governments the room to make deals with groups which the population finds objectionable: genocidaires, nazis, theocrats, thugs, etc. For example, Nixon secretly made deals with the Vietnamese communists to sabotage peace negotiations; Reagan was secretly dealing with the Iranian theocracy and with the Nicaraguan contras (who had a bad rep stateside due to rape, murder, and so on). It is in fact routine for the US government to make deals with violent extremists or autocratic governments, very often in direct opposition to democratic movements or governments.

Diplomacy is a very complex game, but you seem to be confused about which side the players are on. Politicians are on one side, you and I are on the other.

Without knowing what is being released, how can you possibly claim it is reckless? The U.S. warned Canada. Canada is hardly an oppressed nation that requires delicate communication.

At this point, all we can do is wait and see what is released.

Do you really think N. Korea doesn't know the long-term US position for NK is regime change? Don't be naive. Of course they do.

Yes - diplomacy is very delicate, and things like this can have bad short-term consequences. However, the long term could be arguably better in the same way pointing out security holes publicly makes companies fix it quickly.

It's the same analogy that supports legalization of insider trading - for which there is a solid argument for increased transparency even though there are short term negative consequences (insiders getting money w/ inside knowledge).

The case is that by having more transparency, even with short-term profiteering, the total good in the long term is maximized.

We can't move towards a more perfect world without facing some painful truths, and the current state of affairs is pretty far from perfect. Secrecy and manipulation as mechanisms of power are good for the powerful and bad for everyone else and if it's possible for humanity to grow out of this way of being then we should take that chance, because the alternative is terrible.

Yes but isn't the possibility that your communications will be disclosed to the public by an anonymous insider already a part of this game? I don't see the naivety or idealism here - It just looks like standard journalism to me. WL has done a lot to make the "game" more interesting by making the possibility of insider leaks more credible than before. There are many reasons why an insider with the story to tell would rather talk to WL than a newsmedia reporter.

* Take communications with North Korean or other dissidents as an example. On the surface, Kim Jong needs to think we are negotiating with him without trying to support opposition and bring down his government - otherwise he may become unstable and violent.*

Or rather, since I'm sure he already thinks that, he needs to not be able to prove that, or else he has an excuse to become unstable and violent.

Mind you, I'm less worried about the consequences with North Korea and more worried about the consequences with, say, China.

  > I'm less worried about the consequences with North Korea

Not if you're South Korea or Japan...

Even then. Relations between North Korea and the US are already as bad as they could possibly be. Relations between the US and China can get a lot worse, with far worse consequences.

+1. The ripple effects of releasing such documents are unknown. This is a completely reckless act by Assange/Wikileaks that puts their name above the safety of the citizens of the world.

This. Furthermore, anyone's private conversations can make anyone seem like a jerk. I know there's that nice little saying... 'if you have nothing nice to say, then don't say it'. But frankly that's bullshit. At the very best, there's stuff in here that will make perfect rational sense, but still cause outrage amongst other countries. For example, as a Canadian I can easily see some angry faces over any report that shown that our decision to not participate in Iraq was dismissed as 'irrelevant'.

It's like how Alice and Bob are discussing Joe's crappy documentation in private in the context of having to work around it, and then suddenly Eve broadcasts that conversation through the world. Now Joe is probably pissed off at Alice and Bob, and the rest of the world is laughing at Joe. Even though Alice and Bob really did have to have that conversation.

I don't think your metaphor fits. If I learned people really thought my documentation sucked, I'd fix it. As for countries, it's obviously not to be expected that North Korea's Great Leader or the Israelis and Palestinians will just "shut up and fix it", but I really don't think offering them monetary and weaponry bribes just to keep them at an "appropriate level of madness" is the kind of diplomacy I want our government to participate in, and any secrets that involve that ought to be revealed. Diplomacy is a complex issue and secrets leaking out can be damaging, but this is true about most government affairs.

Ok, the specific of my analogy isn't a perfect match, but you got the gist of it. And I agree, there possibility exists of material in this leak that reveals genuine problems. In fact, I'm nearly certain that it exists. And exposing that type of stuff is important.

But the problem is that when you release information like this, the media/public is bound to wind up getting upset over the wrong things. Not only does it divert attention from the real problems that may be revealed, but also harms the ability of the United States (and perhaps other nations) from using its full range of diplomatic options (among other things).

My friend is a paramedic and tells me all sorts of stories about how they pass time/deal with some of the crap they see. That involves some very very twisted humour. If you released transcripts of every paramedic conversation indiscriminately, then you'd be bound to reveal some evidence of real wrong doing (some patient being transferred improperly causing injury and then covering it up), but I feel (based on how our news is really just a spectacle show) that the majority of the public's anger/outrage would be aimed at the 'indecent and inconsiderate' comments uttered by the paramedics.

Once again, not a perfect analogy, but I think it captures the spirit of the problem.

I agree that diplomacy is highly complex, yet I'm wondering how much real damage will be done by Wikileaks revelations and how much good ... For me it's more about the mismatch between the public image and what's happening in secrecy. Ultimately, in a democracy, every action of the government should be open to public inquiry. maybe there is some information, in special circumstances, that cannot be released straight away. Yet, I personally believe, it is very little.

I just read an interesting article about these issues by Craig Murray a former British Ambassador. Submitted it also here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1951145

Necessity is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves.

In follow-up, now that these documents are released, it was done in a much more responsible manner than I had expected. The complete documents were not released, and news agencies were allowed to "censor" portions that would seriously threaten people or security. I can say I generally support this as it was done.