Hacker News Reader

Comment by hugh3 | Hacker News Reader

Assange is such an attention whore that I wouldn't put it past him to turn off all his servers and send out a press release saying "Look at me, I'm under attack!"

View on HN

Let's wait and see. Besides, whore or not, the world is a better place due to wikileaks.

That remains rather unproven, but I don't feel like arguing about it.

How so? What changes have actually happened because of the leaks that happened? We'd all forgotten within a week.

It has to start somewhere. It hasn't gotten better yet, but it still might. History is hard to see while it's being made...

... or it might get worse!

Potential informants, no longer trusting the US to be able to keep their identities secret, clam up. Intelligence dries up. Bombs go off. People die. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria.

What evidence do you have that that is actually what will happen?

The point is that leaks of this magnitude have much broader effects than you can imagine. You can argue about whether it is a net positive or negative, but there WILL be negative consequences and to pretend otherwise is just fooling yourself.

It's also a matter of whose perspective you're coming from. "The US is hurt in diplomatic relations" is bad for some, good for others.

I think it's fooling yourself to claim that you have any idea as to whether this will affect future informers.

None at all. I'm the one arguing that we don't know whether it is a net good or bad.

Much like throwing pennies off the top of the Empire State Building, though, uncertainty about whether something will have positive or disastrously negative consequences is generally a good argument against doing it.

What evidence is there that informants no longer trusting US handlers is a bad thing ?

No institutional change per se, but a realization that state institutions enjoy too many information protections. These protections are ostensibly in place to further "national security", but are in fact a means to cover up crime.

Julian Assage's demeanor or persona is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#Notable_leaks

some of those had a little bit of impact

The one with most direct consequences I can see was that a police officer got sacked because he was a member of the British National Party.

How the hell can that be legal? Are police officers banned from joining all political parties or just the BNP?

Membership of BNP is incompatible with being a police officer because it's incompatible with the police force's equal opportunities policy. Police officers are contractually obliged to follow the policy. Rightly or wrongly (rightly imo) that's the justification for sacking him.

Membership of, say, the Green Party, does not conflict with the officer's obligations.

How does someone's party affiliation keep the police force from following its equal opportunities policy?

The BNP is an overtly racist party. If you join them, it is assumed you follow their policies and general belief structure. Those policies and beliefs are incompatible with what the police are ordered to do as part of their jobs.

It's better than a policy of ignoring the beliefs of your officers, isn't it?

Perhaps because the police are supposed to be impartial and serve all equally. The BNP is overtly racist and advocates explicit discrimination against and persecution of minorities. A member of the BNP is by definition not a proper person to be a policeman.

it's policy, it's the same as someone wearing their Army uniform to a KKK rally. Agencies like that can't be seen endorsing extremists.

It's not the same as the uniform-at-KKK-rally example, since his membership was a secret.

I'd agree that policemen shouldn't wear their uniforms to a meeting of any political party. This is very different though.

"We'd all forgotten within a week."

[citation needed]

You already forgot about Iceland?

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

How about the WikiLeaks attack helicopter video? It was a reminder for many Americans of the true horrors of war.

The American press has been embedded and self-censored out of relevancy when it comes to war reporting.

My issue with the "Collateral Murder" video is that it was released in such a heavily editorialized manner; the raw footage would have served the same purpose. Instead, we got a video telling us exactly how we should interpret the footage. Not a fan of that, personally.

and it's also taken completely out of context. It's easy to play armchair general unless you're the guy flying that bird.

Exactly. And my thing is, considering fog of war, I do think the aircrew of that chopper ultimately made the right decision given the information they had; which is far more horrifying than the editorialized nonsense Wikileaks published.

In war, you can make all the right decisions and innocent people will still needlessly die. It's a far stronger statement of the horrors of war and the need to avoid it than the ridiculous claim that the military was intentionally targeting reporters and children.

Apparently this leak will show that an additional 15,000 civilians have died in Iraq. While that may not sound like much compared to the total who died, but think about it - 15,000 people like you and I died and the state department decided to hide this. If any other government did this there would be mass hysteria and public outrage.

I haven't been able to look at this set, but one of the intriguing topics is that the Saudis are urging the US to attack Iran.

This piece of information makes an attack on Iran (and the subsequent bloodshed and mayhem) less likely, once the light has been shined on the Saudi hand. This, IMHO, is a good thing. If we have to attack Iran (and I'm not saying we should), then we should do so because Iran is a threat to US, and not to the Saudis.

I agree, I don't think the guy is really in it for altruistic reasons.

That being said, the US doesn't look so great in complaining about the consequences of released sensitive information. If it is so important and people's lives depend on it, then why not invest more in information assurance?

The US Government, and the US armed forces are looking for a way to better control their information and how it is accessed and by who. There are plenty of people working on the problems, the thing is that the whole system is currently inherently insecure and that securing such a system takes time.

Why does he have to be in it for altruistic purposes if what he does accomplishes an altruistic outcome?

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it..."

-Abraham Lincoln (http://www.america.gov/st/peopleplace-english/2008/December/...)

I'm sorry, I fail to see how that resolution would be recognizably altruistic from a modern perspective. Had Abraham Lincoln "saved" the Union without freeing any slaves, there would have been no philanthropic regard for others, it would have instead been the government capitulating to monied interests. That Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice an altruistic and noble outcome for political expediency shouldn't detract from the actual good freeing the slaves wrought.

To be fair, I'm a consequentialist, we might be arguing morality at cross-purposes.

>That Abraham Lincoln was willing to sacrifice an altruistic and noble outcome for political expediency shouldn't detract from the actual good freeing the slaves wrought.

Exactly. My quote was an example to support the sentiment of your post, not argue against it.

Ultimately the end result and lasting impact was the freeing of the slaves, history and time rendered Abe's intentions/motivations nearly irrelevant outside of historical study.

Aha! My apologies, I should have realized.

yes, an ad hominem, brilliant tactical response dude

Reply on news.ycombinator.com