I'm finding a hard time seeing how this leak is a positive thing. At least leaks related to violations of human rights and international law have legs to stand on.
I think that a small team of economists could have figured out what plants are vital to national security. It's not like this data is secret- it's just the embassy's thoughts that are secret. (So... thank god Jihadists don't know economics! Let's hope Julian doesn't leak any textbooks.)
The only information this list provides is what the list says it provides: facilities that are vital to U.S. security. I can't think of a beneficial use of this data, but I can think of plenty of harmful uses. The list isn't hard to figure out, so I don't think its release is a huge loss, but there is no gain, so I can only wish that it were never leaked.
Whenever I'm in a train station I hear about how important I am, as a civilian, to security and that I should report suspicious bags. Couldn't the government take that attitude to the next level?
The train station analogy is flawed. Train stations are targets because they're train stations. Security through obscurity isn't possible.
If this leak is somehow beneficial, how would you feel about a leak of the identities of all covert agents? The public would know who they're paying to do certain kinds of work, but I'm sure we can agree that it would have a negative effect overall. I think this situation is similar, although the information is easier to deduce.
I do agree that can be helpful. I just wonder how many things that weren't targets yesterday are now targets today. I live near a nuclear powerplant, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a target because it is just one of hundreds, why target this one? I'm sure there is security on it, but I don't worry about it much.
But what if it was on the list and it said that it was critical for the distribution of power in the whole northeast region because there is a flaw in the power distribution system. Now this relatively obscure nuclear plant is high on the list of targets and its security has to be increased a lot.
The same goes for chemical plants, oil refineries, etc. Can you tell me which one of the hundreds of DuPont factories manufactures chemicals for weapon systems and which ones manufactur nylon for disposable table clothes? Probably not before this leak, but I bet you can guess it now.
I don't see why that is helpful to anybody. I would have been suspicious of people snooping around any chemical factory, but now all of a sudden the terrorists can hit the most valuable one.
To me, that is pretty lame.
What if Wikileaks leaked the text of all the bills from congress to the press from the past year? If senators and the press actually read them fully, it would be the first time any of them had actually read the full contents!
I wouldn't be surprised if those are raising eyebrows, with people thinking "it would never even have occurred to us that there may be a problem with the insulin supply!".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-ab...
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/11/hbc-90007831
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007836
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/01/john-perry/yes-it-was-a...
Are positive things. The only reason those are getting less coverage than the leak in the OP is to delegitimize the leaks that have occurred and sweep the violations of day to day governance under the rug.
Wikileaks clearly makes it's most dangerous, least-helpful, almost indefensible leak, and your argument is that the media are covering it as a favor to the U.S. government?
Think this through a little. The world media all works for the U.S. governmment? No. The reason they're covering this is because it's the most dangerous, least potentially good thing Wikileaks has done.
Inventing some media conspiracy that it's all a smear? C'mon, man, think a little more. Regardless of what team you're on, this one is clearly, indefensibly bad. What rationale on Earth could you have for releasing a list of places the U.S. government would feel destabalize the world if they're destroyed? Terrorists - real terrorists that really do exist - are going over those lists right now as we speak.
Edit: I get downvoted for saying that an international press conspiracy is an absurd idea? Really?
Yeah, good and bad things get leaked. That's what happens when governments use their secrecy to cover up some pretty dirty stuff that's happened. I feel accountability is more important than safety from some shadow threat that will always exist.
Also, those terrorists that are (supposedly) going to use this intelligence to do bad things, they probably wouldn't exist if states weren't busy terrorizing civilians.
Sure, those with power are corrupt and do things that most of us wouldn't approve of.
But when things go too far, someone with a brain often leaks it. And those leaks have a purpose - to stop whatever that is happening from happening.
Wikileaks is really dangerous to those kind of important, targeted leaks. These leaks in my opinion are more damaging to the government than helpful to the people keeping the government in check. I think most people who are shocked, SHOCKED! by the stuff in this leak just haven't been paying close attention, I have yet to see anything that wasn't already speculated about in the media aside for little tiny details (like this list).
So this leak isn't all that valuble to the population, but it scares the crap out of the government. And so we're going to get a bunch of laws designed to prevent this from happening again and make it far more dangerous and difficult for people to leak in the future.
I always viewed Wikileaks as the escape hatch. If you are working on something you think is objectionable and need to leak and it is impossible to get word out, send your leak to Wikileaks and they'll keep you safe and get it to the media.
Now Wikileaks to me is just taking a shotgun approach and really missing the point that leaks, when done well, are extremely powerful for stopping bad things from happening. These leaks will not stop anything from happening because they don't highlight one topic. The focus of the leak is Wikileaks, not on the bad things happening.
The focus of Watergate was Nixon, not the Washington Post.
We teach children that honesty is a good thing right? Why does our government need so many secrets to really keep us safe? Without those things are we really unsafe, or is the simple perception of safety gone (but no one is actually harmed).
Anyone with an axe to grind against the US can find something of value with a map indicating every testicle kick site on earth, I'd think.
It's one thing to take a guess at what might be valuable. It's quite another to, right from the horse's mouth, have a definite listing of everything that is valuable.
Let's use a familiar comparison: MVC is hardly a secret design pattern. Still, it's a lot cheaper for me to get crackin' with Rails today than it would have been for me to roll my own MVC code ten years ago. That's a lot of legwork out of the way.
In the same way, Wikileaks has democratized intelligence gathering, at least with regard to these targets. This multiplier could be significant, in that it lowers barriers to entry for coordinating attacks.
I don't have a dog in this hunt – I don't side with Wikileaks but I'm also realistic enough to grasp that this is a post-secrecy world we're entering. Foreign policy, national security and government are going to have to learn, very quickly, how to exist here.
Ever bought a car or a house? If so, did you tell the seller upfront exactly how much you wanted it, and exactly how much you could pay? How about selling a house--do you put it up at the absolute minimum price you'll accept and tell that to buyers, providing access to your financial records to prove that you can't go lower? When applying for a job, do you tell the employer up front the lowest pay you will accept?
In most negotiations, if you can't keep your position secret you will get screwed.
The same goes for governments.
As far as children go, teaching that honesty is good does not mean teaching that secrets are bad. Responsible parents teach their children that there are some things that are only meant for family members and friends, for instance, and should not be shared with strangers.
Some possible ways it could be useful are
- Stop the reliance on 'security by obscurity'
- Motivate cooperation on how to secure these facilities or decentralize their function where possible.
- Inform public discussion on these issues which may possibly lead to new ideas / solutions
I'm not saying that it will necessarily be a net benefit but it certainly is possible.