I yield to your well-founded argument.
P.S: I consider publication of information about war cruelty and international political pressure as benefiting for mankind, ethically good and thus conforming to the "hacker ethics".
P.S: I consider publication of information about war cruelty and international political pressure as benefiting for mankind, ethically good and thus conforming to the "hacker ethics".
Bradley Manning posted two types of information. War Footage and Diplomatic Cables. The War Footage was unpleasant to watch but didn't document anything that wasn't already well known (at least to anyone who paid attention to Iraqi Civilian Casualty Numbers). As such no change has been made by the government.
The second group, diplomatic cables, actually caused harm. The whole point of diplomacy is to avoid war. Manning leaked info (such as state department officials' personal opinion of other world leaders) that made it harder to deal with them. Hence making diplomacy harder and war more likely.
I think the larger point with the Stratfor hack and Manning's actions is it's dumb to release indiscriminately. Good reporting has always involved inside sources but those reporters targeted the actual corruption and only released that.
> The War Footage was unpleasant to watch but didn't document anything that wasn't already well known (at least to anyone who paid attention [...])
It generated mass media attention and thus had an impact on previously uninformed people.
> The second group, diplomatic cables, actually caused harm.
It also made transparent how governments followed US pressure secretly, lying to the people, and they are said to have had an influence on the Arab spring.