Said individual is threatened with significant harm by states if the information is released.
Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that.
Financial compensation shifts the balance to make dangerous humanitarian disclosures more self-interested. It means that more information that should be public becomes public.
What's wrong with that?
In the past, Wikileaks has not been the moral arbiter. If a whistleblower decides that exposing information is in the public interest, that is on them, Wikileaks provides a medium.
Here, whether or not information should remain secret, there is an incentive to expose it. Wikileaks has decided what deserves to be public -- it's irrelevant if I, personally, agree with that judgment when I say: this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium.
But it should be acknowledged that Daniel Domscheit-Berg 'stole' 5GB of Bank of America documents from Wikileaks servers as well as their submission system, which he used to launch openleaks.
So you can definitely question their internal security, but it should not be presented as an affirmative decision on the part of the organization.
Considering that Wikileaks exists to make conspiracies harder/smaller I think this totally fits with their purpose. The only question being why it applies to this, but not to other leaks.
Thought experiment: if governments knew that any decision made had a chance of becoming public, would their behavior shift for the better?
Really, the TPP should be public, shouldn't we be questioning the trust of the Governments?
Aren't you overreacting? There are many possibilities why Wikileaks needs the money.
For one it might be that they had to pay the informant to get the information. Also they probably don't get their infrastructure (including legal) for free.
Last but not least I have to ask you this: Do you equally question every medium that charges for its services? I mean sure, the New York Times and Washington Post uses a different business model, but they charge nonetheless.
Edit: I also have to say that I doubt, Wikileaks wouldn't leak the data in any case.
By the way, TPP is circulating within many governments. For example it could have been leaked by a Vietnamese government official.
Good. Look how beneficial Snowden's leaks have been to the cause of civil liberties in the past two years, and because he went Hong Kong and Moscow, many think he MUST be a traitor.
Now imagine if Snowden said "Eh, I wouldn't have done it, but $100,000 was nice."
> Financial compensation shifts the balance to make conscientious disclosure more self-interested.
That's bad; now you've eroded the moral grounds. Even offering legal funds up to $100k would be more ethical than cash payouts.
So what difference would a $100,000 incentive would make in the public opinion? Mostly none. But to the whistleblower, it doesn't make one rich, but it can be enough to escape a country and seek asylum somewhere.
The current system isn't perfect, but it's more empowering to the common person than incentivizing anyone who has access to any information to sell it to the highest bidder, or to make unilateral decisions that affect everyone in society. At least I get to vote for someone I trust to make the right decisions.
There are plenty of people, especially in red states, who have complete faith in elected and appointed officials to decide what information should be public and what should be private. The personal beliefs of any given government employee aren't any more valid than anyone else's. I don't want to live in a society where any one person gets to decide what's in the public good and what isn't.
If you think the system should be changed so that anyone who has access to classified information can make it public on a whim, then vote for people who will implement that as policy. I don't agree with that idea, but it's a valid political belief and it's at least worthy of debate. But it isn't up to me, you or any other individual to make the final decision. Everyone should get a vote.
Do you want to live in a society where business interests collude with governments behind closed doors to decide what's in the "public" good? Because that's the one we live in.
The balance of power is just amazingly asymmetrical. The status quo is a machine that exists only to preserve itself, not for the public good. How can you honestly believe that it's in our best interests for this deal to remain private? Anyone who would leak it isn't "decid[ing] what's in the public good" at least in terms of actual policy, they're literally just letting the public be aware of what's going on with new policies that affect them (and this is not sensitive military information that might "threaten our national security" if released, so that argument is out).
From the article: "Proponents argue its a debate so fragile that airing the specifics publicly would thwart progress. They say the chapters already published by WikiLeaks, ones on the environment and intellectual property, strained talks by inflaming interest groups."
What the fuck? This is not democracy. "Well you know a bunch of people would probably be unhappy about this massive global policy we're enacting so let's just not tell them about it."
I'm sorry for the rhetoric but this kind of stuff...that society you don't want to live in - I feel like we're already there. It's not one person deciding but it's a group of people and they are continually fucking over everyone else for their own interests. We could do so much better.
That reminds me of this quote found on a Metafilter discussion (http://www.metafilter.com/150141/Its-not-paranoia-if-they-ar...) about the FBI's use of fake companies to hide its operation of a 'civilian air force':
> The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement ….
EDIT: To be clear, the quote comes not from Metafilter itself, but from the article being discussed on Metafilter. However, I think that the discussion itself is worth reading, particularly for comments by jjwiseman, who was involved in related research (http://www.metafilter.com/150141/Its-not-paranoia-if-they-ar...).
> the decision to keep the text of TPP secret was itself classified as secret
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/first-congress-member...
According to http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legis... an agreement has been reached between the administration and Congress which requires, among other things, that,
The bill would make any final trade agreement open to public comment for 60 days before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes. If the agreement, negotiated by the United States trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.
Of course Congress and the administration do not have a history of being particularly responsive to the public. But it does seem that everyone will be able to know what was agreed on before it is signed into law.
It's unfair to group Snowden and Manning together. Snowden made a very serious, calculated ethical decision to release specific documentation that he felt needed to be in the public forum as reliable, confirmed information of governmental surveillance activity (not speculation or navel-gazing). Manning dumped as much confidential data as he could download because he didn't like the Army anymore.
Snowden was motivated by "tremendous conscience" and Manning was motivated by petty revenge.
I put it to you that Snowden remained a free(ish) man who was able to communicate his story with the world whilst Manning was locked in isolation and was unable to make public appearances or give interviews. Therefore the 'message' (as the PR people think of it) during the critical time period following leaks and naming of the whistle-blower was controlled by the US government.
I put it to you that this may have influenced your and my and others opinions of them both.
That this trade agreement is classified as secret, is just a huge joke. I understand why they are trying to do so... The idea that Corp. Lawyer A is in a lawsuit today against Corp. Lawyer B, and with Corp. Lawyer C acting as judge (who yesterday was in a suit against Corp. Lawyer A).
Who even thinks of this?????? Was this a bet by a few drunk 0.1% guys to see if we are stupid enough to let it pass? Im amazed at the audacity of even trying to claim that this is even reasonable or needed. And that is just the process... With these rules, you could basically eliminate ANY worker rights, ANY nature protection law, and ANY laws that are created to keep corporations in check.
Its scary thinking of what legal BS could be added to these laws that we are not even allowed to see until 2 years after it has been completed.
Because if you aren't, you have a duty to educate yourself before you speak about things of this importance.
[Re: Downvotes] - Is being called out upsetting? Imagine someone being put in jail by your lies. That's a lot more upsetting.
[Re: Re: Downvotes] - Seriously. This isn't Uber vs Lyft, this is knowingly repeating false information to justify keeping someone in jail for treason. That's just steps under lying about someone to drum up support to get them killed. Does asking if a sock-puppet is a sock-puppet hurt HN more than allowing sock-puppets like that to use HN as a platform for hate? If it was Russia's propaganda machine, or a beloved hero like Nelson Mandela, we'd react strongly, but when it's our propaganda machine we give it a pass.
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks
...
A dispute had arisen concerning 15 Iraqi detainees held by the national
Iraqi police force on the grounds that they had been printing "anti-Iraqi
literature".
The police were refusing to work with the US forces over the matter,
and Manning's job was to investigate and find out who the "bad guys"
were. He got hold of the leaflet that the detained men were distributing
and had it translated into English. He was astonished to find that it
was in fact a scholarly critique against the Iraqi prime minister,
Nouri al-Maliki, that tracked the corruption rife within his cabinet.
"I immediately took that information and ran to the officer to explain
what was going on," Manning later explained. "He didn't want to hear
any of it … he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist
the [Iraqi] police in finding MORE detainees."
...
If you're pissed off about criminals ruining the reputation and effectiveness of the USA Armed Forces, and you should be, you need to be mad at the officers and soldiers and leaders who committed the crimes not the messenger who told you about it.
We already know that this wasn't Manning's motive for leaking docs anyway; he was mad that the Army did not respect his desires to live as a transsexual and that it disciplined him for tardiness and other job failures.
[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/12/bradley-manning...
It literally contradicts everything you said. Manning would be a criminal, by our existing laws, for not reporting the abuses.
The attempt to report war crimes was ignored before the leaks. He tried, and was rebuffed, but his responsibility didn't end there.
> He was mad at the Army.
Irrelevant. Manning had a legal duty to - more than just refuse the orders - make sure the illegal actions stopped.
Besides, can you imagine a mobster using this defense? "Sure, I kill people, but Bugsy only told you because he was angry I cut him out of some of the payment. If Bugsy wasn't a little bitch you never would have caught me." We'd laugh because it's irrelevant; a crime is a crime and an illegal order is an illegal order.
> [link]
"... Manning flipped a table during counseling ..."
I'm so sorry for the counsellor who had to witness that. It must be almost as traumatic as having your parents taken away and tortured or killed because of politically motivated false arrest. /s
You're only talking about the messenger to distract from the message. What are you afraid of? What are you covering up for?
How counter-productive would you feel this was if it was your family unlawfully detained?
And, if you'll note, their words are personal. They attack and denigrate Manning specifically and by name, despite evidence. I only refer to them in the abstract because I'm referring to anyone who feels or says what they do. This is important - their words follow Manning forever, mine are only here in this thread, only attached to their hate speech. If they walk away from the lies, they walk away from my judgements.
We shouldn't pretend that willful ignorance is a justifiable opinion that deserves respect - lies are lies, and these ones specifically are calculated to put an innocent in prison.
Seriously? You're commenting on an internet forum. There are no "stakes." There is no reason not to be civil.
Whoosh. At risk is ... some incivility. Maybe. And we're already there because of the slanderer.
Attacking someone like that is cyber-bullying. To keep wrongly harassing someone with lasting, hurtful, and harmful messages.
The reason not to be civil and/or ignore the troll is precisely that it doesn't work. Calling them on it builds a culture of challenging lies - making it safer (and more polite) for everyone in the future.
No, your source shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't even purport to address the issue of causality. There's nothing more than conjecture (anywhere) as to what the straw that broke Manning's conscience was, and it's irrelevant because it's just the straw. It's focusing on the messenger not the criminal.
What we do know is that Manning tried to report war crimes, first to a commander and then to the media, and was unable to be heard and stop the crimes. This didn't end the duty to report them, it just exhausted the "proper" channels.
> That's a settled fact of record, and that's all my comment was meant to point out.
Your comment was meant to be the same baseless slander that all other baseless, factless, slander-filled posts are. There are sources that directly contradict you and yet you choose to continue. Your posts are part of a campaign of lies to destroy the life of an innocent - if not a hero.
Will WikiLeaks still pay 100K for the information if it was obtained by killing someone?
I think WikiLeaks has only ever seemed passive and neutral to people who agree with its agenda
No the idea has previously been that any information gets dumped onto wikileaks rather than wikileaks seeking specific pieces of information. This makes them passive.
You can dislike the idea of information being dumped and this would make you disagree with its agenda but it does not mean that wikileaks has (previously) been active rather than passive.
I'm not sure the distinction between "dumped onto" vs "seeking out" is a real one, but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc.
It is huge. It is also recognised as such by laws in many countries. E.g. UK libel act 2013 and US DMCA act (safe harbour provisions). In both cases publishers are protected from legal trouble if they act as an intermediary rather than as a publisher.
> but my main objection is that I don't see any evidence that wikileaks has been a passive conduit for leaks that come their way; they do curation of "leaks" that arrive in their inbox, they choose to promote certain leaks in certain ways, etc.
This is a valid point. But offering money for leaks is a whole different thing.
I'm all for government transparency. But this seems like an unwise mechanism to achieve it.
This is an "assassination market", but for information. I'm very intrigued by this concept.
Details? Why? Obviously agreements will be public before they become law (nobody disputes this), but why force negotiators making difficult tradeoffs to hash them out in the open?
Obviously? They've already fast tracked it even before it is available to the public. They've made it available to members of congress without it being available to the public. While on paper they might release it just before it became law, they could easily release it a week before giving nobody time to mount a real challenge.
I'd have no issue if I thought it was going to take six months to pass, and members of the public could have a say, but fast tracking makes that highly unlikely.
Besides, the version of TPA under consideration by the House this month requires that any agreement be public for at least 60 days before it can be signed by the President and submitted to Congress for enabling legislation.
That's not how it works. If it was, we'd have SOPA, but we don't.
Citizens telling their representatives what they do and don't want is fundamental aspect of a well-functioning democracy.
RECENTLY, when Vice-President Cheney was asked by ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz about polls showing that an overwhelming majority of US citizens oppose the war in Iraq, he replied, "So?"
"So — you don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked.
"No," Cheney replied, and explained, "I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in public opinion polls."
Later, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, explaining Cheney's comments, was asked whether the public should have "input."
Her reply: "You had your input. The American people have input every four years, and that's the way our system is set up."
That's correct. Every four years the American people can choose between candidates whose views they reject, and then they should shut up.
Yes. I would agree that the US is not a well-functioning democracy.
There is one simple rule, apply the same standards to all or you have no leg to stand on. Far too many people dismiss the rules when they think the outcome is one they may like; even if that decision is one hundred percent ignorant of facts
They've made it available to members of congress without it being available to the public.
Yes. So they can do the jobs they were elected to do - represent your interest.
I'd have no issue if I thought it was going to take six months to pass, and members of the public could have a say, but fast tracking makes that highly unlikely.
Honestly, I don't think the public is really competent to form opinions on most of this. >>90% of the complaints I see about trade deals are uninformed, counterfactual, and ignorant. This doesn't mean I think all trade deals are necessarily perfect by any means, but the signal:noise ratio is appalling.
Why force making it public? I guess there have been arguments of mistrust - or am I getting this wrong?
A good number of people don't understand that these have to be debated publicly in order to pass Congress. Wikileaks shamefully plays on this misunderstanding.
So having the negotiations done in secret puts lawmakers and the public in a difficult position. Instead of compromising and tweaking, if they don't like parts of the agreement, they have to decide whether to flat out reject it, or approve it and live with the crappy parts. And those that reject it will be framed as anti-trade, anti-economy, etc. (even if they only vote against the bill because of its draconian copyright rules, e.g.)
I think it's about time that politicians start voting against bills because of the underhanded way they were drafted, and that voters start to support this behaviour.
It doesn't have to be binary, either. "No for now but you can present it again in a year's time so that it can receive proper debate" should be perfectly acceptable. If for a process reason that actually means "No forever" in practice, then it should be made clear that it was the underhanded process that led to "No forever" and not the politician who was forced to vote it that way just because there was no opportunity to fix the process.
The result would be a scuttled agreement, and all the political headache of having made those concessions without any of the corresponding gain.
The U.S. hasn't entered into a major trade agreement without "Fast Track" in 40 years. It's fine to be against liberalizing trade agreements, but it's practically impossible to be for them but against some form of TPA.
I was arguing for transparency into the process, when the treaty is still being drafted.
Personally, if you want a fast track with no amendments to implementing legislation for an international agreement that requires such legislation (is, is not self-executing), then a prerequisite for that is that the underlying agreement itself should be signed and ratified by the Senate as a treaty first.
You can't modify it because it's implementing a treaty only works as an argument if you accept that the treaty needs to be ratified before we talk about the implementing legislation.
Is anyone making this argument? Has the Constitutional treaty process ever been used for modern trade agreements?
The actual argument is that no agreement can be reached unless Congress concedes their authority to amend enabling legislation. It makes perfect sense: Why would our trade partners want to do N rounds with Congress or other nations' legislative bodies after they've already completed difficult negotiations to get to an agreement with the Executive in the first place? This is why we have a President and a USTR confirmed by Congress.
In particular, there seem to be provisions in it that cannot be remotely considered acceptable to any democratic system. And the way public interest and civil rights groups are explicitly kept out of this, while corporate groups have pretty thorough access, it's pretty clear who's interests are and aren't being represented.
The entire negotiation process seems utterly pointless.
Are there any "difficult tradeoffs" that need to be secret? Or is it just the bad copyright provisions and undermining of environmental protections?
Take for example the Canadian wine industry. There's international pressure for Canada to open up it's domestic wine market. In Ontario, the largest province, foreign wines can only be sold at government run liquor stores.
Opening up the domestic market is problematic, because apart from ice wine Ontario wine is awful. At any given price point Ontario reds are substantially worse than California reds.
Even if nothing happens, once the government starts openly negotiating to open the market the property value of vineyards will plummet. Farmers will be underwater on their mortgages and will have trouble getting insurance.
The government doesn't want to endanger people's livelihoods like that unless it's sure that the rest of the agreement is worth it.
Typically those protections are intended to provide protection for people who disclose wrongdoing that would otherwise be unknown. But in the eyes of the law, negotiating a trade deal is not wrongdoing. It is one of the enumerated powers of the executive branch.
I understood the OP as saying that Edward Snowden (and people like him) justify their actions as being altruistic, for the greater good of society. If you give a financial incentive to someone to be a whistleblower, it no longer looks like altruism.
This is meant as a serious question. Would the details of the agreement be made public, eventually?