More WikileaksFollow

I'm sure you'll disagree with wik-leaks on what is considered endangering information, but that still doesn't make wiki-leaks any different then any of the other news outlets that release these documents.

Is this thread about gay marriage while raping an abortionist yet?

What do you mean "release"? There's a difference between releasing the documents to the public and someone else writing a story about the documents you released. If you meant something else then feel free to clarify, but it seemed like you were trying to create an equivalence here.


There's also a difference between what wikileaks is doing and what past journalists and news agencies have done with classified data. Previously, the journalist who found himself offered classified information from a source would examine said information within the context of a specific story which justified the release of said classified data. He would then write the story about said illegal/unethical activities and then use the leaked information as source support for said story. Then he'd go pick up his Pulitzer prize.


What Wikileaks is doing is just dumping data. No analysis. No story. It's backwards. They aren't starting with an allegation of wrongdoing and then showing leaked data which supports that allegation. They're just leaking massive amounts of data, and vaguely suggesting that somewhere in all of that data must be support for whatever negative allegations one wishes to make, and basically just says "go find it yourself".

It's not just bad journalism, it's not even journalism. It's just leaking classified data for the sake of leaking classified data, as though that's somehow an end to itself. I'm unclear how or why we should extend the normal protections we normally allow for journalists in this case. If wikileaks had handed that information directly and secretly to a foreign power no one would even question that they were guilty of espionage and could be subject to significant legal action. But if instead of handing it to one foreign power, they hand it to everyone in the world, it's not? Why?

And I knew you were going to say that.

Almalieque: Consistently getting it wrong.

Explain to me how treating things that are the same equally and treating things that are different differently is wrong?

That's not wrong. You are wrong when you imply that marry a dog is somehow on par with marrying a consenting adult and therefore we must include that in any marriage argument, but the NY Times and WikiLeaks are completely different.

Famous last words by Julian Assange?

By which you mean a civil war with the warlords fighting it out for leadership?

No. See, for example, the pentagon papers.



Do you understand the point of journalism? From this, I would say not.

Once you understand that point, you will find out that it is better served by NOT filtering.

It's not on par unless you make it, which is the point. Quit suggesting rules and regulations that allows existing groups to be included then complain when people include them. It's really that simple.



What? So that only holds true if you assume that no one else would have murdered him anyway? You can't downgrade a crime on the possibility of someone else doing it in the future.



I'm not minimizing their roles, I'm simply trying to display that the two aren't the same. Just because what the media did or is doing is wrong, doesn't make it equivalent to Wiki-leaks.

You mean the papers which were themselves a condensed record of specific policy decisions and which the NY Times drew from to write a series of editorials? Didn't I just explain how this is different than simply dumping the data in front of the public?

Even the eventual full dump of the papers wasn't done directly to the public. It was entered into the Congressional record by a member of Congress, which the Supreme Court ruled allowed said "leak" to be immune to any criminal charge. This is because the US Constitution makes a special exception for information presented in session to congress from a member of congress. It does *not* apply to a foreign national dumping data to the general public.


It might help if you knew something about the subject other than the name. Just a suggestion.



Reporting that the data was leaked is journalism. It's "news". Leaking the data in semi-raw form to the general public is *not* journalism. Why would you think it is?



No, it's not. Journalism is the process of filtering data. I know that this may be a hard concept for you to accept, but if the goal was simply to present everyone with all the data in raw form you wouldn't need people on TV to read the highlights to you. Journalism by its nature distills the news of the day for public consumption.

I'm not making a judgment about it, I'm simply saying that what Wikileaks is doing is *not* journalism and should not be treated with the same historical protections.

What I'm saying is that the murder has already taken place.

Well in that case, that example isn't compatible.

A better example is if someone hacked your PC and got personal information(i.e. pictures, text files, etc). That person, laughing his heart out, shared it with his friend. His friend is your coworker and decided to send mass emails attaching your personal information. As the day goes on, everyone is talking about it, printing out pictures and laughing about it.

Naturally you will be upset with everyone, but the hacker and his friend are the ones who done the damage, everyone else is reacting to the damage.

Edit: Correction... A better example would be if that friend/coworker knows what the hacker does and the coworker approaches the hacker specifically for your information and then released it in mass emails at work...

Edited, Dec 10th 2010 2:43am by Almalieque