omg what kind of monster has been created here that we can’t shut down ? 
then who has the authority to shut it down?
someone stop the planet, i wanna jump off :bouncy3:
It’s not like he’s a maniac or insane or after world domination…he just believes that certain things that have been covered up or haven’t been disclosed should be disclosed.
He’s claimed that not everything has been released, and some of the information which was more classified/sensitive in nature or related to current operations has been withheld. Prior to the public release of his stash of information, he also claims to have contacted the US government about information they may have wanted withheld due to security issues. He claimed not to have received a response. At least, that’s according to when I read in the local paper this morning.
Just shut down the internet, because wikileaks is not the only press organisation doing this, and they won’t be the last either.
As your questions about shutting him down have illustrated, this is a matter of control.
Wikileaks is the only the messenger. Do not shoot the messenger, because many more exist in their place.
Instead focus on the parts of your own organisation that are weak enough to allow such leaks to occur, and potentially (though unlikely) improve your business practices so that there are no grounds for such leaks to even exist.
It’s said that “‘necessity’ is the excuse of tyrants and the creed of slaves”
I tend to agree with the Bananamanna; the faceless “tyrants” need to keep these secrets, and a rights warrior (read different ilk of tyrant) needs to expose the secrets.
Agreed :agree:
exactly - totally agree :agree:
that is along similar lines to what I said earlier
maybe the only way to clamp down on this, given the complexity and potential impracticality of having international laws governing leaks is for each country to make laws that severley discourage “inappropriate” leaks by their people. This should severley restrict the supply of leaks. But then we get into the “grey” and controvertial area of what is “inappropriate”
Most countries already have such laws in place, which in this particular case have been applied against the guy who leaked the cables several months ago now.
maybe, but obviously the penalties are no where near strong enough deterants in all of them.
So what happens when the death sentence is not a strong enough incentive?
There has to be other answers than just plain escalation of the penalty.
I guess the same thing that happens when people continue committing crimes now for which the death penalty exist.
So it begs the question, why have the death penalty? but that’s so a whole another thread.
Luckily in Oz, we don’t have a death penalty.
yep agree.
increasing penalties, although it might deter some, can only be a part of the solution.
[FONT=“Georgia”]Are the motives that shallow, you think?
Because some of the information has been leaked at tremendous personal risk to the leaker, from my understanding. I don’t think risks like those would have been taken unless the source really believed others needed to know (at least I hope not, anyways).
For example, My Lai in Vietnam exposed by Ronald Ridenhour’s letter.
What leads you to think that it’s a Pandora’s Box, and is that a good thing, a bad thing, or just a thing?
[/FONT]
[FONT=“Georgia”]What this first reminded me of, by the way, is the hacker who uncovered the University of East Anglia’s climate research e-mails.
I suppose we can get into the morality or immorality of hacking in another thread, but I think the principles behind that incident and this thread’s topic are similar.
[/FONT]
[edit]
I think I worded that badly. It sounded as though My Lai was a wikileak.
I meant My Lai as an example of a risky “leak” which proved valuable for others to know at that time.
I think some of these wikileaks might one day be considered in that category, is what I meant.[/edit]
I think human nature being what it is, for a minority of people I think that will be the motivation behind their leak.
I think now that people are getting a taste for “WikiLeaks”, it is here to stay in one form or another. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t like it in its present form with the uncertainty of what should or should not be published and so ideally I would like to see it shut down until the issues mentioned in this thread plus others are resolved and then resurrected. But obviously that is much easier said than done.
I just think that if left as is, again with human nature being what it is, in the long run more evil will come out of it than good.
You’re right, bad things do happen. But burying your head in the sand doesn’t stop bad things from happening. Shutting down organisations like Wikileaks does not make everything better. It only allows companies to continue doing bad things without scrutiny to keep them in check.
You cannot stop the planet and get off, as you were saying earlier. This is our planet for better or for worse. Peoples opinions on how to make it better differ widely. Exposing bad things to the cleansing light of public scrutiny is only one way of many, to help improve things.
As I mentioned in my first post (or maybe 2nd), I support the concept but not the current way it is being done.
If it’s left as is, my gut feeling is that more evil than good will come from it in the long run.
Totally agree :agree: and I think most people would as well.
The issue is as I see it , and obviously by many others around the world, is this the right way to go about it or is there a better way of doing it?
This situation reminds me of a quote from a long ago about democracy:
There is no such thing as the “perfect form of government” on earth, but any other form of government produces even less desirable results than democracy. Until today, no other form of government has been invented that could regulate public affairs better than democracy - Winston Churchill
So if you don’t like the current way of doing things, it’s up to you to suggest a better solution than what is being done already.
Come up with some better ideas. What better ways are there of doing it?
Are you asking me personally or everyone else on the planet who is also wondering if there is a better way of doing it?
If you would like me to solve it on my own, let me finish fixing world poverty first and then I’ll have some time to work on the Wikileaks spotfire 
btw - what’s my deadline for a solution? 
ps… I posted earlier some food for thought ideas I brainstormed
Oh, I see no trouble with sorting out world poverty thing first before taxing yourself with the whole Wikileaks situation.
I suppose so. But shouldn’t it really? If all those leaked documents were copyrighted it would be very clear what laws are broken. Classified information is not public property, then whose property is it? Anyway, it comes down to the fact that someone publishes the information that they have no right to. Legally that can mean different laws, but morally that means the same thing.
Now the question is what about the information that the public should know? The corruption, etc. it reveals is a good thing, right? Then it can’t be immoral? I don’t think so. It’s a war - there’s nothing moral in a war.