Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Excellent question. Please google the Pentagon Papers and educate yourself some more on the subject. If we followed your conclusion pretty much all the newspapers in the world that actually did their jobs would be in the docket tomorrow.

There has always been a tug-of-war between the press and the government about what is and what is not permitted and it is universally recognized that a free press is essential to the functioning of democracies.

The issue at stake here is a complicated one, whether or not wikileaks is part of the press, and even if it isn't whether it should be counted as such.

Governments the world over, from the worst to the best have figured out a loophole in the whole 'free press' business, which is to use 'access' as a coin with which to control the press. In a world where eyeballs govern the budgets of newspapers not having access directly affects a newspapers bottom line. WikiLeaks circumvents the access trick by simply not being susceptible to that kind of leverage and it is exactly because of that that I suspect that they are seen as 'dangerous' by those in power.

I don't see the issue as free press. I don't believe that our press has ever been more free than it is today.

The issue I'm concerned with is that this turns people like Manning into heroes.

Freedom of the press was not created to protect classified documents. They didn't exist at the time. It was created to protect the press' right to contradict and/or point out the flaw in the government system, and the people that manage it.

It's meant to prevent government censorship.

And legal or not, I'm just not comfortable with this level of freedom with national secrets. We'll see how it plays out over the long-term, but I don't think it's a fear of Assange you see, but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.

> but fear of what these documents will do to strengthen our enemies.

I don't subscribe to your fear, or to your suggestion that we have a common enemy.

I'm referring to enemies of the West. If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.

I've met them. They don't like us.

> I'm referring to enemies of the West.

Oh my!

> If you live in the US, UK, or Eastern Europe and don't believe we have common enemies, then you are sadly mistaken.

I guess I will have to take your word for it.

> I've met them.

In what capacity did you meet the enemies of the West ?

> They don't like us.

Did they specify any reasons ?

When I was in Afghanistan in 2008. I could name countless reasons, but you know them already.

So, because of your experience in Afghanistan (you were there as an aid worker?) you have decided that wikileaks is somehow illegal.

There are fanatic idiots everywhere, that does not mean that we can't strive for a more open government, especially not when it has come to light time and time again that our governments and corporations do not just have secrets because we all benefit from them, but for the most part that they have secrets in order to cover up the lies and the corruption.

If it weren't for that wikileaks would not even exist.

I'll take the extra 0.000025% (that's a doubling) chance of dying in a terrorist attack because of that, which is still substantially less than dying of old age in my bed.

Stop being afraid.

I was there as a US Army NCO. I'm not afraid, I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.

I didn't say Wikileaks is or should be illegal...I asked where we draw the line. I don't think Wikileaks is a benefit, that's all. I think it has the potential to do good, but the way he's released documents has been more reckless than intentionally beneficial.

Can't we push for an open government without extremes? I'd say that our electoral process still functions well, as does the legislative one.

  Can't we push for an open government without extremes?

I'm not sure that we can. On the one side, we have well intentioned individuals who forthrightly believe that secrecy is the only way to protect our freedoms and way of life, and whom will stop at nothing keep anything detrimental to that goal from being revealed to the public and our "enemies". On the other, you have equally well-intentioned people who, for the most part, acknowledge that there are things that are completely reasonable to keep secret but that most things probably oughtn't. To have an open government balanced correctly, we need transparency extremists. Otherwise, the balance of power is wholly on the side of people who want to keep secrets, leaving us with a less open, less transparent government.

I'm simply pointing out that there are people that despise the West, and it's bad enough that we have to take it from them...we shouldn't have to take it from our own people too.

Despise is perhaps too strong a word, particularly in regards to "our own people". But regardless, what if there are very good reasons to despise the West? Everything the West does is not ok simply because you and I live in it. A good portion of the enemies you're referring to have very valid grievances with the West. That their tactics for dealing with those grievances are not my tactics (or Wikileaks tactics) does not in any way deter from the validity of their grievances (or mine).

I disagree. I think this quote puts it in perspective:

“Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”

I didn't say we were perfect, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

I disagree.

With what? That there can be valid grievances with Western policies? That anyone could have a valid reason for hatred?

If you killed my brother, I'd have a significant feeling of hatred towards you. You can call me a coward all you want, but my feeling would be 100% valid. Now apply that principle to the tens and hundreds of thousands of families that have had Western gov'ts kill their civilian family members (as collateral damage). Those Western gov'ts may have reasons they consider good for having killed those civilians (or causing the deaths, however you want to think about it), but you cannot expect the surviving families are going to nod their heads and say "OK, I guess it had to be that way".

I think this quote puts it in perspective: “Hatred is self-punishment. Hatred it the coward's revenge for being intimidated.”

It doesn't, really.

let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

... and an apple a day keeps the doctor away? "Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love." The truth is staring you in the face.

Please enlighten us. I have a friend who served a tour in Afghanistan around the same time period and he reported that most people there were friendly and just wanted to be able to live in peace...

So you apply to the government for a job and in your job application, you put your address, social security number, telephone number, your personal references, etc. Then the government does a background check on you including your credit history, transcripts of interviews with your friends and family, copies of sealed court records, and copies of medical records obtained to qualify for employer insurance.

One country wants to buy airplanes from another country. It has offered $1 million for the airplanes, but the seller wants $2 million. The country writes an email saying it is willing to pay $2 million, but wants to negotiate. If a newspaper published the email the seller would demand $2 million costing the country an additional $1 million.

Suppose the military had a remote missile launch capability that allowed generals to telephone in and launch a missile. A newspaper gets hold of the phone number and launch codes allowing anyone to launch the missiles.

Under your reasoning, it is right to publish these.

You are conflating the right to personal privacy with the need for government transparency, they are two entirely different subjects.

The first example is one of personal privacy, I think the other two are legitimate examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com