WikiFreaks in pithy summary

[digitaldiscipline]

Friend A: "I want to support freedom of speech and government accountability, and I do not want to support rapists, misogyny, authoritarian Big Brothers, or being a jerk."

Friend B: "Good idea, bad implementation, by an asshole."

Regardless of Asange's guilt or innocence (he'll have his day(s) in court to figure that out one way or the other), his behavior has no bearing on the merit of WL's calling attention to governmental shadiness.

As others point out, exposing OpSec info that puts people at risk sucks, and is stupid, but shaming the government into behaving less like a bag of assholes is certainly worthwhile IMNSHO.

Comments

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

out of curiosity -- as I mentioned, it's not my area of expertise -- but you mean by "uneven enforcement of espionage laws?" what is the usual standard (officially) for dealing with situations like this? I ask because I really don't know and it sounds like you do.

Also, what is there that would even bear on security? I mean, I really don't see how the fact that US diplomats privately believe the same things about world leaders as everybody else who knows anything about those world leaders would even seriously compromise our relations with them. I don't get it but then I wouldn't.

[cheez-ball.livejournal.com]

People have been calling for Assange, or however it's spelled, to be tried under the 1917 Espionage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917). It's something that's very rarely ever invoked and rather inappropriate to this case. I believe there were ~2 cases since the 20s that were brought before the courts, but both were later thrown out because of technicalities and such.

From wikipedia (because it's the easiest source to find): "[The Espionage Act of 1917] prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, to support America's enemies during wartime, to promote insubordination in the military, or to interfere with military recruitment." I, personally, don't see how the "leaks" had anything to do with interfering with military operations or supporting America's enemies during wartime. This guy is an anarchist and is only supporting his own agenda.

International relations might be damaged because foreign leaders will be less likely to trust US diplomats to keep certain operations secret. For example, if you secretly let the US take credit for dealing with dissidents in your country but publicly take credit for it yourself so that your citizens see you as a badass, leaks like this that say otherwise will be embarassing and could cause you to lose political clout in your own country. So in the future, will you allow the US to help you out or will you strike some sort of deal with your own dissidents so that you can stay in power?

Also, look at Italy. The prime minister was elected on a platform that stated he was well-respected by the US. The leaks said otherwise. He barely survived a no-confidence vote and there were riots at Piazza del Popolo as a result. So will he trust a US diplomat when talking with them in the future? Or will he very carefully measure each and every word?

Much of US security depends on maintaining good relationships with our allies. These leaks were a violation of trust. It was kind of like someone publishing your diary where you dish on your friends but never meant for them to read it. You'll likely lose some friendships as a result. And those friends now won't help you the next time you get into trouble with the school bully.

What do I think will likely happen to Assange? The following is just my $0.00000000002 worth. Assuming he's found not guilty for the rape [I honestly have no opinion of this. My inclination is to leave it to the courts.] he'll likely find himself with very few choices in where he can live and travel. He has, after all, pissed off just about the entire Western World and more than a few Eastern and Middle Eastern heads of state. He's probably on a bunch of don't fly/watch lists which will limit his travel. If he was smart he'd disappear from the radar for awhile so that tempers can simmer down. He's a bit of an anarchist so I'm going to guess he'll release another bunch of documents soon and piss off even more people. At some point he'll end up dead and no one will be entirely certain who did it or why it happened. Then some Hollywood type will make millions when this is all made into a movie. And the conspiracy theories will start, if they haven't already.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Very informative, thank you.So it's not the content of the leaks, it's the fact that it was leaked (?)

I don't know if I'd consider him a real anarchist though. Long story. Probably thinks of himself as one though.