US diplomatic cables to be dropped by wikileaks; US doing pre-emptive damage control

[Cadsuane]

What do you guys think about the idea that Wiki-leaks is a threat to U.S. National Security?

I've garnered from this thread, the ideas that:

Wiki-Leaks allows for transparency and accountability in the government.
The U.S. is essentially a threat to its own National Security.
Wiki-leaks allows for an informed populus.

On the other hand:

Wiki-Leaks puts national security in the hands of a third party.
Wiki-Leaks has overstepped its mission of keeping the government honest.
Wiki-Leaks creates unrest within our society.

A bullet list full of one liner rhetoric is the only thing you can garner from a 30 page thread with links to various articles?

[pogejr]

A bullet list full of one liner rhetoric is the only thing you can garner from a 30 page thread with links to various articles?

This is what is pretty much repeated, boiled down to "one liner rhetoric."

I don't like buzzwords.

edit: and the bolded is dumb

I don't understand what you mean. How does Wiki-Leaks not champion accountability in our government. I agree with you about the other parts.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/w...antz/urkel.gif

Indeed.

[Correction]

I don't understand what you mean. How does Wiki-Leaks not champion accountability in our government. I agree with you about the other parts.

Wikileaks only exists because the United States government is neither transparent nor held accountable for its shitty policies. This is not how you measure its success in fixing either problem.

[Kuya]

This is what is pretty much repeated, boiled down to "one liner rhetoric."



I don't understand what you mean. How does Wiki-Leaks not champion accountability in our government. I agree with you about the other parts.



Indeed.

Wikileaks isn't per se allowing or forcing accountability and transparency on the USG. The USG is reacting and will only react by hardening its approach (especially if people are prone to criticize wikileaks over the USG). It allows accountability in a roundabout manner, and it permits transparency by force, but the USG is not going to become accountable or transparent in on itself because of Wikileaks.

It's a technicality.

[pogejr]

Wikileaks isn't per se allowing or forcing accountability and transparency on the USG. The USG is reacting and will only react by hardening its approach (especially if people are prone to criticize wikileaks over the USG). It allows accountability in a roundabout manner, and it permits transparency by force, but the USG is not going to become accountable or transparent in on itself because of Wikileaks.

It's a technicality.

So we're stuck in a exchange of technicalities. Well can we agree that because of Wiki-Leaks, or maybe because of releasing documents, the government has become more cautious abouts its "improper" actions?

And, is there, or rather can you exemplify, an evil that comes from the exsistence of Wiki-Leaks. This is actually important for educational purposes, not just for argument.

[Kuya]

You're superfluous.

edit: i meant pedantic

[Kuya]

IE: you're arguing with a vocabulary and the certainty of an intellectualism you don't actually possess.

[archibaldcrane]

I thought it was funnier when you called him superfluous.

[Kuya]

I thought so too.

[Pirian]

[pogejr]

Kuya, I understand why you'd think that.

But I really meant to not argue and rather to gain information from a discussion.
If my words conveyed any sort of faux intellectualism, I apologize.

[Kuya]

Your questions were vague and/or loaded. An argument about what sort of "evil" Wikileaks might cause was already had on this thread.

It was mentioned that the leaks might harm US national security. The conclusion was that:

1. You need to define national security first, because its meaning is not obvious.

2. It came from the horse's mouth that the damage was low to moderate.

3. Wikileaks does put some effort into what sort of information they should release.

[pogejr]

The vague nature was simple to allow an open ended question. I apologize for that.

I'll go back through this thread to get more information. Thank you.

And, why did you edit a post to clarify then make a "id est" post.

[aurik]

Actually, I didn't ask for a difference, I asked how the analogy was inappropriate, as in, a meaningful observation possibly pointing out how these specific DDoS's are a less legitimate form of protest and/or civil disobedience. You pointed out a technicality that's only true to a degree, and that amounts to sophistry besides.

It's not a technicality, it's the whole damn point. They aren't marching with signs and chanting slogans informing the public at large why these particular companies are Bad and Should Feel Bad. They're just sabotaging their ability to do business, destroying their hardware / infrastructure, etc.

I'd say a better analogy than a sit-in is to liken the DDoS to those assholes at the peaceful G20 protests who go off and smash the windows at Starbucks / McD.

[Blubbartron]

Exactly what kind of physical damage is done by pinging the shit out of a server, Aurik?

[Cadsuane]

It's not a technicality, it's the whole damn point. They aren't marching with signs and chanting slogans informing the public at large why these particular companies are Bad and Should Feel Bad. They're just sabotaging their ability to do business, destroying their hardware / infrastructure, etc.

I'd say a better analogy than a sit-in is to liken the DDoS to those assholes at the peaceful G20 protests who go off and smash the windows at Starbucks / McD.

Except if the point you're trying to make with that comparison is that the DDoS's didn't raise awareness, further an agenda, garner media attention, provoke discussion, common features of activism etc., you'd be wrong. Not that DDoS's automatically qualify as activism but when a group performs one, on the open internet with open participation and then expends effort to bring it to the attention of the media and blogosphere and delivers a goddamn manifesto, it's pretty hard to argue that the only discernible goal those involved had in mind was to be a nuisance to private commerce. That's just an incredibly stupid and petty thing to say, not to mention sophistry because it boils down to a baseless normative accusation of anti social behaviour.

[aurik]

Exactly what kind of physical damage is done by pinging the shit out of a server, Aurik?

Stressing infrastructure to the point of failure by overwhelming it with work damages it.

Except if the point you're trying to make with that comparison is that the DDoS's didn't raise awareness, further an agenda, garner media attention, provoke discussion, common features of activism etc., you'd be wrong. Not that DDoS's automatically qualify as activism but when a group performs one, on the open internet with open participation and then expends effort to bring it to the attention of the media and blogosphere and delivers a goddamn manifesto, it's pretty hard to argue that the only discernible goal those involved had in mind was to be a nuisance to private commerce. That's just an incredibly stupid and petty thing to say, not to mention sophistry because it boils down to a baseless normative accusation of anti social behaviour.

By this logic, detonating a bomb in an empty church is just like a sit-in, because it's sure to raise awareness, further an agenda, garner media attention, provoke discussion.

[Kuya]

it.



By this logic, detonating a bomb in an empty church is just like a sit-in, because it's sure to raise awareness, further an agenda, garner media attention, provoke discussion.

Maybe you shouldn't have quoted and responded to a post that was made as a reply to someone who likely had a different argument than you:

DDoSs don't bring attention to the site being DDoS'ed, it just hurts their ability to do business.

That's patently false. The anon DDoS's were widely reported and discussed.

Point is, someone goes to amazon, can't load the page or whatever, has no idea why, and leaves. You're correct that some DDoS's are widely reported, but unlike a sit-in or picket where customers immediately link "oh I can't engage in commerce here and this is why", there's a disconnect between affected consumers and the reason.

You asked for a difference, this is a difference.

Actually, I didn't ask for a difference, I asked how the analogy was inappropriate, as in, a meaningful observation possibly pointing out how these specific DDoS's are a less legitimate form of protest and/or civil disobedience. You pointed out a technicality that's only true to a degree, and that amounts to sophistry besides.

[Cadsuane]

Stressing infrastructure to the point of failure by overwhelming it with work damages it.



By this logic, detonating a bomb in an empty church is just like a sit-in, because it's sure to raise awareness, further an agenda, garner media attention, provoke discussion.

Sure. If you want to define terrorism as a subset of activism, then church bombings are like sit-ins in that sense. However, since this is a pretty vacuous truth, my spirit guides tell me that what you really meant to imply was that DDoS'ing corporate websites is an illegitimate, antisocial, unethical, unjustifiable, uncivil form of protest like church bombings are, or since you're very likely going to balk at the hyperbole of the comparison, like G20 looters. Hm! Isn't this implication exactly the question being discussed (as well as the question that you're begging)?

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you try to answer that underlying question and establish that it is an illegitimate form of protest like you've been trying to do but without exploiting nebulous definitions and heavy handed comparisons? Maybe you could tell us what exactly condonable protest and civic discourse is in the 21st century and how modern democracy is evolving or devolving and... oh my god we'd actually be touching on the salient and profound lessons to be learned from cablegate and the middle eastern revolts which is actually a very serious topic that warrants somewhat more consideration than some fuckwit kneejerk one line opinion! You'd be in serious danger of having an actual point if you did this.

(Also while DDoS's certainly have a dollar value in damages, no physical property is damaged or needs to be replaced which is an important legal distinction.)

[Tenbroya]

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/6047/cyberpolice.png