[Bobboau]

eh, what about this do I have wrong? wikileaks posted an encrypted file, they gave the Guardian the key, the Guardian printed it for the world to see, so now all the bad people who want it have it, so wikileaks just lets it loose because the damage was done.

Guardian's fault.

[Scotty]

wikileaks posted an encrypted file,

I'm pretty sure this makes it wikileaks's fault.

[Bobboau]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't, without the key it's useless.

[Bobboau]

I mean it's like having a huge massive vault that a bank puts your stuff in, and they give you a key. you basically but a copy of the key in the mail boxes of millions of people with a nice monogrammed message attached to it explaining to them what it is for. and then turn around and blame the bank for having the vault to begin with when someone steals all of your stuff.

[MP-Ryan]

Did you read the part about how Wikileaks apparently posted the same file twice, with the same encryption key, to different places?  How about the part where, having discovered that a few people knew where to get the file with that key and the key itself, they decided to release it so anyone could view it without decryption?

The first part is terrible security.  The second is media-whoring.  Both are inexcusable when you're dealing with that kind of information.

EDIT:  If you read further down on that page (or maybe Spiegel) you'll note that The Guardian was under the impression that the encryption key they received was only for their file, an impression given to them by Assange by all appearances.

[Bobboau]

the file was on bit torrent.
"a few people" yeah right.

[karajorma]

You ignored the point about the Guardian believing that they were the only ones with an archive that matched that key.

[Bobboau]

and that excuses them? it's never a good idea to make that stuff publicly available. for this exact reason.

[karajorma]

It does mean that Wikileaks bears at least as much responsibility for claiming that there was only one file that matched that key when in fact there were many.

[Mr. Vega]

Is there any way in hell some of the good stuff wikileaks released would have ever seen the light of day otherwise? Like Pfizer trying to dig up dirt on a Nigerian prosecutor going after them for killing a few children during drug trials?

Honestly, I think my biggest point here is that while the price to pay might be very high Wikileaks can put out stuff noone else can. Legitimate stuff. Stuff the public needs to know about.

[Bobboau]

yeah, but they also clearly have a particular hardon for US secretes.

[Flipside]

I suppose the question arises of 'If the Guardian had already released it, why did Wikileaks bother doing so?'.

Unfortunately, it seems, to me, to boil more down to a 'battle of the readers' than anything else. Wikileaks didn't want the Guardian to get all the publicity for doing something pretty dangerous and so decided it was ok to do exactly the same thing. They could have taken the high ground and attacked the Guardian for releasing them all unredacted, it might actually have earned them more respect as a source of information. Instead it become more about sensationalism and grabbing the viewers.

It's kind of a pity, even if it's not very surprising, that this whole thing has boiled down to attention value.

The strange part is that I'm not, in theory, against the idea of something like Wikileaks, when governments, any Governments behave in an underhand manner then they need to be exposed, but the whole thing stopped being 'for the greater good' some considerable time ago in my opinion.

[Bobboau]

there is also the dimension of wikileaks supposed to be about releasing information so if the damage had been done there was no reason for them not to, and their whole purpose for existing is to release as much stuff as possible.

and there is the other dimension of the bad guys now have the info, so the good guys should as well. i.e. if Razule in islamastan said something that got put in these cabals and the government is going to come after him now, it would be nice if there was some possible way for him to know and get moving before that happened.

[Dilmah G]

As soon as Assange realised how much power WL started to have and information like the Afghan War Diaries started rolling in the organization appeared to move further and further away from being for the 'greater good'.

WL exists, or at least, existed primarily as a whistle-blowing organization where sources could retain anonymity and safely blow the whistle on whatever illegal/inhumane activity was occurring. Looking at what's been discussed regarding this latest batch of cables I'm fairly firm in my opinion now that WL have lost the plot. This isn't whistle-blowing as much as it's global ****stirring.

[Unknown Target]

Indeed, it seems like Assange got a lot of attention and influence and then started to use it to take out his own personal feelings. I've seen it happen before. It really comes from a lack of accountability (mostly to oneself) and a lack of maturity, IMO.

[Woolie Wool]

Nobody has any business spying on anybody, and the less people able to get away with it the better.

Now there's a spectacularly naive and uninformed opinion.  That might work on a planet where everyone gets along and there are enough resources, food, and absolutely no conflicts, but here on Earth where most of us reside, intelligence-gathering contributes to the safety of nations, and candid diplomacy prevents large-scale conflicts.  Without both of those things, "Western" civilization would not exist.

But thanks for demonstrating my point about the apparent uselessness of history education.

My opinion may be shared by naive or uninformed people, but I am neither naive nor uninformed. Rather, I am sick of pessimistic attitudes (like your own) getting in the way of actually solving the world's problems.

You say we can't afford to stop spying because other people haven't stopped spying on us. They tell themselves the same thing. How bout we man up and set a ****ing precedent?

There's an old saying, nations don't survive by setting an example for others, but by making an example of others. The only real international law that truly has real authority is the law of the jungle--any other rules or principles can be ignored by those with the will, power, and/or influence to do so if they wish. It is never in the best interest of a sovereign nation to make itself more vulnerable to its enemies.

That said, this is as much as a disaster for Wikileaks and the internet at large as for the United States or its agents and intel sources. The US is going to react and it won't be pretty.

[Dilmah G]

Indeed, it seems like Assange got a lot of attention and influence and then started to use it to take out his own personal feelings. I've seen it happen before. It really comes from a lack of accountability (mostly to oneself) and a lack of maturity, IMO.

Indeed. Have you read Inside Wikileaks? I suspect after that after reading that Assange is more of a 'Power corrupts' case than a child put into a position of power.