If Assange hadn't published it, it wouldn't even be up for discussion. Look, the CIA and NSA and the various US spook agencies, get up to a lot of nefarious activities, but I don't see how simply destroying their confidentiality contributes to overall world order. I don't think the world is a safer or better place for the such activities. It would be a different matter if Wikileaks were publishing evidence of genuine malfeasance, like that well-known case of the gunship assassination of the journalists, but I don't see it here.

And as I said, if Wikileaks published what the Russian or the Chinese secret services get up to, that would be interesting. But that seems never to happen, does it? And do you think that is because those secret services are ethical and conscientious and never pose a threat to human rights?

If Assange hadn't published it, it wouldn't even be up for discussion. — Wayfarer

Right or wrong, what's done is done, and can't be undone, unless perhaps you have a time machine.

Look, the CIA and NSA and the various US spook agencies, get up to a lot of nefarious activities, but I don't see how simply destroying their confidentiality contributes to overall world order. I don't think the world is a safer or better place for the such activities. It would be a different matter if Wikileaks were publishing evidence of genuine malfeasance, like that well-known case of the gunship assassination of the journalists, but I don't see it here. — Wayfarer

No you look, you're shooting the messenger for raising an important concern. Raising an important concern isn't guaranteed to make the world a safer place or a better place according to some notions of what it means for the world to be a better place, but sometimes it's nevertheless the right thing to do. It might cause riots or worse, but it can still be the right thing to do. If your kind of consequentialism rules that out, then that's a problem with your kind of consequentialism.

I don't know why you're mischaracterising this again as simply destroying confidentiality, as if what was done was done for no reason. These secrets haven't been revealed for no reason. It isn't that simple, so you should stop trying to simplify it. You might not agree with the reason, but there is a reason.

I think that you're overlooking the significance. Just because there is as of yet, to my knowledge, no reported incident, like that well-known case of the gunship assassination of the journalists, that doesn't mean that there is nothing to worry about, and that we should have been kept in the dark - perhaps until it is too late. Do you not think that prevention is important?

Your focus on Assange is a red herring. Forget about Assange for a minute. You yourself said that you don't much trust US government agencies!

but sometimes it's nevertheless the right thing to do. — Sapientia

Sometimes, but I don't think this is the time. Even the internal critics of the US secret services, say this is dangerous disclosure. Assange is not a red herring, any more than the iceberg that sank the Titanic.

I notice nobody here has speculated on why the Russians and Chinese secret services are immune to disclosure on Wikileaks. You think it's because they're basically ethical and upright? Try blowing the whistle on Russian government corruption and you'll end up with concrete shoes.

These secrets haven't been revealed for no reason. — Sapientia

I think they've been revealed, because they're supposed to be highly secret. I can't see any other reason in this case.

I don't know why you're mischaracterising this again as simply destroying confidentiality, as if what was done was done for no reason. These secrets haven't been revealed for no reason. It isn't that simple, so you should stop trying to simplify it. You might not agree with the reason, but there is a reason. — Sapientia

I really haven't seen "the reason" yet, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree. Perhaps we can clarify this reason, so I can make a decision.

One reason has already been suggested, which is that the authority in question can't be trusted to be responsible. — Sapientia

So the reason is that the CIA is irresponsible. I would say that the leak itself proves a degree of irresponsibility. But it's not clear where that irresponsibility lies. The question is who is responsible for the leaks? Are you sure that Wikileaks isn't revealing the information for other (confidential) reasons, and that they're not actively involved in the leaking? If so, then isn't it Wikileaks who is responsible, or should I say irresponsible?

So the reason is that the CIA is irresponsible. I would say that the leak itself proves a degree of irresponsibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're not joking!

"An historic act of devastating incompetence!"

Assange confirms the entire CIA cyber weapons arsenal is available on the black market.

Sometimes, but I don't think this is the time. Even the internal critics of the US secret services, say this is dangerous disclosure. — Wayfarer

There are mixed views. And dangerous disclosure can be compatible with the right thing to do. The danger aspect needn't be what determines the rightness or wrongness of the act.

Assange is not a red herring, any more than the iceberg that sank the Titanic. — Wayfarer

He's certainly related, like with the iceberg, but to divert attention towards the iceberg and away from the hole in the ship would be a problem, and that's my point.

The analogy with the iceberg isn't very accurate. It's more like a situation where, unbeknownst to the passengers, but known to the higher ups, the Titanic is sailing through dangerous waters, and there's a whistleblower who blows the whistle. You then concentrate on criticising the whistleblower for doing what he did, even though you admit that the higher ups cannot be trusted with the task of ensuring that the ship gets to its destination with all the responsibilities that that implies.

I notice nobody here has speculated on why the Russians and Chinese secret services are immune to disclosure on Wikileaks. You think it's because they're basically ethical and upright? Try blowing the whistle on Russian government corruption and you'll end up with concrete shoes. — Wayfarer

Perhaps because that's not really the topic of discussion. The topic is about the secrets that have been exposed about American organisations.

I can think of at least two acceptable reasons out of a number of possible reasons, and you've mentioned one yourself. One reason would be that they haven't been able to do so, and the other reason would be that they think that the danger to their life is too great.

I think they've been revealed, because they're supposed to be highly secret. I can't see any other reason in this case. — Wayfarer

Others can, so I think that that's more to do with your sight than what is or isn't there. And it's odd that your talk seems to conflict with your sight. You say that you don't much trust US government agencies, yet you say that you don't see a reason. You just need to connect the dots, I think. If there is a significant lack of trust of the authorities in question, then what does that tell us? These revelations are relevant with regards to this lack of trust. They give us more reason to act. They reinforce this point, and it is the authorities themselves who are ultimately responsible, not those who expose what they're doing.

I notice nobody here has speculated on why the Russians and Chinese secret services are immune to disclosure on Wikileaks. — Wayfarer

Perhaps because that's not really the topic of discussion. — Sapientia

Convenient, isn't it.

Convenient, isn't it. — Wayfarer

Ha! This is a free, public online forum. There's nothing stopping anyone from talking about that when that's the topic of discussion. I'm just pointing out that, strictly speaking, that is not the topic of this discussion.

I trust them a damn sight more than the current White House. — Wayfarer

But, again, this is just another comparative statement which doesn't get to the issue. Like saying that Stalin was better than Hitler or something. That doesn't get to what people take issue with about Stalin. It's a distraction.

The analogy with the iceberg isn't very accurate. It's more like a situation where, unbeknownst to the passengers, but known to the higher ups, the Titanic is sailing through dangerous waters, and there's a whistleblower who blows the whistle. You then concentrate on criticising the whistleblower for doing what he did, even though you admit that the higher ups cannot be trusted with the task of ensuring that the ship gets to its destination with all the responsibilities that that implies. — Sapientia

You haven't considered the possibility that the whistle blower has created the "dangerous waters" which is being reported, just like the fireman who lights fires to give himself work. If the problem here is that the information has been leaked, then the guilty party is the one which takes the information. Dealing in stolen goods is just as much a crime as stealing, because of complicity. Your approach is like trying to pin the blame for a robbery on the victim, saying that the victim's goods weren't properly secured.

So you need to consider the possibility that the whistle blower has created the "dangerous waters" with the intent of reporting it, either to make oneself look good by foreseeing a problem, or to make the other look bad, for sailing in dangerous water.

You haven't considered the possibility that the whistle blower has created the "dangerous waters" which is being reported, just like the fireman who lights fires to give himself work. If the problem here is that the information has been leaked, then the guilty party is the one which takes the information. Dealing in stolen goods is just as much a crime as stealing, because of complicity. Your approach is like trying to pin the blame for a robbery on the victim, saying that the victim's goods weren't properly secured.

So you need to consider the possibility that the whistle blower has created the "dangerous waters" with the intent of reporting it, either to make oneself look good by foreseeing a problem, or to make the other look bad, for sailing in dangerous water. — Metaphysician Undercover

In the analogy, the dangerous waters are the cyber warfare arsenal under the control of the CIA referred to in the opening post. Dangerous waters are a problem regardless of whether or not the passengers are aware, so if reporting it is a problem, it is an additional problem.

But how is the reporting a problem? It is a problem for the CIA, but some would question whether they should have done what they did in the first place, and will think that it is a good thing that we have found out. It's a bit like letting a friend know that their partner has been cheating on them. It wasn't the whistleblower that did the cheating. The partner shouldn't have cheated in the first place.

Even if Assange himself created the cyber warfare arsenal, the CIA took ownership of it for potential use. They are complicit: they maintained ownership and control over this arsenal, and they did so secretly. That's what many people see as a problem - especially given other factors, such as Trump. Assange does not have ownership or control over this arsenal, as far as I'm aware, and I doubt that his intention was to do something which would lead to himself being implicated.

I don't buy this conspiracy theory about Assange being some kind of Russian spy or a crazed narcissist, but I accept the possibility that he might have had bad intentions and that he might have had some part in what has transpired. But whether his intentions were good or bad is ultimately beside the point for me, and likewise if he no longer has the role he used to on account of being a whistleblower, which entails a renouncement and condemnation.

In the analogy, the dangerous waters are the cyber warfare arsenal under the control of the CIA referred to in the opening post. Dangerous waters are a problem regardless of whether or not the passengers are aware, so if reporting it is a problem, it is an additional problem. — Sapientia

Well I don't think you can prevent governments from having a "warfare arsenal". That's just a matter of fact that we must live with, and they claim that the arsenal is justified as defence. There are weapons all over the world. I believe that the special problem here is that releasing the information, is itself the danger, because it puts the arsenal in the hands of others. The information is the weapon. So releasing this information is analogous to releasing the information of how to make a nuclear bomb, along with the necessary elements to do such.

But how is it a problem? It is a problem for the CIA, but some would question whether they should have done what they did in the first place, and will think that it is a good thing that we have found out. It's a bit like letting a friend know that their partner has been cheating on them. It wasn't the whistleblower that did the cheating. The partner shouldn't have cheated in the first place. — Sapientia

How can you say that it wasn't the whistle blower who did the cheating, in this case? If the whistle blower paid for the leaked information, then the whistle blower caused the leak.

Even if Assange himself created the cyber warfare arsenal, the CIA took ownership of it for potential use. They are complicit, and they maintain ownership and control. That's what many people see as a problem. Assange does not have ownership or control over this arsenal, as far as I'm aware, and I doubt that his intention was to do something which would lead to himself being implicated. — Sapientia

The CIA amassed the arsenal, where they got the individual parts, I don't know. But we can look at it as part of the government's warfare arsenal. The CIA is a federal government agency. You might argue that it is a crime for the government to own weapons, but what good would this argument do? You might argue that the CIA is incompetent and should have weapons, but what good would that do? Clearly if they got these weapons they're not completely incompetent. Where they've demonstrated incompetence is in keeping these weapons. But the crime is to steal those weapons and pass them around. We cannot really argue that having the weapons is a crime, unless you're prepared to argue that it's a crime for governments to have weapons. Perhaps, you're prepared to argue that this particular type of weapon should not be possessed, as they do with WMD.

Well I don't think you can prevent governments from having a "warfare arsenal". That's just a matter of fact that we must live with, and they claim that the arsenal is justified as defence. There are weapons all over the world. I believe that the special problem here is that releasing the information, is itself the danger, because it puts the arsenal in the hands of others. The information is the weapon. So releasing this information is analogous to releasing the information of how to make a nuclear bomb, along with the necessary elements to do such. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's about the scale and covert nature of this cyber warfare arsenal. Think how many people own a smart car, phone or TV. How many of these people are just ordinary citizens and not criminals who warrant the attention of the CIA? That's a game changer. Of course they'll always claim that it's justified as defence. That way there's never any limit, and what many people see as our rights can be gradually eroded to whatever extent they see fit. Unless we push back hard enough. Passivity just normalises what they're doing, and sends them the signal that what they're doing is okay, so perhaps they'll test the waters again, and go even further next time. Where do we draw the line? Or should we just not bother?

Wikileaks has not published any cyber weapons themselves, they've just published documents describing them. I don't accept your claim that releasing this information puts the arsenal in the hands of others or that it's analogous to releasing information on how to build a nuclear bomb. The CIA had already lost the cyber weapons arsenal by the time of the leak. They were already out there. So the leak is not to blame for that. The CIA, on the other hand, is. The leak has, however, vastly increased awareness, which has lead to countermeasures being designed, which can be put to good use.

How can you say that it wasn't the whistle blower who did the cheating, in this case? If the whistle blower paid for the leaked information, then the whistle blower caused the leak. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's another attempt from you to twist my analogy. The cheating isn't the leak. The leak is akin to the telling, not the cheating. The cheating is having this secret arsenal.

The CIA amassed the arsenal, where they got the individual parts, I don't know. But we can look at it as part of the government's warfare arsenal. The CIA is a federal government agency. You might argue that it is a crime for the government to own weapons, but what good would this argument do? You might argue that the CIA is incompetent and should have weapons, but what good would that do? — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm obviously not going to make that argument. The debate is about limits. There are limits everywhere you look, even in war, hence the Geneva Conventions.

Clearly if they got these weapons they're not completely incompetent. Where they've demonstrated incompetence is in keeping these weapons. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not about incompetence in that respect. It's more about being trustworthy or responsible. And, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. In this case, the power and the accompanying responsibility is so great that I'm not sure I even want it within their reach.

But the crime is to steal those weapons and pass them around. We cannot really argue that having the weapons is a crime, unless you're prepared to argue that it's a crime for governments to have weapons. — Metaphysician Undercover

Talk about crime becomes relatively meaningless if the authorities can legitimise the kind of thing that we're talking about or if they can keep it under wraps.

Perhaps, you're prepared to argue that this particular type of weapon should not be possessed, as they do with WMD. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm certainly willing to consider that argument as opposed to passive acceptance or apologetics. And this is just what we know about, thanks to Wikileaks. Imagine what else they could be up to. Imagination is all we'd have to rely on if it weren't for organisations such as Wikileaks.

It's about the scale and covert nature of this cyber warfare arsenal. Think how many people own a smart car or TV. How many of these people are just ordinary citizens and not criminals who warrant the attention of the CIA? — Sapientia

Actually, you are wrong.

It's about:

"An historic act of devastating incompetence!" — tom

You can buy the entire CIA cyber-warfare arsenal, that the USA developed at the cost of $100Billion if you have the right connections.

Oh, well that makes it alright then. :-}

Obviously it's not secret anymore, but it was. And I haven't denied the incompetence. I denied its relevance in relation to what I think is of greater importance.

It was never a secret. The point is that now other states and even private individuals have the ability to crash cars, eavesdrop on the world, and masquerade as the Russians. Thanks CIA for being so stupid.

It was never a secret. — tom

Of course it was. That's why we're only just hearing about it now on the news. It was kept secret from the general public who do not have inside knowledge on the CIA or high-end black markets. Nothing was said to the public by the CIA or the president, until they were in effect forced to do so in response to Wikileaks.

It's about the scale and covert nature of this cyber warfare arsenal. Think how many people own a smart car or TV. How many of these people are just ordinary citizens and not criminals who warrant the attention of the CIA? That's a game changer. — Sapientia

The CIA has always had the capacity to tap my phone, find out whatever information they want about me, and I'm sure they could have me killed if they wanted. How is this any different? Why do you think it's a game changer? It's just a fact that I live with, that there are people out there with power over me. The best solution is to try and live peacefully, in the eyes of the law.

Passivity just normalises what they're doing, and sends them the signal that what they're doing is okay, so perhaps they'll test the waters again, and go even further next time. Where do we draw the line? Or should we just not bother? — Sapientia

I think that it's already been normalized long before I came into the world. If you want to stop it, what do you propose, revolution? I see that as a much higher risk than allowing the CIA to proceed with their covert activities.

The cheating is having this secret arsenal. — Sapientia

How is having the secret arsenal cheating? We know that they have, and use, such technologies, they have been doing so since before I was born. We just hope that they use it for good. We know from past experience that they do not always use it for good, there's a lot of politics involved.

Talk about crime becomes relatively meaningless if the authorities can legitimise the kind of thing that we're talking about or if they can keep it under wraps. — Sapientia

I think we're talking mainly about international intelligence gathering. If you and I, and the rest of the country, think that this is wrongful activity, and refrain from doing it, how is this going to prevent others from using it against us? You'll never get Geneva type conventions to oppose intelligence gathering because it's seen by too many people as fair activity. Interfering in communications is seen as fair play. If the activities of computers are communications based, then how would you outlaw interfering with your enemy's computers?

I'm certainly willing to consider that argument as opposed to passive acceptance or apologetics. And this is just what we know about, thanks to Wikileaks. Imagine what else they could be up to. Imagination is all we'd have to rely on if it weren't for organisations such as Wikileaks. — Sapientia

I've been imagining this for all my life, it's nothing new to me. Imagine if there was a God, and God knew every activity you were up to, and everything you said, and to whom, and how to access everything in all the computers, and even how to reprogram those computers to do whatever He decided they should do. Now imagine that your enemies might gain the capacity to tap into God's knowledge, to a degree, and use this information against you. Wouldn't you want to tap into God's knowledge first, and use that information against your enemies? The only way to avoid this is to outlaw enemies. How are we going to do that?