>From the same author of Seb's blog link, here's a lengthy but very thoughtful essay arguing that transparency in diplomacy does more to advance human rights than secrecy
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/two-handed-engine-wikileaks-the-defense-of-diplomatic-secrecy-and-east-timor/ On 8 December 2010 17:43, IR Consultancy <[email protected]>wrote: > Was exactly the same way Tom! This has got me gripped. > > And Paul, agree with your last paragraph-bottom line is, this the truth and > deal with it. > > I don't care about Assange as so much what he has done in the name of > transparency. I despise been lied to and actually think the truth is a whole > lot better but we're not told the truth because it doesn't suit the purpose > of an elite few rich who think 'they know better', when they don't and only > have their own interest at heart. > > If you'd ask the British people and the Americans if they wanted to go into > war for more oil, they would've said no and then a fair govt would've > factually given their case plus the affects-terroism forever-and they can > decide on their future. > > I may not like a lot of what I see deep down in humanity and the choices > they make but by god if I am paying tax I have every right to see the game > that is being played. > > Irene > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Robinson <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:28:25 > To: <[email protected]>; mySociety public, general purpose discussion > list<[email protected]> > Reply-To: "mySociety public, general purpose discussion list" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [mySociety:public] Revolutionary transparency > > On 7 Dec 2010, at 14:26, Seb Bacon wrote: > > > I'm not sure it holds water myself, but then I'm not a revolutionary. > > Plus, although it's very eloquent, the metaphors lose me. The > > authoritarian system is an undirected graph in that it includes actors > > and relationships, it's the internet in that it routes around > > problems, it's a cognitive network in that you can impair the > > functioning of the entire system by... err... making your neurons > > mistrust each other...? > > > This (referenced in the post you linked to) is in fact a better starting > place: > > http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf > > I've been torn on this. I've held security clearances and handled > classified material. I recall one of the reasons material can be classified > as "SECRET" is that somebody *might* die if revealed ("TOP SECRET" ups this > definition to somebody *will* die). It's not the only reason something can > be classified at that level (others include national embarassment, strained > diplomatic relationships, etc.), but it's one of them. > > As I read the leaks, I can't help but think right now various "diplomats" > in Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are thinking how much they want > to kick the crap out of each other. I suspect North Korea is about to go > mental. I'm pretty sure somebody will end up dead indirectly as a result of > all this. 50/1 it's more than a thousand people. > > But I can't disagree with the premise its release is based on - that if the > King of Saudi Arabia has a problem with Iran, rather than protecting his > power base in the Middle East by bullshitting about it, he should just > simply say so. If China has a problem with North Korea acting brattish, stop > bigging them up to their face and behind their backs tell the Americans how > much you're really fed up with them: nobody wins that way. > > Assange's stance is that more open and just societies are built on fewer > secrets held by those who govern those societies. He believes that by > helping people leak information, those who govern are weakened into a > position of HAVING to be more open and transparent. > > It is frankly, an extreme and revolutionary outlook. If a society goes > through such a transition, the resistance from existing power bases will be > extreme. That transition might look like - and perhaps be - a civil war. > > Thing is: he's actually doing it. He's not just saying "wouldn't this be > nice", he's actually got a few gigabytes of classified material and is > drip-feeding it out. > > That guy has got some balls. > > Already his character is being smeared and the leaks are being described as > "diplomatic tittle-tattle" when in fact he's just breaking hundreds of years > of diplomatic process to pieces, day by day. If this keeps on going for > another few months, something will break. He's hoping it's an > industrial-military complex or three. I suspect it might not get that far > (unless he has something else up his sleeve). > > But the smears will continue. There is a book out next year from a former > Wikileaks staffer that is being touted as an exposé on what a horrible man > Assange really is, how much of an egomaniac he is, and how flawed Wikileaks > is as a model in terms of its internal structure. > > I don't think I care about that. I think I'm liking the fact that people > are getting a taste of what the World might feel like with more > transparency. With my "open data" hat on, I'm definitely all for that, and > I'm not really concerned about the individual actors at this point. > > It's going to be interesting to watch, anyway... > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
