If only these ethical constraints were applied with such diligence to tabloids and shock jocks! Fox News - ethical?

I find it very interesting that Wikileaks is being singled out for intense moral scrutiny, when ethical abuses are perpetrated daily in the mainstream media without anyone lifting as much as an eyebrow.

Indeed, these abuses are often upheld by the Press Council and other self-regulatory bodies when someone does complain.

While Wikileaks does need to be cautious (and it's my impression that they've lifted their game in this respect,) at least they aren't yet beholden to political and corporate interests, as are all of the msm. In that, they retain an independence long lost to the msm.

I doubt we can insist on higher standards from online media than we demand from msm.

Many times the standard of reporting in the mainstream media is based on meeting strict deadlines without much thought on content, much of it rehashed from other media pieces or lifted verbatim from official media releases.

The beauty of WL is it deals in the raw material. There is no editoralising - that is left to others.

WL do make decisions about releases where there is possible harm to life but thankfully censorship is limited to that condition.

WL is an organisation like any other, it is made up of human beings - sometimes they will make mistakes but rather than the continuing media obssession with the WL soap opera, Assange and divisions within, the basic goals are, for many people, honourable ones.

Provided WikiLeaks has not suborned espionage, hacked into any computer systems or stolen any documents I think they should have the right to publish whatever comes their way.

What I find most striking about the WikiLeaks dump is that it contains nothing I did not already suspect. In fact most of the material was the sort of stuff I take for granted.

Take for example the cable that says the Saudis are probably exaggarating their oil reserves. It is common knowledge that the Saudis have not permitted any independent audit of their reserves for decades.

What is the logical inference?

it's interesting that the liberals are all cheering madly about the dump of US diplomatic emails but were outraged at the "theft", or release to the wild, of emails and data from CRU, or ClimateGate, as it is also known.

The ClimateGate cables were ignored by the likes of the ABC because, they were "stolen", but the US diplomatic cables are evidently fair game and it's seen by liberals as wonderful that they are being published and Assange has been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize no less.

So publishing embarrassing data on the "vile" USA is good, exposing bad science and clear subterfuge (hide the decline, destroy the emails) in Climate Science is bad.

I'm not interested in a dialog in ClimateGate, that's off topic but mention it because so many liberals and progressive types just ignore or retranslate what does not suit them .. it's also fascinating how many people just plain hate the USA

I guess it all depends on your perspective and your moral compass ..

Amicus wrote:

>>it's interesting that the liberals are all cheering madly about the dump of US diplomatic emails but were outraged at the "theft", or release to the wild, of emails and data from CRU, or ClimateGate, as it is also known.>>

Good point.

I, however, cheered the release of BOTH sets of communications. So what does that make me?

briar rose, what you say may be true, but it means nothing for James' argument. 'I know you are, but what am I?' is not a legitimate counter-argument.

Despite his protestations, Julian Assange is not a journalist. He remains what he began as: a hacker - ss Jack Marx likewise observes, 'a breed notorious for justifying their behaviour as the product some sort of deep sociopolitical conviction, when mostly it’s driven by little more than the thrill of late-night vandalism.'

For a hacker, the overriding imperative is to sneak in, do as much damage as possible and earn bragging rights with your fellow nerds. The more damage, the bigger the thrill.

This attitude echoes in Assange's apparent pride in claiming that Wikileaks actions led to violent riots in Kenya, coolly noting as an aside that this included 1300 deaths and 350 000 people displaced (in other interviews, he has blithely dismissed possible deaths resulting from Wikileaks' activities as 'collateral damage', an attitude that would do the Pentagon proud). Indeed, Assange's ego is so overweening, he even tries to claim credit for the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings.

For Julian Assange, everything is about Julian Assange.

stevenlmeyer "I, however, cheered the release of BOTH sets of communications. So what does that make me?"

more openminded than me steven ..

diplomatic data is kept secretive for good reason, if it gets out, then diplomats can no longer be confidant in their agreements or negotiations, which is the business of statehood .. it's how countries get along (or not) .. is it criminal, well no, is it embarrassing .. could be, could lives be in danger certainly

the CRU folks were publicly funded and had deliberately avoided a FOI order, and destroyed evidence of tweaking datasets .. that to me is criminal and they should have gone to jail .. I believe it's not over yet, some people are not accepting the whitewash

so where do you stop? the author says Assanges private legal dealings should remain private, I disagree .. if Assange wants to embarrass people, he should be prepared to be embarrassed himself .. or not put himself in a position that he needs to withhold data.

Why are we concerned with his outrage, but no one else's?

Steven, do you believe ALL data should be public? without exception?

Ethics vary among individuals and between groups. Country, political allegiance, race, culture, religion, social conditions, age and even gender all work to modify moral actions. Indeed, deeds can be considered unethical or ethical simply from different perspectives of the moral principles. Hence the concept of universal ethics must fall within the mystical bounds of personal preference.
Yes Mr Assange is not a whistle-blower he is the whistle-blower's publicist. The ethics of a publisher are not written in stone. If biographies, authorized or not, lay bear the foibles of the players then it is the ethics of law that decide appropriateness of privacy and defamation.
State secrets can not be viewed as equivalent to personal privacy. Privacy is a right, government secrets a too often convenient choice.
There is no moral compulsion to censor anything but the names of the innocent.
It seems strange to state that international diplomacy, -conducted as it is by diverse and perverse individuals acting for their own person gain (politically or financially)-, should remain in darkness. Recent current events have shown this trade off of US political support and money can be had for a nod and a wink. Diplomatic discussions held in public force the truth to prevail. The role the United Nations was meant to have open and transparent diplomacy in plain view. The reality of back room deals and hidden agendas, is sinister and self defeating in ethical terms.

If Leakywiki winds up in the Can with his Bloggo Troppo Tribe belting the drums outside, finding the privacy for a Wikileak may be a matter for a cryptographer.

What I find most interesting about this whole issue is everyone wants to talks about Wikileaks and not about what it has actually published

moral relativism leads many to be champions of free speach until their own hypocrisy is revealed. The corrupt nature of man is never so evidennt as those in the media that distort, manipulate and selectively release gossip/news. Our nationsl broadcasters are champions at sticking to dogma despite violating truth. The cover up of the recent climategate scandal was and is incredible. Simply put those in Government,media and postions of authority who don't believe in absolutes are blinded to self righteousness while very quick to condemn others. Assange is the prime example. Cannonised by his followers and yet shown to be morally bankrupt. Their is no ethics with wikileaks.

Dr. James Page!

Please try to follow a simple logic stream:

If Democracy is defined as ‘Government of the people, by the people and for the people, the phenomena Ellsberg and Assange are absurd.
The people, being the Government, do not need to be told what the people have done.

If Democracy is defined as the condition wherein the taxpayer can follow the trail of his/her tax-contribution from the pocket to its ultimate end, then again the mentioned gentlemen’s actions have no sense.
The tax-payer is aware of the position of his wealth all along the trail.

It is only if Democracy is defined as a condition whereby charlatans, seize the people’s tax contributions and use such wealth to play power games among themselves, then Ellsberg and Assange deserve the plaudit of every honest taxpayer.

Dr. James Page!

If the stream above is faulty please advise the readers of OL

skeptic, your logic is certainly flawed.

Simple set theory:

While the Government can be 'of the people' it does not follow that the people are all 'of the Government'. In fact that would be absurd, and so your first premise that Government=people is absurd. Government is is merely a subset of the people.

The rest isn't really logical either, but I don't have to go into that.

Indeed, skeptic, the framers of the U.S. constitution were very careful not to vest power directly to the people. Having seen first hand what 'direct democracy' under the Articles of Confederation had led to (pork-barrelling and the oppression of minorities by self-interested majorities), the Founding Fathers skilfully balanced the principle of 'government of the people, for the people, by the people' with the realities of governing a modern nation.

Kenny,

>>What I find most interesting about this whole issue is everyone wants to talks about Wikileaks and not about what it has actually published>>

Well I for one don’t discuss the leaked cables because they contain no surprises. There’s nothing to discuss.

Take, for example, today’s "big revelation" in The Age. The front page headline is:

NO NUCLEAR LIMIT: CHINA

See: http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-nuclear-limit-china-20110227-1ba0l.html

Here are some excerpts:

>>HIGH-RANKING Chinese officials have declared that there can be no limit to the expansion of Beijing's nuclear arsenal,…>

>>…the deputy chief of China's People's Liberation Army General Staff, Ma Xiaotian, told US Defence and State Department officials in June 2008 that the growth of China's nuclear forces was an ''imperative reality'' and there could be "no limit on technical progress''…>

>>Other leaked US cables reveal Japan fears China's nuclear arsenal will grow to equal that of the US, and Tokyo has urged Washington to retain strong nuclear capabilities to deter an "increasingly bold" China from ''doing something stupid".>>

And this is a surprise to who?

In what sense is this a “revelation”?

Amicus

My understanding is that tens of thousands of people had access to the leaked cables. A lowly private was able to download them onto some medium and walk out of the building with them.

With such a low level of security I must assume that any country with an intelligence service worthy of the name must have read all these cables long before they appeared on WikiLeaks. I seriously doubt that Julian Assange scooped the folks in Beijing.

Yes, governments need to keep some things confidential. But they also have the responsibility to set up an adequate level of security. Show me a computer system that may be accessed by tens of thousands of people and I’ll show you one that has no secrets left.

Kenny,

I've read some and searched through many of the cables, for snippets of interest. A very interesting database.

But the dull, tedious style and mostly inconsequential content of individual entries reminds me of Thoreaus observation in Walden: The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."

I pity the people who have to write all that bumf. See it for yourselves at http://wikileaks.ch

For a very funny comment on some of the fallout, watch this US talk show host's talk/interview:

"Anonymous on The Colbert Report"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGZVL24rGY0

4 minutes, thirty seconds of frequent laughs.

stevenlmeyer, you're right of course - no one in the intelligence community would be surprised by anything in the leaked dippo cables, what irritated many people was the huge fuss made by the media and all the hysteric breathless liberals who thought the US was going to be brought down or undone.

I'm not sure tens of thousands would have had access, and that private would have been vetted before gaining access .. even for high grade security, there is a lot of low level grunt work filing and tidying as well as entry by low grade people .. you don't have highly trained people doing data entry. Somehow he got hold of the ability to copy records .. that's a serious breach obviously

the Americans are pretty hot on security and tend to be very serious, worse on their own so that an example is set to others, not to do it

Do they want to kill or jail Assange, I doubt it .. it's all in his mind, it's his fantasy that he is so important the US "wants to get him" they have the leaker, he'll go to jail forever, he's a traitor who took an oath and broke it .. such is life

Banks are known to be secure and even they use new starts on their staff .. if you follow your processes, this is not meant to happen .. but with the huge population of the USA, it's kind of bound to happen occasionally

Assange will damage the trust of diplomatic traffic, which will slow down diplomacy .. the Americans will fix their problem, while Assange preens in the glow of someone else's work .. you'd think he was the leaker wouldn't you?

Amicus

This from The Guardian:

>>More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect".>>

There is no way you can vet three million people. It's a physical impossibility.

BTW the diplomatic cables were linked SIPRNet. SIPRNet is an acronym for Secret (sic!) Internet Protocol Router Network.

BTW I share your dislike of Julian Assange. My defence is of the principal of being allowed to publish freely whatever is available, not of Assange personally.

Sir Vivor,

Thank you and thank you again for that link. LOL LOL LOL

I'm in complete agreement with stevenlmeyer on this. I have been reading through the cables as they are released and have yet to find much which surprises me. I wonder how it would have played out if the Americans were to starve these stories of oxygen by stating 'we will not discuss diplomatic matters in public' or something equally irritating and effective.

As for Assange, he made the mistake of putting himself as the face of wikileaks, thus promoting himself to celebrity, with the scrutiny of his private life to match. I am happy that this info was leaked as I find it interesting to read. I would also find it interesting to read the latest weapons research, or perhaps how the SILEX method of uranium enrichment works. But this doesn't mean that this info should be leaked, does it? What would Assagne do for these examples I wonder?

gosh! i cannot believe it! a genuinely (generally) rational discussion about the issues for once. the author of the article is to be congratulated for having generated a discussion that does not swoop into rabid madness - not even madness - and that maintains a genuine (and generally) moderate tone of debate, discussion and exchange. one up for olo. every good wish, jas

Personally, I am far more impressed with Wikileaks co founder John Young than with Assange.
the term 'Non Profit organisation' leaves a good bit of wriggle room, doesn't it? Administrators can be very well paid.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

I can't say I disagree with James Page:

So long as the leak is of something of relevance to the public (business misconduct, misconduct of government offices, or public servants by use of their powers, privileges or money);

And as long as it does not leak the ID of non-guilty participants who may be endangered (eg government intelligence operatives, spies or soldiers who were merely following orders);

And otherwise respects the private lives unless the above are violated by the persons/offices;

Then Wikileaks is otherwise in the right- and so far, it has been sticking to these principles.

Leaking diplomatic cables is particularly important- It is important for every country (especially their voters) to know exactly what kind of deals their governments are organizing.
Tell me, what would you think if it were leaked via Wikileaks that Gillard was going to secretly take in every resident of Guantanamo Bay and set them free in the community because she wanted to be invited to Hillary Clinton's birthday?

I love to say this, and I will say it again- if you hate Wikileaks and want it stopped, then you hate democracy too; and would be more comfortable in a dictatorship.

King Hazza*, I don't particularly hate Wikileaks, but I do thoroughly dislike Julian Assange. Separate issues, but far too many people (including Assange himself) have conflated the two. The fashionable leftists screeching that Assange's personal legal problems are a conspiracy against Wikileaks have yet to produce any evidence whatsoever that this is so.

Your last sentence didn't rise much about the Neocon's 'why do you hate freedom?' strawman, I hate to say.

(*Just for laughs, and no insult intended - your name always makes me think of King Boo. I have a mental picture of you somewhat like this: http://images.wikia.com/fantendo/images/c/c8/King_Boo_MMWii.png

Yes, I obviously *do* need to get out more.)

"if you hate Wikileaks and want it stopped, then you hate democracy too"

Ah yes, the "either you're with us, or you're against us", school of statesmanship .. and to think President George W. Bush was so derided over that sort of outlook.

Some information should be in the wild, some should not, sounds good doesn't it?

Clearly Diplomatic cables are fun, reading someone else's mail, how delicious .. but

"as long as it does not leak the ID of non-guilty participants" what? and who's going to decide that?

Assange? Surely not, he doesn't appear to give a toss about the whistleblowers and appears more concerned with his immediate stellar personal popularity than for potential victims .. this is a man making vague threats to bring down a bank, except the rumour is all he has is a stolen laptop he can't make head or tail of, but is certain it's sure to be explosive, look at me! If he could work it out it would be released instantly .. more fame!

Non-guilty participants, what about non-guilty organizations? If you have a bigger international political and commercial picture, the cables mean more, if you are an ordinary person without that background you have no idea what is or is not being revealed.

I can just see Assange poring over every cable, analysing it, the background, the implications, the potential issues for anyone involved .. sure, then released 15,000 at once .. if you gave every cable 5 minutes, that's 1,250 x 24 hour days of analysis, 3,750 x 8 hour days.

Then we're promised there's more to come, to maintain a reasonable level of fame .. sorry, democracy. Assuming any analysis is done at all, and it seems highly unlikely .. it's low level traffic, which thrills the uninformed.

Still, it's always nice to finger point and laugh at those dumbos in the USA is it not?

Well, we learnt that the U.S. thinks Silvio Berlusconi is an asinine clown, Prince Andrew is a boor, and Vladimir Putin is a macho mafiya boss.

Thanks, Wikileaks! We never would have guessed!

RPG- nice job at not answering my question:
It is actually a perfectly valid analogy- one can't exactly support democratic principles while bemoaning free information and press, let alone support these bodies being suppressed by governments- that is what fascism is- and the funny thing is, these aren't even leftist/neocon exaggerations, but quite accurate to definition.
As for who decides- well considering Wikileaks withholds leaks on these princples, they do (and yes, there are more people than JUST Assange). Innocent third parties? I already told you- government employees, undercover operatives, who are only doing their job need not their names published- the people orchestrating scandals, do.

Clown
Lets see, we also know (via Newspapers circulating these leaks):
1- Hilary Clinton has tried to steal personal data off UN members
2- A US helicopter has fired on Iraqi civilians
3- The Saudis are secretly lobbying for the US to attack Iran
4- Attempts to dump gitmo protesters on poor countries by bribing the leaders
5- Berlesconi may have secret relations with the Kremlin
6- Military strategists are forecasting a bleak view on our Afghanistan occupation prospects
7- The US would actually attempt to sabotage the EU's economy as mere punishment for not caving into trade deals
8- Israel is sabotaging the Palestinian economy to maintain it in a weak state.
9- Kevin Rudd took an anti-China stance becaus Hilary wanted him to.

And in response to the leaks
1- The US does not take kindly to people that uphold the first amendment
2- a good many elected representatives in both the US and Canada are bloodthirsty loonies who prefer convenient assassinations of the people in -1- than due process
3- Sweden is happy to impose a magical charge 'surprise sex' with contradictory evidence on only one person- conveniently the founder of this site.

Yes, trivial stuff for voters to think about next election.
If the 'opinions' were all you knew, try putting down the Celebrity-Gossip-Weekly and read the Herald more often- you might learn something.

hazza you need to park your ego aside occasionally, I choose to comment or express my opinion on articles or posts, I feel no obligation to "answer your questions" I do find it amusing that you are somewhat outraged when this happens ..does it happen a lot? Wonder why eh.

"It is actually a perfectly valid analogy", no it's not, because you want to cherry pick what constitutes free speech, and that's not possible.

it's not black and white is my point, and having some prima donna like Assange and his ilk decide what they will and will not publish smacks of political skullduggery .. why, they may only publish what they decide assists their world view, and we'd be none the wiser would we?

they may have all manner of embarrassing stuff, but choose only to hurt certain entities

how would you feel if you found out later that this wonderful democratic release of information was being carefully contrived to a political end .. wonderful? I'm sure

That's not democracy either is it?

Don't bother responding, there is no expectation on my part, it's rhetorical, as I treat most people's questions online anywhere. If you want to express an opinion on my post, fine .. happy to consider it.

"Don't bother to respond" to you RPG? certainly, as you would rather not have your inane points analyzed, or having to justify your silly remarks so anybody takes them seriously- and of course ,the fact that you avoided my question.

Either which way, it makes me laugh that some people here, (not mentioning any names, RPG and Clown), sincerely think Wikileaks is nothing but a cheeky socialist plot to pick on the USA- ignoring that the persons targeted are in fact the US Democrats, Australian Labor and UK Labor parties that the 'left' supported and the 'right' hated only a year ago! And of course ignoring also the leaks among dictators in the middle east- because that gets in the way of a good "wikileaks is an anarchist anti-USA conspiracy lol"! story!

Anyway, it's really quite a simple analogy RPG, I'm certain if you read slowly, and don't stumble too much on some complicated words you can understand it too!
That is, one of the vital parts of democracy is a free press and transparency into the conduct of an elected government to reduce secrecy (and scandals).
If this free press into what government is doing- especially misconduct and scandals- is censored, with the only reason being that the government doesn't WANT this information published, what else would you call it?

I know you will of course avoid answering because apparently "you have better things to do"- even though you keep coming back to make silly rants.

Carry on!

This is giving me a good laugh!

Jim, I think your implied basic premise is faulty - that the mainstream media publishers are more ethical than Wikileaks. I don't see much in the way of ethical constraint from the mainstream media. In fact, some use Wikileaks material with glee on the one hand while denigrating Assange and his organistaion on the other. The only constraint most mainstream media employ is to make sure very little that is outside the latest "who to hate" world view sees the light of day.

King Hazza,

'a good many elected representatives in both the US and Canada are bloodthirsty loonies who prefer convenient assassinations of the people [that uphold the first amendment] than due process'

Really? A good many, huh? Can you name them?

'Sweden is happy to impose a magical charge 'surprise sex' with contradictory evidence on only one person- conveniently the founder of this site.'

Again, really? You can of course, cite evidence to prove that *on-one* else in Sweden has *ever* been charged under the relevant law?

Or are you, like Julian Assange did on Larry King, dismissing rape as 'trivial'?