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