We find all sorts of people supporting Julian Assange publishing private correspondence, I find it hypocritical that the teenager is pilloried for doing exactly the same.

me too

but we best not try to change things
afl got a lot of pull

thank god the footy show isnt running yet
id want to punch fatty on the nose
or the afl equivelent

they hide behind lawyers/media
attacking..even..[especially]..young girls
drawn to their media driven..fame-flame...only to crash/burn

a young girl..who was made a woman..by a football man/team...
handy with his hands...or able to pass the buck
better than they pass..the ball

mate they are all sssscum

cowards

but thats what you get
when you give idiots..so much adoration..[power..money..girls = trouble]..them thugs got it in spades

but dont dare talk about it
or the little girl get's it

worse..is the big picture
she was served via the web

so we dont need bailifs doing that legal stuff anymore
someone..had to ask to be her 'friend'..to see the pictures?

the whole thing stinks

[what was the other footballer doing
saving them pictures on HIS computer
how come HE DIDNT GET THE TREATMENT?]

Shadow Minister has Wiki leaks published much genuinely "private" material?

Whilst comments may have been intended to be private they appear to have been generally written by government employee's acting in their paid roles (roles paid for by taxpayers in their respective countries).

R0bert

Shadow Minister thanks for starting this thread.
And seasons greetings to you.
I watched and waited for it to appear.
As an NRL fan I copped it in such a thread about my game and its players.
Fact is Boy's will be Childish, any chance they get,some should have known better but its no hanging matter the girl how ever is in self destruct.
Words fail to describe the insulting things said about both my game and its players.
AFL gets a free run it seems here.
Similarity's appear to exist, young female actively looking for sports men, her own words.
This time younger but much the same, maybe insecurity and not totally in control.
Now you well know, the photos are stolen and used in a lie,Wikileaks is the truth. show me similarity's
Mate care to comment on your actions? you first and again here give Wikileaks a serve, BUT USED THEM, to slander the federal government in that thread about Gillard knows she wanted the top job months in advance.
Us bush breed folk know a hammer and pair of pliers can be a tool box.
You show evidence any tool will do, thanks for the grins this year and in advance for your foot in mouth dances next one
Belly

Absolutely,

I mean, everyone needs to know what the armies field manual on counterinsurgency says.

Everyone needs to be able to see intelligence agencies assessments on where we are weak.Especially our enemies.

Seriously,

The idea that "the public" has the right to ALL information generated by gov't is a nonsense.

Do we seriously suggest that Diplomats should only pass on information about their host gov'ts that they would be happy for the hosts to see?

By extension of this ridiculous philosophy our soldiers in Afghanistan should be publishing all the of the information they generate so "the public" can see it too. Wouldn't the Taliban love to see in depth detail on the gov't strategy in Afghanistan.

Anyone who cannot see a place for secrecy in gov't is either not living in the real world, or wants to attack our way of life. Ie those who want the Taliban to win.

I'll defend any whistleblower who exposes lies that gov't is telling. Assange is not doing this. He is leaking, wholsesale, all gov't documents coming into his possession in an attack on the sharing of information within gov't. He claims that all of our current political parties are conspiracies which need to be overthrown. His leaks are an attempt to reduce the flow of information within those conspiracies, thus doing them harm.

I agree Shadow Minister. Someone sent me the offending email photo of the naked footballer in question the other day, via text message.

Just before deleting it I noted that the footballer was most definitely 'posing' for the camera, with his hands lifting his equipment proudly for the camera to see.

It certainly didn't look like he had just come out of the shower and been snapped by surprise or 'illegally'!

The girl shouldn't have sent this photo on to anyone, but then again he shouldn't have posed so happily nude if he wasn't prepared for anyone to see it!

It doesn't even compare to the Wikileaks scandal, in that most people don't give a toss about this football player's 'information'!

Suzie,

So the deciding factor is how many people are interested?

Thats interesting, because you're wrong about how many people want to see these photos. Far, far more Australians log on to see the pictures, than log on to wikileaks.

Notice both footballers and Wikileaks revolve around sex.

In perhaps a few more months, one of the above will be nothing but a vague memory, perhaps maybe both if we are lucky.

I sometimes wonder if comments like that in the opening post are done in ignorance or just pure mischeviousness.

There is a huge difference in revealing information as regards a "right to know" as compared to some short term sensationalist titliation in nude photos published without an individual's consent.

That is "the right to know" derived from the rights as taxpayers and as citizens who have an expectation that those who work for them are doing so in their best interests - hence the need for transparency.

What is this disingenuous 'outrage' that continues to paint Wikileaks as the enemy and to paint private matters as the 'same as' public matters.

It worries me that people really cannot see the difference and goes to further demonstrate how far we have been brainwashed into believing citizens have no right of access to information unless 'need to know'. We have to get out of this mindset and remember just who is working for whom and why.

PaulL <"Thats interesting, because you're wrong about how many people want to see these photos. Far, far more Australians log on to see the pictures, than log on to wikileaks."

Is that so Paul? Where are your stats?

I very much doubt that anyone outside Australia would give a rats-bottom about an Australian footballers private equipment though?

Therefore, in reality the numbers of people checking out the wikileaks stories would absolutely blitz the numbers of those checking out the footballer?

In any case, hasn't the photo been taken down off facebook now?

Pelican well said the answer is the latter as you know.
Amazing however how PauL can out do our threads stater in just a few miss placed words.
Wikileaks bless you, no government should be rewarded for telling us lies.
Leave now, I am commited to not getting too involved in such threads enough mud has been thrown to dirty the water, not by me, the young lady is beginning to be white washed and its no longer about truth.

Belly:"the young lady is beginning to be white washed and its no longer about truth."

I'm glad you said that and not me, Belly, but you're absolutely correct. In fact, she's been getting kid-gloves treatment since the start. Any other case would have the cops on the doorstep.

Why do we hold women who do these things to a lower standard than men? Look at all the opporbriuum heaped on Brendan Fevola for the nude photo of Lara Bingle - it's a very different response this time.

Good on you for pointing out the obvious double standard.

SM, I don't think there is any commonality between this situation and wikileaks, except to the extent that wikileaks may publish prurient personal stuff. The basic nature of most of the wikileaks information is vastly different to this sort of personal squaring up from a rather nasty young "lady".

There is a huge double standard Anti, remember when Hewitt released the letters Princes Di, had written, he was the love rat, sleaze bag.

Yet when for example Tiger Woods was exposed, the women weren't the ones who where the sleazebags, it was Tiger.

So in reality it us men who are judged to be sleazebags, regardless whilst women get portrayed as being innocent and lilly white.

So if it is a bloke who reveals private information about a woman, he is to be condemned, if a woman reveals private information about a male, the male involved is the one who is condemned.

Another example of the same type of double standard

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/husband-charged-after-discovering-wifes-affair-by-reading-her-emails-on-shared-computer-20101228-198qu.html

"A US man who says he learned of his wife's affair by reading her e-mail on their computer faces trial on felony computer misuse charges.

Leon Walker, 33, of Michigan, used his wife's password to get into her Gmail account. Clara Walker filed for a divorce, which was granted this month.

Mr Walker told The Oakland Press of Pontiac that he was trying to protect the couple's children from neglect and calls the case a "miscarriage of justice."
Advertisement: Story continues below

Oakland County Assistant Prosecutor Sydney Turner says the charge is justified and the case will go ahead on February 7.

Privacy law writer Frederick Lane told the Detroit Free Press the law typically is used to prosecute identity theft and stealing trade secrets. He says he questions if a wife can expect privacy on a computer she shares with her husband."

Does anyone think that if the tables had been reversed she'd be facing charges?

"Girls can do anything, boys can do as they're told"

Suzieonline,

You are lying to yourself if you truly believe that the wikileaks website gets more hits than the weekly global celebrity scandal.
The measure of wikileaks is NOT how many people you think might be interested. Very few, mainly those who follow political issues, will visit Assanges website. But how popular something is, is NOT a good measure of its importance.

Pelican,

It is instructive that the wikileaks cheersquad are starting to repeat the claims of lies exposed, without actually being able to come up with any actual lies. This is propaganda at its most basic.There are no earth shattering lies which have been exposed.

Where does your right to know end? Do you decide after you’ve seen everything? Is there no gov’t information should be kept secret?

These are the questions that the cheer squad are not interested in answering. Because there is no easy answer. Its far easier to claim “Right to Know” and ignore the fact that the results of an unlimited right to know is not healthy There is no Right to Know, and never has been. For good reason.

As the thread has taken a turn for the better I visit again.
Anti you are going to get it! me too!
See you are quite right, and its every ones fault, men too.
Both females in both sports went looking for trouble.
Some do men and women just as much, show me the shy young lasses, rare indeed
Gee the PC bug is looking for me now.
Some, not all, women think common since and good manners apply only to men, push in front and demanding special treatment
In it up to my eyes now, but its true.
We put women on pedestals, yes we do, and some little princess's turn nasty, some big ones too,
At 17, a girl they had seen in School, they should have walked on water to keep away.
She however kept following, even other clubs players.
The sleeves rolled up tattooed armed women are waiting to pounce on me.
But it is time to come to grips with reality females look for and sometimes get sex as much or more than men.
Are well, my name is now mud, those who are just as offended by PC and its ability to cover up truth will use it against me,,, hope honesty gets a run too.

Belly,

I agree that it's pretty scary for men.
The whole of civilised culture is a flight away from, and an attempt to subordinate the feminine power of nature.
Why are you so surprised that women traipse around following footballers?
It's a cultural construct that women should be shy and receptive. Is nature shy and receptive?
Most people accept the proposition of the demure female without question because they have been programmed to think that way.
When females decline to conform to the template they are greeted with howls of mortification and condemnation.
What this girl has done is, no doubt, an affront to common decency...but then, "common decency" is as much an Apollonian construct as is a male's penchant for waving around his private bits for the entertainment of his mates.

PaulL

Who are you to decide where the flow of information should end? Why does it need to end? We do not live under a dictatorship. Why have some people been so conditioned to think that secrecy is the desirable norm?

Who is governing and for whom? I have already stated the grounds where information might need to be kept secret in other threads on this subject. For example some of the information in relation to wartime strategy, troop placements and other national security instances, but even in those cases the information should always be available after the event. It is now, even ASIO files are released after (I believe) 30 years.

"It is instructive that the wikileaks cheersquad are starting to repeat the claims of lies exposed, without actually being able to come up with any actual lies."

Well there is clear cut information now that supports the idea that there were never any WMDs thanks to whistleblowers in the US, UK and Australia. So what was the basis for the invasion? This information came out well before Wikileaks. If you there are no 'lies' exposed in the cables why are you so worried about sites like Wikileaks?

Disproving a lie and having access to information are not necessarily the same thing. Discovering information that has never been revealed may not expose a lie but might expose information never before presented. Don't you think we should know there is an underground nuclear facility being built in Burm with the aid of Nth Korea?

The public has a right to know as much as they want to - reading Wikileaks, the papers or watching Four Corners etal is not compulsory. Some people wish to know what governments are doing on their behalf and with their money.

PaulL, you seem hung up on Wikileaks particularly - why do you think citizens should be kept in the dark as much as possible. This is much more dangerous than transparency and potentially leads to corruption which in the end, serves no-one except those small cells of vested interets.

It really is very simple.

Poirot you do me wrong.
I have no problem, zero, with women behaving as you say, and as they do.
My problem is with liberationists who refuse to see they do.
And that being female is reason enough not to be judged on their own actions.
Birth control pill long ago saw a balance return to sexual relations, all I ask is that being male or females not reason to be guilty by association.
My football code, got flogged but no one wanted to hear the female involved then was predatory.
in no way is it only men who are so in sexual matters.
This young girl did not act wisely but she has not done anything thousands of young men/women do every day.
She reminds me why a woman scorned is a thing worth remembering
and being careful of her actions are not unusual for such, out off control and a bit mad.

PaulL, One of the dilemma's for me is that we have politicians (and others) hiding behind a pretense of "national interest" to protect their personal interests. At a state level cabinet secrecy has become a joke.

I'd proposed previously in a discussion of freedom of information (state level politics) that before any document could protected that agreement should be required from the premier and leader of the opposition (or their delegates). It would be better of a third player was involved with no direct party political stake in the issue but I'm out of idea's on how to avoid that becoming politicised.

Not bombproof but it might be a start as an approach to working out what should legitimately be protected and what should be available to the public.

I don't want the situation which seems to exist at the moment where those most likely to gain from inappropriate classification of material are those able to make the decision to do so. Power corrupts etc.

The wiki-leaks approach has some big risks associated with it but at the moment it seems like the best thing going in terms of making politicians a little more careful about what they do out of the public eye.

R0bert

Pelican,

You are all over the place,

You claim that the public has a right to know everything it wants. But earlier you say “ .. information might need to be kept secret … For example some of the information in relation to wartime strategy, troop placements and other national security instances”

I agree that national security requires secrecy. I also believe that diplomacy cannot be effectively achieved by broadcasting everything to the enemy. And that to a large extent, diplomacy deals with issues of national security.

I would fully support Assange if he was releasing information which caught the US, or Australia, in a lie. But this is not what he is doing.

Assange is saying that ALL information, especially national security information, should be available to the public. He has denied that diplomacy ever requires secrecy. This is an indefensible position for anyone who agrees with our liberal democratic system.

In no mainstream newspaper in the country will you find an editorial which supports a blanket right to know. No such right has ever existed because it is fundamentally flawed. You yourself can think of at least three instances where the right to know needs to be abrogated in the public interest. I’m merely pointing out to you that the public interest is not served by the mass release of confidential diplomatic communications, purely on the basis that they should never be private.

BTW. Despite your fallacious attempt to define my position, I don’t think the public should be kept in the dark as much as possible. I never said this and I defy you to present any proof otherwise.

I think public officials who lie to us deserves to be caught and severely punished. I simply don’t accept that therefore there is no place for secrecy in diplomacy. I also don’t accept that Assange is looking for the truth. He KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt that these leaks will tighten up the flow of information within gov’t. This is his goal and if you read his writings you will see this.

Robert,

I fully accept the truth of this. Politicians can sometimes hide behind the national interest to protect their narrow political interests.

If Assange was exposing this type of wrongdoing, I would support him. But he's not

But he is saying that ALL information should be public. This is NOT a defensible position for anyone of moderate intelligence.

Not all over the place PauL. You asked a question in what instance might it be valid to keep information confidential. Anyone of moderate intelligence would understand that not all information can be available at all times such as in those examples provided, however to keep this information protected after the event serves no purpose.

But 'everything' else - well why not. You have provided no good reasons for why information should be concealed. It is not just about revealing deception although transparency is a better tool against deception than thinly veiled 'national security' interests.

Even Wikileaks edits some of the material where there is a perceived risk. Certainly people make judgements about this even within government - however those judgements are not always done in the national interest as RObert writes but for more personal or political interests.

What is the danger in people having access to more information in terms of strengthening accountability including access to more detailed financial information.

In one department I worked staff asked for access to the financial records because basically there were so many cuts we did not know where the money was going (other than suspicion) and the repercussions at the coalface failed a duty of care and increased risk. We were told this information was not accessible. Remember we are talking about public monies, not requesting information about individual's private finances.

The reason why many people, including public servants are so supportive of Wikileaks is they are fed up with the culture that pretends to serve a greater purpose but does not always live up to that ideal.

Wikileaks isn't exposing this corruption that you speak of, however. As I said, if it was, I could see the point to it.

But Wikileaks is about the Public's right to ALL information. Wikileaks is about the hackers philisophy, that there is no right to privacy. And that was predicated on their desire to see whatever they fancied, because they could. Not from any superior moral philosophy.

How can diplomacy take place effectively under these conditions of full disclosure? It can't.

And diplomacy, among other things will be a casualty of this blanket policy of preventative exposure. You say Even wikileaks have expunged personal information when it may lead to harm to individuals. Only after their naievety was pointed out. And I wonder how you expect gov't could function if they had to do this with every document they produced.

But Assange cloaks himself in this veneer of truth seeking. My problem is that I don't accept that this is his goal, and I struggle to believe that there aren't intelligent people on the left who can't see this too.

PaulL from your first post it was clear to see you are a person with firm views.
And those views seem to me at least to some times blind you.
Right now my party,the party of a great number of Australians, is not looking good.
Yours is not much better, being carried along in the wave of discontent mine worked so badly to create.
So given a chance many Australians would want a different party different direction.
Your anti Wikileaks posts, concern me, they represent a harshness and blindness to accountability.
Never in the history of politics do we need that more.
We also need more centrism and far less my side or none thoughts.
It says some thing, that you and Shadow Minister, tried to use this silly young girl, and some silly but still victims, the men who did get involved with her and those who did not, to aim at?
Wikileaks!if such made up rubbish is all you have got the ALP is safe.

But PaulL you are missing the point. Not all information is about revelaing corruption but a system that has at its heart strong regulations RE access to information reduces the probability of corruption. It is more difficult to be corrupt or lie if information is freely available. No system of course will ever be perfect but some will be worse or better than others.

If access to information is limited then this works in favour of those who would dupe the public for their own ends. There is no harm in disclosure it is just that we have all been conditioned to think 'secret government' business is in everyone's best interests.

The reasons why we go to war are important, the dealings behind government contracts is important, trade negotiations, nuclear armaments, corporate favouritism and political donations are important - the list is endless. A culture of secrecy facilitates deception. Not everything goverments do is corrupt, that is the mindset of conspiracy theoriests, but taxpayers have a right to know if they want to - as I said it is not compulsory - how their money is being spent or why there young people are being sent to war.

Wikileaks has support from many on the Right and Left of politics - it is not about Left/Right ideology but about democracy and one's values and beliefs about citizen participation in that democracy. Participation can be more than just a vote in a short electoral cycle and includes access and freedom of information.

There is potentially more harm in concealment than disclosure regardless of one's feelings about Wikileaks one way or the other.

PaulL I think it's agreed by most of us here that not all information should be in the public space, what does seem to be missing is an alternative to what Wiki-leaks is doing. Out pollies sometimes talk of greater accountability but don't deliver it.

What would you suggest as an alternative to what wiki-leaks is doing?

I suspect that the view of lies being exposed or not depends on how much you consider spin to be lies. It has told us some more about how those who have lead or sought to lead nations behave away from the camera's and microphones.

R0bert

Pelican,

I’m not missing the point at all. Assange's solution; to have no secrets, is not realistic. You yourself have pointed out instances where secrecy is needed. Yet you haven’t yet explained how you think diplomacy can work without it.

How exactly do you think we can deal with any of the volatile regimes around the world by telling them our every thought? Do our diplomats limit themselves to reports they would be happy for their subjects to see?

You say “taxpayers have a right to know if they want to - as I said it is not compulsory - how their money is being spent or why there young people are being sent to war.

Firstly what does the "it’s not compulsory" bit mean? If anyone in the public wants to know, you can guarantee that every foreign gov’t will know too. What does compulsory have to do with anything? It’s irrelevant.

Secondly, I fully agree that taxpayers have a right to know what their money is spent on, and why they go to war.You seem to be deliberately conflating the idea that secrecy in diplomacy is the same thing as lying about what people’s money is spent on and why we go to war. It’s clearly not. And your article of faith, Wikileaks, HAS NOT uncovered any evidence for such a conspiracy.

You say secrecy inevitably leads to the public being misled. One would expect then, if your theory of rampant corruption were true, that we might have found an example or two of this. We haven’t.

You refer to the secrecy of diplomacy as “secret gov’t business”. Yet again, wikileaks has NOT exposed any instances where the gov’t is being dishonest with the public in their dealings.

So after uncovering none of these instances of corruption, and having avoided explaining how diplomacy works when there is no secrecy, you claim we would be better off.

We wouldn't. And besides, we both KNOW that the only thing which will change as a result of wikileaks will be the tightening of information within gov,t. Which is Assanges aim.

PaulL I have not anywhere used the term secrecy of diplomacy.

If you have ever worked in government you would know that what is often released does not tell the whole story or at worst lies outright about some matters - much of it is spin. Not everything governments do is corrupt nor is it all spin. Much of the problems are with an embedded culture or incompetence (it is not only about corruption), the checks and balances in the system should be as strong as possible to act as a deterrence.

PaulL is your only concern with Wikileaks the 'cablegate' release or do you hold concerns about other releases prior to the diplomatic cables? Wikileaks has been around much longer than just in 2010. It is naive to believe that world leaders and other key players are not already fully aware of the undercurrents in diplomacy.

There has been corruption exposed in the cables - check out the Russian, Ugandan and Afghanistan related missives, just to name three. Try googling "corruption in Wikileaks cable".

There is a risk, I agree that the revelations on Wikileaks might lead to some tightening of communication but any sort of information security is only as tight as the people who have access to it. That will be always the case regardless of the nature of security measures taken.

Much of the comments and personal thoughts about world leaders revealed on the cables were unsurprising but some of the business dealings involving BHP and China were of interest. Have you actually read the Wikileaks cables or are you just digesting them via the media?

It is interesting that you claim Assange's aim is to tighten government information. This is in the realm of conspiracy theory. Certainly any scenario is possible where human beings are concerned but not all human endeavours of this nature have an ulterior motive other than the aim of open government. I personally doubt your view of Assange is accurate, what would be the point?

My goodness, all this fuss about a bit of anatomical equipment that half the population possesses and which can be seen hanging on art gallery walls and displayed in all its glory on public statues. Why the obsession ?

Pelican,

I've been to the wikileaks site a couple of times and haven't been able to find much. Whether its poorly constructed or whether its denial of service attacks, i don't know. What I do know is that Assange and his mates sifted through the material to provide newspapers with the stories of interest.Wikileaks, regardless of its earlier attempts, is defined by the diplomatic cables it has been releasing. And in any case, your philosophy of access to ALL gov't information (well almost all)is problematic in this area.

I've read Assange's blogs. You should read them. He says that the both the Republican and Democratic parties in the US are conspiracies which need to be defeated. He goes on to talk about how a conspiracy is defined by the interlinking of people and information. He continues that conspiracies can be brought down by reducing the flow of information between conspirators. This is a FACT.http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

You should do some reading of the bloke you want to canonise. He's a nut job.

Finally, the idea that you deserve access to US cables so you can find out about conspiracies in other countries is absurd.

You say " It is naive to believe that world leaders and other key players are not already fully aware of the undercurrents in diplomacy. "

What is naive is to believe that there is no difference between saying something in a confidential cable between embassies, and having it published. Ever heard of loss of face? Its a big issue with the types like North Korea's ,"the dear leader"

The America we see today is not yesterdays one.
Not the one that fought both world wars ,then paid to rebuild after.
Not the one that has in its charter freedom of speech.
OH it is still the one we need to protect us, forget the child like idea no one would threaten us if America did not exist.
We need America,but the past America,not the tea party madness, not the hidden lies of the Bush era, not the kill the Wikileaks founder America.
Vietnam will look like victory after America leaves the Afghan/Iraq area,and they will.
Strutting, insular, unable to understand other cultures this America knows its Allies do far better in those county's than they do.
No rapes not near as many friendly fire or wrong target deaths
Humility will help restore America.
I am not condemning America, but putting my view Wikileaks is of far more use in restoring their good name than blind support of people like PaulL.

PaulL
I wish to canonise Assange? Really that would be difficult as atheist.

This sort of 'speak' is the same strategy used by creationists to diminish evolutionary theory or loggers to demonise environmentalism. Surely access to information has nothing to do with fundamentalism or religion.

People who support systems that reduce corruption and who wish to strengthen democracies are not radicals or fundamentalists.

I am sure I could find a document or two on Wikileaks that I would not have released as far as the cablegate goes. Many of the cables have names and company names blotted out. The best way to search Wikileaks is to go to the panel on the left and go by date or by classification.

Radicalism is in the eye of the beholder. It used to be radical to implement policy that would demolish a nation's industry and agricultural sector. Now it is the norm. Those who have not fallen for the mantra of free trade and globalisation as the panacea for all ills are now the radicals. Such is the nature of history.

As far as Republicans and Democrats go, there is very little to distinguish them. However, there are greater differences between them in the US unlike Australia where the two majors are almost interchangeable.

The NSW Government is not allowing public servants to testify into the inquiry into the privatisation of state power. Wouldn't it be in the public interests to get hold of a few emails or documents that explain and possibly expose the reasons behind this policy decision?

I tend to share Assange's belief that conspiracies and corruption are stifled via access to information. There is nothing wrong with that aim.

What if Assange's mission to free up information to the public and make it harder for corruption to take hold actually works. Assange is doubtless not a perfect human being, but who is, I would rather people focus on the work rather than the man who will continue to be a target of attack for those who have most to lose.

You say “ People who support systems that reduce corruption and who wish to strengthen democracies are not radicals or fundamentalists.”

Firstly I don’t accept that this is Assange’s goal. I have pointed out his writings directly refute this. Secondly, if by trying to achieve this reduction in corruption (which wikileaks has not exposed) you make it more likely

1)that dictators can’t be overthrown (having published all our strategies to deal with them),
2) that our enemies are able to threaten us more effectively (having published all our of our military dispositions and intentions)
3) that we are less able to achieve our diplomatic goals (having published all the details of our positions)

Then I would say that yes, absolutely, that is radical or fundamentalist. Especially so since you haven’t been able to show the corruption which you say is the driving factor in making such damaging changes.

You say “ The NSW Government is not allowing public servants to testify into the inquiry into the privatisation of state power. Wouldn't it be in the public interests to get hold of a few emails or documents that explain and possibly expose the reasons behind this policy decision?”

Yes. Any release of information which exposed lies and corruption would on the face of it be worthwhile. But we have laws to protect whistle-blowers who expose this sort of information, and it almost inevitably ALWAYS comes out. I simply don’t accept that our politicians get away with corruption anymore. But more to the point. I don’t accept that we need to shoot ourselves in the head, to solve a problem you haven’t demonstrated.

You say “ I tend to share Assange's belief that conspiracies and corruption are stifled via access to information. There is nothing wrong with that aim.”

Well it depends on who YOU think the conspiracies are. If you think our gov’t is a conspiracy that needs to be stifled, then that makes you a radical and there is absolutely something wrong with that

PaulL
It should have read "...corruption are stifled via PUBLIC access to information". My previous wording sounded like I inferred governments be restricted to access information. But I think you got my drift.

I don't think governments are by their nature automatically conspiracies (Government is just an institution) but the people within goverments or any organisation are open to corruption if there is no accountability regime (more than just lip service).

I am simply saying that any design that does not have in it rigorous checks and balances opens a pathway for potential corruption, fraud, maladministration, incompetent practices and cultures, whitewashing and spin.

You keep asking me to prove what 'conspiracies' have been highlighted via Cablegate, but are missing the point about the validity of my argument about FOI and the rights of citizens in a social democracy.

I have already pointed out some of the cables in relation to Uganda, Afghanistan and Russia in relation to corruption. There has been much more revealed, not via Wikileaks, about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular to the corruption behind the awarding of private contractors in those nations. Not to mention the fraud perpetrated by those companies in extracting continuing payments of US tax dollars. Why are other media outlets been given a free pass but Wikileaks continues to invite censure. No-one called for the assassination or arrest of Laurie Oakes for talking with Andrew Wilkie about WMDs.

Not everything has to be conspiracy to argue for more open government - you are hung up on naming conspiracies. History has revealed that the US was instrumental in interference in Latin America to serve their own economic aims including propping up less than democrtatic regimes or bringing down governments that sought to improve the wellbeing of their citizens but at the risk of US investments.

That is the sort of stuff we should be aware of in the NOW not in terms of historical context, because it is by then too late to ensure integrity in foreign relations.

Pelican

You say “You are missing the point about the validity of my argument about FOI...”

I don’t accept the validity of your argument. I don’t accept the blanket assertion that a citizen has the right to know EVERYTHING that the gov’t does. There has never been such a right. It defies common sense. In fact, you yourself have been able to think of instances where such a ‘right’ would need to be curtailed for the common good. And you’re arguing for it. We do have the right to be governed by people who abide by the rule of law. But it’s not the same thing.

Since this topic is about wikileaks, and for me, wikileaks is the publishing of diplomatic and military cables and intelligence; these are the areas I have focused on. How would diplomacy work? How does the military work? How can they be effective when they have no secrets? These are questions you have not, or cannot answer. But they are fundamental to the ACTUAL implementation of your right to know.

You have continually avoided recognition that open gov’t of the type you advocate would effectively neuter our diplomatic and military capability. In my opinion, such cost can only be justified if it is a response to a greater problem. You have so far failed to articulate such a problem. So to me, it seems like you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You cannot bring up the US in Latin America 40 years ago as evidence for your case. The world has changed. Furthermore, I think you are missing the fact that much actually came to light through regular reporting. Oliver North was convicted of lying to congress and was sentenced to jail for diverting funds from weapons sales to the Contras in Nicaragua.

Finally, you cannot seriously suggest we should be disempowering our own military and diplomacy, in order to learn that foreign dictators are corrupt. We are being told that anyway by the media, and often by gov’t as well. And you would be reducing our ability to deal with them

That is not so PaulL. I have consistently said that there are obvious defence and national security issues that could not be encompassed in the "everything". You are the one that is consistently using the term "everything" when clearly that is not possible nor desirable.

Doing better with FOI and information does not equate to "everything". This discussion is not about a choice between "everything" or "nothing" but lies somewhere between. The between in my view should be closer to the "everything" than the "nothing".

I suggest that there is a lot of information that is not categorised under those conditions that should be freely available, that are currently unavailable.

It is quite fair to use the example of Latin America because it is still happening and much of those past events were not that long ago. What about more information about private contractors which the US Government did everything possible to conceal until people on the inside spoke out. The details of contracts should be freely available. It is not monopoly money being used but real people who work real jobs to earn their way.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_31/b3995075.htm

Thats all fine, Pelican,

My problem is with Julian Assange and his indiscriminate, evertything must be open approach, which you appeared, at least at first, to be supporting.I don't have a problem with continually improving accountability. I think its a goal we should always be striving towards.

My focus has been on military and diplomatic issues, because that is where Assange has decided to try out his "philosophy".

His release of the military's intelligence in Afghanistan, and the diplomatic cables more recently, is a radically disruptive move, that hurts us far more than it helps. Which was the intention.

Maybe we are not so far apart as originally thought but I do disagree about the ultimate goal of Assange, but history will no doubt make us all wiser in our assessments. Sometimes disruption is necessary to instigate change.

Citizens and politicians extolling the virtues of FOI or demands for greater access sit within the realm of motherhood statements and spin until there is real action and change.

No movement is perfect even one that seeks to divert some modicum of power back to the citizenry but my hand is up to support anyone with that objective.

Having been away for a week and looking back on this thread I see a lot of Julian's defenders claiming that there is no parallel between what the teenager did and what Wikileaks did.

Many of the "revelations" were neither secrets nor revealing, rather just embarrassing such as the one where the US diplomat thought that Kevin Rudd was an egotistical jackass. This is no secret as just about everyone feels the same, but the fact that a confidential email was published, puts it in writing and is embarrassing to the diplomat and KR.

The AFL players are celebrities and as such have just as much right (or not) for their confidential files and emails to remain private.

I doubt even wikileaks would publish a photo of someone naked. If it happened to any of us, we would run straight to the nearest lawyer to get the photos taken down, just like the footballers.