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.