Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: WikiLeaks Scandal
it is normal. yuou didn't live with a regime that gives you only bull..t as information. i did. i am against all illegal/imoral action of a governamental structure payed by public money (OUR taxes). if there were no leaking informations, we did not knew about goulag, guantanamo, CIA prisons, and other horrible stuff.
information must be free...let's agree on that. and each one must have the liberty to choose, but beeing informed. for really.
information must be free...let's agree on that. and each one must have the liberty to choose, but beeing informed. for really.
information must be free
Let's free the information concerning nuclear power, Iran has been asking for that information for quite a long time now.
Let's free the information concerning nuclear power, Iran has been asking for that information for quite a long time now.
until now iran didn't invade other countries... US did...
free info means also control - iran would be under the seam observation.
better go to sleep!
free info means also control - iran would be under the seam observation.
better go to sleep!
iran would be under the seam observation
And how exactly would you force Iran to do this?
And how exactly would you force Iran to do this?
...if information were free...
...and how exactly would you force US to do this?
...and how exactly would you force US to do this?
There is already information stolen from Iran and their plans about nucluar power. The only difference was that nobody didn't care it was stolen secret information.
yuou didn't live with a regime that gives you only bull..t as information
every regime does that :P
every regime does that :P
infos that are "clasified" have that status because they are concerning information about malicious acts of the governors. if governments acts were fair, they would be published by the governaments themselves.
I think it's a little naive to assume that if something is kept secret it is wrong.
I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're familiar with the 2nd world war ...we had people back then called spies. Governments knew who their spies were, and sent these spies to engage in 'illegal' (malicious using your definition) activities that did harm to other people.
However, no government published lists of their spies, even within their own countries, because it would make their job nigh on impossible. I for one, am quite happy that this is the way it worked!
I know it's an extreme example and appreciate we're not in the middle of a world war right now - the goalposts have moved and we're unlikely to see another world war - but we live in world where certain factions would like to make fundamentally changes whatever the human consequences. This, imo, necessitates some things being kept secret for the wider good.
you didn't live with a regime that gives you only bull..t as information. i did.
information must be free - but at what cost?
Your experiences have understandably coloured your veiw of freedom of speech/democracy, call it what you will. However, having experienced one extreme, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other extreme is the solution either...
The real challenge is for democracies to perfect independent, trustworthy and workable checks-and-balances to protect a governemnt's legitimate need for secrecy, whilst at the same time protecting the wider public interest.
I think it's a little naive to assume that if something is kept secret it is wrong.
I don't know how old you are, but I assume you're familiar with the 2nd world war ...we had people back then called spies. Governments knew who their spies were, and sent these spies to engage in 'illegal' (malicious using your definition) activities that did harm to other people.
However, no government published lists of their spies, even within their own countries, because it would make their job nigh on impossible. I for one, am quite happy that this is the way it worked!
I know it's an extreme example and appreciate we're not in the middle of a world war right now - the goalposts have moved and we're unlikely to see another world war - but we live in world where certain factions would like to make fundamentally changes whatever the human consequences. This, imo, necessitates some things being kept secret for the wider good.
you didn't live with a regime that gives you only bull..t as information. i did.
information must be free - but at what cost?
Your experiences have understandably coloured your veiw of freedom of speech/democracy, call it what you will. However, having experienced one extreme, it doesn't necessarily follow that the other extreme is the solution either...
The real challenge is for democracies to perfect independent, trustworthy and workable checks-and-balances to protect a governemnt's legitimate need for secrecy, whilst at the same time protecting the wider public interest.
In what way you protect the public intrest by keep it secret that america killed a journalist with a helicopoter or why it have to be a secret that Saudi Arabie is the biggest sponser of Al-Quada?
It has nothing to do with protecting the public intrest, it is just to protect their double agenda.
(edited)
It has nothing to do with protecting the public intrest, it is just to protect their double agenda.
(edited)
All documents available on thepiratebay.com. The moment Julian Assange get arrested all documents will be released without censorship. If someone on this forum is a secret agent, start getting worried for your life ;)
(edited)
(edited)
I don't care, but you shouldn't publish it online.
@noeok Please read my last paragraph again...
I am not advocating that everything that Governments would like to keep secret should be kept secret, just that unfettered access to all information isn't always desirable or sensible.
You're talking about a specific case, I was commenting generally about the suggestion that nothing should be kept secret. See doru.p's earlier posts.
Besides, when is a purported fact accepted as irrefutably true? who decides? As they say 'where you stand on, this depends on where you sit'.
I am not advocating that everything that Governments would like to keep secret should be kept secret, just that unfettered access to all information isn't always desirable or sensible.
You're talking about a specific case, I was commenting generally about the suggestion that nothing should be kept secret. See doru.p's earlier posts.
Besides, when is a purported fact accepted as irrefutably true? who decides? As they say 'where you stand on, this depends on where you sit'.