Wikileaks, RL Shadowland hub? Options

[Daddy's Litt...]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10757263

Well? Is wikileaks the for runner of the shadowlands info hubs or is it a dangerous irrisponsible faction? Or all of the above. I read the article at the BBC and all i could think was trageting these guys sounds like a run.

[Doc Chaos]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10757263

Well? Is wikileaks the for runner of the shadowlands info hubs or is it a dangerous irrisponsible faction?

Depends on who you ask. Us folks with a soul: Shadowlands. Corporate suits: the latter.

Or all of the above. I read the article at the BBC and all i could think was trageting these guys sounds like a run.

And thats why in 2070 Joe Average doesn't know drek about the existence of Shadowland (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Sengir]

It just keeps getting more Shadowrun-ish... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/02/wikileaks_insurance/

[Smokeskin]

I read the article at the BBC and all i could think was trageting these guys sounds like a run.

Isn't it high treason to release classified material and put informants' lives at risk?

The government doesn't need runs against people who openly commit high treason.

[Sengir]

Isn't it high treason to release classified material and put informants' lives at risk?

By American law one can only commit treason against his own country, an Aussie can't betray the US (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


PS: And charging every incident of "oops, we didn't redact that guy's name" as treason sounds like a lot of work for the Attorney (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Inpu]

But they can commit another crime as a foreign entity. Those who leak the information would likely be charged for treason.

[Smokeskin]

By American law one can only commit treason against his own country, an Aussie can't betray the US (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Then the Aussies can charge him for treason.

[Sengir]

Then the Aussies can charge him for treason.

If he commited treason against Australia.

[Smokeskin]

Obviously.

If nothing can be done about it, I think laws will be passed to prevent it in the future. Looking at how much legislation the US got pushed through that allows them to look into financial, travel and telecomms data all over the world, they're probably going to get most of their allies to play along with this one too - especially since most of them are also appalled at it.

I don't think anyone is interested in a return of terrorist sympatizers getting people killed. The only difference between WikiLeaks and something like Rote Armee Fraktion is that WikiLeaks kills with information and hides in legal cracks.

[Irion]

The government doesn't need runs against people who openly commit high treason.

You mean people like Dick Cheney?

Isn't it high treason to release classified material and put informants' lives at risk?

Well the problem is, if you would accuse them of treason they would have the possibility to defend themselves.

That means if you get a judge who does not wipe his ass with the constitution there gone be a lot of problems for people formaly in the Bush administration.

Since most of the issues are international other countries would be forced to investigate (their own affairs) as well. (Since they were all involved to a certain degree. Espacially true for europe)
Such things tend to be neither controllable nor containable.

Treason is a touchy subject if your own administration betrayed the constitution. And trailing journalist for bringing out such truths out is like opening pandorras box. A lot of nasty things could get out of it. (There are several countries involved in the war in Afghanistan. And the support for it is extreamly low. So to tip the balance by such actions ain t very wise.)

[Sengir]

I don't think anyone is interested in a return of terrorist sympatizers getting people killed. The only difference between WikiLeaks and something like Rote Armee Fraktion is that WikiLeaks kills with information and hides in legal cracks.

Well, that's the government line: "We are rubber-stamping all this stuff as 'state secret' for your own best, trust us" and "if you disagree with us, you are supporting the TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111"...

[Laodicea]

As far as Treason charges go, It really wouldn't be practical to try to apply them to a foriegner. Espionage charges could be used. You can still be hanged for that. However, if it becomes clear that Wikileaks used basically normal journalistic techniques, and that these leaked documents were genuinely leaked and NOT stolen, than Wikileaks bears no responsibility or blame. The person who leaked them does. That person could be charged with treason or espionage.

Or the Govt. could just forget about all those legal technicalities and dissapear these people. Alternatively, the Govt/CIA/NSA acquires them as assets and uses them to leak only the information that the Govt wants them to leak.(This may have already happened.)

[Smokeskin]

Well, that's the government line: "We are rubber-stamping all this stuff as 'state secret' for your own best, trust us" and "if you disagree with us, you are supporting the TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111"...

That's what happens when you go extreme like WikiLeaks. Instead of sticking to releasing information relevant to the public, they chose to release the names, adresses and in some cases even GPS coordinates of informants, Taleban who had contacted Americans about negotiating cease fires, and such. WikiLeaks could have published stuff like that Apache guncam footage, and civilian casualty rates and friendly fire incidents and whatever forever without any real response. But now they damaged both the war effort and the peace effort, and people are going to die because they talked to the US troops and trusted them to keep it secret. So a legal response will probably come, and my money is on the politicians erring on the side of security and secrecy rather than the public's right to know.

[Sengir]

they chose to release the names, adresses and in some cases even GPS coordinates of informants, Taleban who had contacted Americans about negotiating cease fires, and such.

Uhm, no. Wikileaks and their media "partners" put quite some effort into removing information on informers and similar sensitive data. Yes, they failed at some points, but as I said earlier: If every instance where names got out due to sloppy editing, not removing metadata from Word documents, simply putting another layer with black boxes into a .pdf, or a myriad of other unintentional screwups was considered treason, treason sentences would be more common than parking tickets in DC.

[Inpu]

The issue is that it is sensitive data, which means it falls under different rules from your typical word document.

[Sengir]

The issue is that it is sensitive data, which means it falls under different rules from your typical word document.

And if the Army for example releases a redacted document which can be un-redacted by simply hiding the layer with the black boxes we are talking about sensitive data, too. That very same thing happened with the report of that Italian journalist who nearly got shot after being released by her kidnappers, and it was neither the first nor the last incident of that kind.

[Inpu]

Which means it was sloppy and that those who did it probably got in trouble. Just because it happened doesn't mean it is right or good. A certain amount of responsibility must be accepted when dealing with something so dangerously sensitive. If Wikileaks wishes to use the information, then they best not make mistakes.

[hobgoblin]

i see wikileaks more like the nexus. The various shadowlands where supposed to be more hidden then wikileaks is (tho the poster-bloat that it gained over the years of writers adding shadowtalkers as they pleased didnt exactly give that impression), tho they often fed data back to the nexus for distribution and safe keeping.

[Toloran]

Hey everyone, I'm a long time lurker but politics tends to get my blood boiling so I decided to come out of the shadows to put my two cents in. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

A couple things need clarification:
1) As others have mentioned, you can't commit treason against a country that is not your own.
2) There have been fewer then 40 cases if treason in the united states in its history and very few of them convictions. As such, there is a very low possibility that any charges will be filed, let alone anyone being convicted of it.
3) Julian Assange (apart from being Australian) isn't the founder, owner, or the person who personally leaked this information. He's simply the spokesperson for Wikileaks and on their advisory board.
4) The information leaked is not only old, but they very specifically didn't release about 15000 documents that actually WERE a security risk. Yes, I'm basing that on something Wikileaks has said but they've made similar claims before and have proven them. As such, I have no reason to doubt it. Rather then repeat what the pundits are saying, I'd like anyone to point out specific reports from the leak that hurt either soldiers currently on the ground or civilian informants. If someone can, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.

The reason the US government is having a fit over this is because it makes them look bad. These reports paint the efforts in Afghanistan in a very different light then what is officially released and paraded through the mainstream media. This might hurt the war effort but not because it puts anyone in danger: It might hurt the war effort because it could lose what little popular support it had. To use a parallel: The Vietnam War.

One of the reasons that the Vietnam war was so horribly un-popular was the fact the war was covered in depth by the media. In previous wars, all that reached the general public were radio broadcasts (highly controlled and non-visual), government released statements, and (highly sanitized) pictures. For example, most of the truly graphic pictures from WW2 didn't come out until well after the war. Vietnam, however, not only had extensive coverage while the war was going on by independent (read as "Non-Government") sources but the coverage was highly critical of the war as a whole. This painted a VERY different picture then the one that was being officially released. Not only were there uncensored photographs being released, but television coverage that showed the american people the true horrors of the war. Many agree that one of the deciding factors in the Vietnam War was the press coverage. If it weren't for the media covering the My Lai Massacre, the Tet offensive, the bombing of Cambodia, and the release of the Pentagon papers, we probably would have been in that war a LOT longer and/or sent in far more troops.

However, as a caveat to the above, I have to say that I really don't expect anything to come of these leaked documents. The information is too old to cause any noticeable (military) effect and the american public has (at best) a short attention span for anything they don't like. Of course the politicians will rant and rave, the pundits will rand and rave, but in the end very little will change.

PS. After reading over what I just typed, I can just tell I'm going to be making a LOT of friends around here. /sarcasm.

[Inpu]

Mm, you forgot cultural climate for Vietnam. Large factor of the time as well.

[CanRay]

The reason the US government is having a fit over this is because it makes them look bad.

You mean like dropping bombs on Canadians performing training after the US Military had been informed about it?

[Inpu]

Hadn't heard that little tidbit. Source?

[Sengir]

Just because it happened doesn't mean it is right or good.

Of course those leaks can become a major screwup for national interests, and life-threatening for the individuals in question. But my point is that people who frequently store their secret info (like schematics for nukes) in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at anyone who unintentionally makes such info public.

[Inpu]

I disagree there. It means the glass house should be traded up to something stronger, and punishments must be doled out or it happens again.

In any case, probably derailed the topic enough. The idea of wikileaks is good. I just feel the execution needs some work and I'm uncertain of their sense of responsibility.

[KronikAlkoholik]

PS. After reading over what I just typed, I can just tell I'm going to be making a LOT of friends around here. /sarcasm.

Your not making a enemy out of me. I like when people know what they are talking about and can actually give examples.

I read somewhere that a newspaper had checked on the names that where mentioned and only one of those where dead, and he had died a few years ago long before this leak came out. (Sorry I do not have source for this).

I'm also wondering about the role my homecountry Iceland has in this Wikileak site. They wan't the country to be some sort of Safe Haven for investigative journalism but we are getting pressure from the US government. What's going on with the freedom of speech clause in their constitution. I doubt the american public is happy if their goverment is not following the constitution.