Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6333)

bjkeefe 11-28-2010 05:04 PM

Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Currently dominating the front page of nytimes.com:

Quote:

Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

WASHINGTON — A cache of a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables, most of them from the past three years, provides an unprecedented look at backroom bargaining by embassies around the world, brutally candid views of foreign leaders and frank assessments of nuclear and terrorist threats.

Some of the cables, made available to The New York Times and several other news organizations, were written as recently as late February, revealing the Obama administration’s exchanges over crises and conflicts. The material was originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents. WikiLeaks intends to make the archive public on its Web site in batches, beginning Sunday.

The anticipated disclosure of the cables is already sending shudders through the diplomatic establishment, and could conceivably strain relations with some countries, influencing international affairs in ways that are impossible to predict.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and American ambassadors around the world have been contacting foreign officials in recent days to alert them to the expected disclosures. A statement from the White House on Sunday said: “We condemn in the strongest terms the unauthorized disclosure of classified documents and sensitive national security information.”

[...]

The cables, a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, amount to a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with the world in an age of war and terrorism. Among their revelations, to be detailed in The Times in coming days:
Read the rest.

Note in the sidebar:

Quote:

State's Secrets

Day 1 of 9
It looks like this might be the NYT's index page for the series.


As you might imagine, wikileaks dot org is swamped by traffic right now.

Or 4chan has been hired by the striped pants brigade to run a DDoS attack. One of those two. [Update: Oops. Might have made a joke in poor taste there. Wikileaks claimed they were under DDoS attack five hours ago.]

(Related Bhtv thread: Wikileaks -- Afghanistan)

Ocean 11-28-2010 05:13 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190108)
Currently dominating the front page of nytimes.com:



Read the rest.

Note in the sidebar:



It looks like this might be the NYT's index page for the series.


As you might imagine, wikileaks dot org is swamped by traffic right now.

Or 4chan has been hired by the striped pants brigade to run a DDoS attack. One of those two.

(Related Bhtv thread: Wikileaks -- Afghanistan)

Unbelievable.

bjkeefe 11-28-2010 05:24 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190108)
Currently dominating the front page of nytimes.com:

[...]

Read the rest.

[...]

It looks like this might be the NYT's index page for the series. [...]

Here's a place to start for the Guardian's coverage: "US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis."

[Added: Guardian liveblog here. (h/t: @PoliticallyBrit)]

@wikileaks and others are using the hashtag #cablegate, because originality is dead, or for some other reason. (Reporterbaitgate?)

operative 11-28-2010 05:51 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190108)
Currently dominating the front page of nytimes.com:



Read the rest.

Note in the sidebar:



It looks like this might be the NYT's index page for the series.


As you might imagine, wikileaks dot org is swamped by traffic right now.

Or 4chan has been hired by the striped pants brigade to run a DDoS attack. One of those two. [Update: Oops. Might have made a joke in poor taste there. Wikileaks claimed they were under DDoS attack five hours ago.]

(Related Bhtv thread: Wikileaks -- Afghanistan)

I'd put everything so far in the category of 'stuff everyone knew anyway' category. And I'm guessing that they released the biggest news items first, so from here it should get far more banal.

bjkeefe 11-28-2010 06:08 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Am I going to have to be the one to get the ball rolling with jokes about “his senior Ukrainian nurse?”

SkepticDoc 11-28-2010 06:53 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Nice breasts can lift the spirits of any heterosexual man (or lesbian?)...

Ocean 11-28-2010 07:06 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 190120)
Nice breasts can lift the spirits of any heterosexual man (or lesbian?)...

What are you too talking about?

Okay, I'm behind checking those leaks.

bjkeefe 11-28-2010 07:18 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 190122)
What are you too talking about?

Okay, I'm behind checking those leaks.

If you can't find it by reading, Google the phrase I put in quote marks. The secret is out! ;)

SkepticDoc 11-28-2010 07:40 PM

Re: Wikileaks -- Diplomatic cables
 
Quote:

But the cables add a touch of scandal and alarm to the tale. They describe the volatile Libyan leader as rarely without the companionship of “his senior Ukrainian nurse,” described as “a voluptuous blonde.” They reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia. The American ambassador to Libya told Colonel Qaddafi’s son “that the Libyan government had chosen a very dangerous venue to express its pique,” a cable reported to Washington.
Maybe he is also a fan of "Mad Men"!

bjkeefe 11-29-2010 02:24 AM

That was fast!
 
Quote:

Rightbloggers on WikiLeaks: Kill Julian Assange, But Not Till We Use His Stuff Against Obama
Can you guess?

Yup. Roy Edroso's latest wingnut wrap-up is available. Intro here, full column here.

chiwhisoxx 11-29-2010 03:05 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190172)
Can you guess?

Yup. Roy Edroso's latest wingnut wrap-up is available. Intro here, full column here.

Why is it so hypocritical to think that leaking documents like this is a bad thing but also address the information disclosed in the leaks? It's not like a few right wing bloggers ignoring it is going to make the story go away when outlets like the NYT are running it. It's going to be a story no matter what, so even if you think Assange is kind of an ass-clown, that doesn't mean ignoring the information in the leaks makes sense.

Caveat: I didn't read the whole post you linked to, so I don't know if specific bloggers were being hypocritical. Referring more to the general principle.

bjkeefe 11-29-2010 05:21 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 190173)
Why is it so hypocritical ...

Caveat: I didn't read the whole post you linked to, so I don't know if specific bloggers were being hypocritical. Referring more to the general principle.

You should read the whole post. Especially page 2.

chiwhisoxx 11-29-2010 01:11 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190175)
You should read the whole post. Especially page 2.

Hmm. Some bloggers (for the record, I hadn't heard of a majority of those blogs) certainly said some stupid things. I'm still not convinced it's inherently hypocritical to discuss the facts while thinking the release of those facts was a bad thing done by a bad guy.

bjkeefe 11-29-2010 03:39 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 190207)
Hmm. Some bloggers (for the record, I hadn't heard of a majority of those blogs) certainly said some stupid things. I'm still not convinced it's inherently hypocritical to discuss the facts while thinking the release of those facts was a bad thing done by a bad guy.

They shouldn't by now, but your habit of willful obtuseness, not to mention your ongoing efforts to try to argue about something quite apart from the point of what you're purportedly responding to, still continue to astonish me.

bjkeefe 11-29-2010 04:40 PM

Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria
 
Quote:

John Cole notes an added irony of the furor over this latest disclosure: "I have a hard time getting worked up about it - a government that views none of my personal correspondence as confidential really can’t bitch when this sort of thing happens." Note how quickly the "if-you've-done-nothing-wrong-then-you-have-nothing-to-hide" mentality disappears when it's their privacy and communications being invaded rather than yours.

I'd note an added irony: many of the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq and/or who support the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes and assassination programs -- on the ground that the massive civilians deaths which result are justifiable "collateral damage" -- are those objecting most vehemently to WikiLeaks' disclosure on the ground that it may lead to the death of innocent people. For them, the moral framework suddenly becomes that if an act causes the deaths of any innocent person, that is proof that it is not only unjustifiable but morally repellent regardless of what it achieves. How glaringly selective is their alleged belief in that moral framework.
The above from Glennzilla's latest post.

Also from him, via his Twitter feed:

John Kampfner | The Independent: "Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority"

Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"

Simon Jenkins | The Guardian: "US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment/It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks' revelations"

chiwhisoxx 11-29-2010 04:43 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190224)
They shouldn't by now, but your habit of willful obtuseness, not to mention your ongoing efforts to try to argue about something quite apart from the point of what you're purportedly responding to, still continue to astonish me.

And your obtuseness in refusing to move off of a specific point to discuss a larger one seems to show that you're more interested in scoring points mocking individuals whom you don't like rather than having the deeper meta discussions.

bjkeefe 11-29-2010 05:57 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 190239)
And your obtuseness in refusing to move off of a specific point to discuss a larger one seems to show that you're more interested in scoring points mocking individuals whom you don't like rather than having the deeper meta discussions.

Start your own thread if that's what you want, and maybe I will participate in it. The reason, here and now, that I no longer accept your putatively reasonable request for "deeper meta discussions" is because 95% of your posts seem to come in direct kneejerk response to mine, no matter what thread I post them in, and they invariably amount to: I DISAGREE WITH YOUR POINT BECAUSE OF SOME OTHER POINT!!!1! NOW RESPOND TO THAT!!!1! You don't get to demand terms when you're just being a childish reactionary.

The overwhelming majority of the time, you're being more of a lial or an operative than someone who shows independence of mind or even thoughtfulness, in other words. You've failed to convince me that you're actually interested in discussing things honestly, or shown me any other reason why I should take interest in what you have to say. You're more like a mosquito buzzing near my elbow than anything else, and so you're either going to get ignored or waved away, depending on my mood.

operative 11-29-2010 06:29 PM

Re: Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190238)
The above from Glennzilla's latest post.

Also from him, via his Twitter feed:

John Kampfner | The Independent: "Wikileaks shows up our media for their docility at the feet of authority"

Nancy A. Youssef | McClatchy Newspapers: "Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"

Simon Jenkins | The Guardian: "US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment/It is for governments – not journalists – to guard public secrets, and there is no national jeopardy in WikiLeaks' revelations"


What a dumb post from an utter moron (Cole), par for the course. Equating targeted military operations that minimize casualties and eliminate people who would otherwise cause many more casualties with releasing secret info that saves no one but will cost good, innocent people their lives is not just stupid, it is immoral. Cole is walking, talking donkey droppings.

cragger 11-29-2010 07:35 PM

Re: Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria
 
Trenchant points by Cole, the predictable partisan response quickly posted in return. Rust never sleeps.

operative 11-29-2010 07:38 PM

Re: Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cragger (Post 190270)
Trenchant points by Cole, the predictable partisan response quickly posted in return. Rust never sleeps.

Yup, morally equating targeted military strikes with life-endangering treason that has the potential to harm relations with China, Turkey, etc. Really trenchant. Btw does that mean that I'm a partisan democrat now, since I'm taking a similar line as the Obama administration?

graz 11-29-2010 08:02 PM

Re: Some perspectives on the latest Wikileaks-induced hysteria
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190257)
... Equating targeted military operations that minimize casualties and eliminate people who would otherwise cause many more casualties ...

Said the kill more to kill less strategist, who plays a military expert on the internet.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 12:20 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190172)
Quote:

Rightbloggers on WikiLeaks: Kill Julian Assange, But Not Till We Use His Stuff Against Obama
Can you guess?

Yup. Roy Edroso's latest wingnut wrap-up is available. Intro here, full column here.

Are there still more wingnuts reacting in this kill-Assange-but-not-till-we ... mode?

Oh, yes! And some of them are even senior Republicans, in the Congress!

No One Could Have Predicted.

operative 11-30-2010 12:54 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190314)
Are there still more wingnuts reacting in this kill-Assange-but-not-till-we ... mode?

Oh, yes! And some of them are even senior Republicans, in the Congress!

No One Could Have Predicted.

Actually Hoekstra has it pretty much right--wikilinks is engaged in espionage.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 01:20 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190321)
... wikilinks ...

So eager to get your Message out you did it again, didn't you?

Typing without thinking is unimpressive. Chronically doing this really undermines your credibility. And since all you've got, way more than most of the time, are unsupported assertions ripped from the FoxNews playbook ...

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your scattershot approach on this site, but unless you're a moby, I think it's safe to say you're failing hard.

operative 11-30-2010 09:43 AM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190323)
So eager to get your Message out you did it again, didn't you?

Typing without thinking is unimpressive. Chronically doing this really undermines your credibility. And since all you've got, way more than most of the time, are unsupported assertions ripped from the FoxNews playbook ...

I'm stating an objective fact: what wikileaks is doing meets the definition of espionage. Just because your fervid, fanatical committment to some arbitrary notion of openness clouds your judgment doesn't change the definition of the term.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 02:29 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by operative (Post 190336)
I'm stating an objective fact: what wikileaks is doing meets the definition of espionage. Just because your fervid, fanatical committment to some arbitrary notion of openness clouds your judgment doesn't change the definition of the term.

Repeating empty assertions doesn't make them any less empty. Nor does pronouncing your opinion to be "objective fact." Nor will searching out some dictionary definition that suits your views, which I suspect you are about to do next.

And mischaracterizing my views to the extent that you have here only further undermines your credibility. To the extent that you have any remaining, I mean.

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 02:33 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
So the Obama administration doesn't know what the legal definition of espionage means? Or are the President of the United States and the Attorney General just a couple of stupid monkeys to you?

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 02:43 PM

Where Assange is coming from, maybe
 
Yglesias retweets this from Will Wilkinson:

Quote:

This post by @zunguzungu on the thinking behind Wikileaks is incredibly helpful. http://bit.ly/h2SJuD
That link expands to this: 'Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”.'

"Incredibly helpful" is farther than I'd go, but it is an interesting bit of analysis/speculation.

BTW, zunguzungu's blog overall looks like something worth browsing.

And also via zz, Assange recently (11 Nov 2010) did a long interview with Andy Greenberg, who covers "the cybersecurity and privacy beat for Forbes." Apparently, the next big Wikileak will involve "a major U.S. bank." (Greenberg speculates in a later post that it might be BofA.) If Assange is not just blowing smoke here, I'd say that zz's analysis has received some more support.

==========

[Added] Here's a bit from the interview regarding the bankileak:

Quote:

These megaleaks, as you call them, we haven’t seen any of those from the private sector.

No, not at the same scale as for the military.

Will we?

Yes. We have one related to a bank coming up, that’s a megaleak. It’s not as big a scale as the Iraq material, but it’s either tens or hundreds of thousands of documents depending on how you define it.

Is it a U.S. bank?

Yes, it’s a U.S. bank.

One that still exists?

Yes, a big U.S. bank.

The biggest U.S. bank?

No comment.

When will it happen?

Early next year. I won’t say more.

What do you want to be the result of this release?

[Pauses] I’m not sure.

It will give a true and representative insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.

Usually when you get leaks at this level, it’s about one particular case or one particular violation. For this, there’s only one similar example. It’s like the Enron emails. Why were these so valuable? When Enron collapsed, through court processes, thousands and thousands of emails came out that were internal, and it provided a window into how the whole company was managed. It was all the little decisions that supported the flagrant violations.

This will be like that. Yes, there will be some flagrant violations, unethical practices that will be revealed, but it will also be all the supporting decision-making structures and the internal executive ethos that cames out, and that’s tremendously valuable. Like the Iraq War Logs, yes there were mass casualty incidents that were very newsworthy, but the great value is seeing the full spectrum of the war.

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it.
From this, I'd say that my first reaction to zunguzungu's analysis is somewhat strengthened. I have a feeling that what zz talks about is more like what Assange used to believe. Or, went on about when it was just him writing in his journal. Now that Assange has confronted reality, I have the sense that he has evolved a bit from the place he was at. Or maybe he has come to think that it'd be better for his goals if he toned down his anarchistic rhetoric. Hard to say, but odds are always good with human beings that a big dose of celebrity treatment has significant effects, on revolutionaries in particular.

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 02:52 PM

Re: Where Assange is coming from, maybe
 
The U.S. government is like an "authoritarian conspiracy"... haha.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:01 PM

Re: Where Assange is coming from, maybe
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 190366)
The U.S. government is like an "authoritarian conspiracy"... haha.

I'm unsurprised that you are so superficial as to latch onto a phrase from the beginning and declare your mind made up, but lest your ignorance dissuade someone else from clicking the link I offered, let me add this bit of clarification from zunguzungu:

Quote:

His [Assange's] model for imagining the conspiracy, then, is not at all the cliché that people mean when they sneer at someone for being a “conspiracy theorist.” After all, most the “conspiracies” we’re familiar with are pure fantasies, and because the “Elders of Zion” or James Bond’s SPECTRE have never existed, their nonexistence becomes a cudgel for beating on people that would ever use the term or the concept. For Assange, by contrast, a conspiracy is something fairly banal, simply any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders, an authority that proceeds by preventing its activities from being visible enough to provoke counter-reaction. It might be something as dramatic as a loose coalition of conspirators working to start a war with Iraq/n, or it might simply be the banal, everyday deceptions and conspiracies of normal diplomatic procedure.

He illustrates this theoretical model by the analogy of a board with nails hammered into it and then tied together with twine:

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:03 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 190364)
... the President of the United States and the Attorney General just a couple of stupid monkeys ...

Nice to see you're being a bit more open and honest about your racist inclinations.

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 03:05 PM

Utter Stupidity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190367)
I'm unsurprised that you are so superficial as to latch onto a phrase from the beginning and declare your mind made up, but lest your ignorance dissuade someone else from clicking the link I offered, let me add this bit of clarification from zunguzungu:

His [Assange's] model for imagining the conspiracy, then, is not at all the cliché that people mean when they sneer at someone for being a “conspiracy theorist.” After all, most the “conspiracies” we’re familiar with are pure fantasies, and because the “Elders of Zion” or James Bond’s SPECTRE have never existed, their nonexistence becomes a cudgel for beating on people that would ever use the term or the concept. For Assange, by contrast, a conspiracy is something fairly banal, simply any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders, an authority that proceeds by preventing its activities from being visible enough to provoke counter-reaction. It might be something as dramatic as a loose coalition of conspirators working to start a war with Iraq/n, or it might simply be the banal, everyday deceptions and conspiracies of normal diplomatic procedure.

He illustrates this theoretical model by the analogy of a board with nails hammered into it and then tied together with twine:

Oh yeah, that quote makes it all better. He's just a really smart, thoughtful guy with a very interesting Weltanschaung... haha.

What utter stupidity.

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 03:07 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190368)
Nice to see you're being a bit more open and honest about your racist inclinations.

Haha... I'm not the one making them out to be a pair of stupid monkeys, you are Bud.

"They just so dumb... they don't even know what the legal definition of espionage means. We elected a dumbass monkey to be our President". Giggle.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:10 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 190370)
Haha... I'm not the one making them out to be a pair of stupid monkeys, you are Bud.

Your ham-handed attempt to disguise the origin of the belief by attributing it to me does not change the reality that these are your thoughts.

And I see that you continue:

Quote:

"... We elected a dumbass monkey to be our President". Giggle.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:11 PM

Re: Utter Stupidity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 190369)
What utter stupidity.

I would say that accurately characterizes your reaction to zunguzungu's piece, yes. Not to mention pretty much everything else you have to say.

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 03:12 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Yes, I do continue because it's you who's made the argument that the President of the United States and his Attorney General are too stupid to know what the legal definition of espionage means.

That's what you've argued, and you're sticking to it. :)

Fluffy Foo Foo 11-30-2010 03:13 PM

Re: Utter Stupidity
 
How so? He clearly likes what Assange has done? He's agreeable to the idea that the United States government is an "authoritarian conspiracy".

Do you think the U.S. government is an "authoritarian conspiracy" like Assange and zuzu assert?

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:20 PM

Re: Where Assange is coming from, maybe
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190365)
[...]

That link expands to this: 'Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”.'

"Incredibly helpful" is farther than I'd go, but it is an interesting bit of analysis/speculation.

[...]

And also via zz, Assange recently (11 Nov 2010) did a long interview with Andy Greenberg, who covers "the cybersecurity and privacy beat for Forbes." Apparently, the next big Wikileak will involve "a major U.S. bank." (Greenberg speculates in a later post that it might be BofA.) If Assange is not just blowing smoke here, I'd say that zz's analysis has received some more support.

==========

[Added] Here's a bit from the interview regarding the bankileak:

[...]

From this, I'd say that my first reaction to zunguzungu's analysis is somewhat strengthened. I have a feeling that what zz talks about is more like what Assange used to believe. Or, went on about when it was just him writing in his journal. Now that Assange has confronted reality, I have the sense that he has evolved a bit from the place he was at. Or maybe he has come to think that it'd be better for his goals if he toned down his anarchistic rhetoric. Hard to say, but odds are always good with human beings that a big dose of celebrity treatment has significant effects, on revolutionaries in particular.

Further complicating the picture of Assange's point of view is this interesting bit from p. 5 of the interview, regarding Wikileaks and businesses:

Quote:

What do you think WikiLeaks mean for business? How do businesses need to adjust to a world where WikiLeaks exists?

WikiLeaks means it’s easier to run a good business and harder to run a bad business, and all CEOs should be encouraged by this. I think about the case in China where milk powder companies started cutting the protein in milk powder with plastics. That happened at a number of separate manufacturers.

Let’s say you want to run a good company. It’s nice to have an ethical workplace. Your employees are much less likely to screw you over if they’re not screwing other people over.

Then one company starts cutting their milk powder with melamine, and becomes more profitable. You can follow suit, or slowly go bankrupt and the one that’s cutting its milk powder will take you over. That’s the worst of all possible outcomes.

The other possibility is that the first one to cut its milk powder is exposed. Then you don’t have to cut your milk powder. There’s a threat of regulation that produces self-regulation.

It just means that it’s easier for honest CEOs to run an honest business, if the dishonest businesses are more effected negatively by leaks than honest businesses. That’s the whole idea. In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.

No one wants to have their own things leaked. It pains us when we have internal leaks. But across any given industry, it is both good for the whole industry to have those leaks and it’s especially good for the good players.

But aside from the market as a whole, how should companies change their behavior understanding that leaks will increase?

Do things to encourage leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat your employees well.

I think it’s extremely positive. You end up with a situation where honest companies producing quality products are more competitive than dishonest companies producing bad products. And companies that treat their employees well do better than those that treat them badly.

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

There’s the famous lemon example in the used car market. It’s hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can’t get a good price, even when they have a good car.

By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there’s a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

You’ve developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I’ve been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don’t come from nowhere.

It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.
I find myself in full agreement with that, particularly the penultimate paragraph.

==========

[Added] I also like this, from page 7:

Quote:

There are genuine concerns about those powers exfiltrating data. And it’s possibly ethical to combat that process. But spying is also stabilizing to relationships. Your fears about where a country is or is not are always worse than the reality. If you only have a black box, you can put all your fears into it, particularly opportunists in government or private industry who want to address a problem that may not exist. If you know what a government is doing, that can reduce tensions.
Regarding the opportunists, see also the Hersch article, discussed and linked to here.

bjkeefe 11-30-2010 03:48 PM

Re: Where Assange is coming from, maybe
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 190365)
[...]

If you liked the interview referred to above, you might also like the accompanying article by the interviewer, Andy Greenberg. (I think it is the cover story for the latest issue of Forbes.)

Interesting part about Mudge, especially in light of Assange's past association with him. Reminds me somewhat of the relationship between Bishop and Cosmo in the movie Sneakers.

popcorn_karate 11-30-2010 05:01 PM

Re: That was fast!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluffy Foo Foo (Post 190373)
Yes, I do continue because it's you who's made the argument that the President of the United States and his Attorney General are too stupid to know what the legal definition of espionage means.

maybe, but it was you that turned it into racist bullshit.

much as i can't stand most of your views, this really is a new low for you, lyle.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.