| This is same argument of "collateral damage" that WikiLeaks opposes ArgumentOpposé1 #86840
|
|
+Citations (1)
- CitationsAjouter une citationList by: CiterankMapLink[1]
En citant: Jaron Lanier
Cité par: David Price 9:34 PM 21 December 2010 GMT
Citerank: (4) 86715WikiLeaks fails to respect the rule of lawWIkiLeaks fails to respect the rule of law – and, as such, is practicing a kind of information vigilantism.1198CE71, 86839WikiLeaks posted encrypted copies of all cables as a dead man switchEncrypted copies of all the cables have been distributed around the world creating a "dead man switch."13EF597B, 86841Secrets that aren't of vital interest to others are properly privateIf the secret is about something that isn't a vital interest for other people, then everyone has a right to keep a private sphere private. [Jaron Lanier]959C6EF, 86842Secrets of vital interest can be kept under checks and balancesIf the secret is about something of vital interest to other people, then secrets can be kept by those who are sanctioned and accountable to keep them within the bounds of a reasonably functional democratic process. [Jaron Lanier]959C6EF
URL:
|
| Extrait - Another common rationalization favoring Wikileaks is that we don't have documentation of individuals, such as the canonical example of liasons in Afghanistan, who were killed as a result of a leak.
I wish I could find comfort in this line of thinking, but bad behavior doesn't become ok just because we don't know if anyone's been hurt yet. Did anyone ask the individuals who were named for permission to leak their names? I don't think any of the undocumented immigrants in Utah were killed, but does that excuse what happened? Assange has stated that if there were deaths from leaks, it would be acceptable because of the bigger picture. The ideological framework and rationale for collateral damage has been made explicit. |