Wikileaks releases unredacted USA State Dept files....
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philip Agee never required Wikileaks to wreak his damage.
What is surprising is that the USA never extradited or tried him.
Philip Agee | Times Online Obituary
What is surprising is that the USA never extradited or tried him.
Philip Agee | Times Online Obituary
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 80
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."
Once again you are giving your opinion as fact - that Governments alter, ignore or falsify information.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes
Sorry, I forgot about Area 51 (and the Film was on the TV only the other night!!).
In Peacetime ( and even more so when British Personnel are committed on Active Service) one would expect Governments to put the best possible "Spin" on their Communiqués. In my experience of over 31 years in the RAF - many of which were spent on 32 Sqn - it is not what is said by Government Ministers (or their Officials) that makes the headlines; it is the interpretation by the Press of what they think they heard - embellished for their own purposes.
PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.
Sorry, I forgot about Area 51 (and the Film was on the TV only the other night!!).
In Peacetime ( and even more so when British Personnel are committed on Active Service) one would expect Governments to put the best possible "Spin" on their Communiqués. In my experience of over 31 years in the RAF - many of which were spent on 32 Sqn - it is not what is said by Government Ministers (or their Officials) that makes the headlines; it is the interpretation by the Press of what they think they heard - embellished for their own purposes.
PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.
Last edited by cazatou; 4th Sep 2011 at 16:51.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 80
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but I did not see the film Area 51 referred to so I can't comment.
I also spent a part of my life in the RAF, not 31 years but enough to gain some experience.
Of course there are circumstances when a touch of "spin" may be acceptable but not unneccessary downright lies which are becoming almost a qualification for modern politicians. You may classify this as not fact but only my opinion if you wish.
You cannot blame the press for everything, however sh1te they may be.
I also spent a part of my life in the RAF, not 31 years but enough to gain some experience.
Of course there are circumstances when a touch of "spin" may be acceptable but not unneccessary downright lies which are becoming almost a qualification for modern politicians. You may classify this as not fact but only my opinion if you wish.
it is the interpretation by the Press of what they think they heard - embellished for their own purposes.
PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.
PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
I amended my statement
500N
Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them.
"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."
500N
I think that is pushing it a bit far and giving too much credit to Wikileaks.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane-DoH
"Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them."
Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.
You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.
Now let's look at mainstream media and the eample provided by a previous poster which I have quoted below.
"Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out."
IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.
To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.
So, the mainstream media MIGHT keep quiet but only as long as they don't think they are "missing out" on a scoop and therefore sales. Just look at the mad scramble for photos of celebs.
"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.
That is my HO only, others may disagree with me.
.
"Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them."
Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.
You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.
Now let's look at mainstream media and the eample provided by a previous poster which I have quoted below.
"Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out."
IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.
To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.
So, the mainstream media MIGHT keep quiet but only as long as they don't think they are "missing out" on a scoop and therefore sales. Just look at the mad scramble for photos of celebs.
"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.
That is my HO only, others may disagree with me.
.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N
As the ability to broadcast information increases, so will the government's ability to censor it. You have to keep in mind there are various methods of censorship which do not require a person constantly monitoring things.
Not many people use radio these days
Regardless, they newspapers only followed up after wikileaks leaked the data. The mainstream media didn't intend to publish the leak before that -- they actually seem to have sat on it.
True, but the fact is that until a non-mainstream media outlet published the data, the mainstream-media sat on it. If the government could block the non-mainstream media outlets, that information would have either never been released, or released such a long time from now that it would no longer be useful.
Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.
You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.
IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.
To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.
To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.
"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane-DoH
"As the ability to broadcast information increases, so will the government's ability to censor it. You have to keep in mind there are various methods of censorship which do not require a person constantly monitoring things."
I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.
Power of information is being more concentrated in the consumer / available to the consumer more than ever.
Recent examples - 1. Arab Spring uprisings - numerous Gov't have tried to censor the net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's etc and have failed badly.
2. London Riots - an example where a whole range of communication systems net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's used by consumers.
"Not many people use radio these days" Agree, but people do still listen to radio in cars, especially talk back. If consumers didn't listen, why do Politicians still go on talk back radio ?????? (They do here, not sure about the UK as I left a long time ago).
" Regardless, they newspapers only followed up after wikileaks leaked the data. The mainstream media didn't intend to publish the leak before that -- they actually seem to have sat on it."
Which of my examples are you referring to ? The NY Times information that they sat on or Prince Harry ? If NY Times, they published it AFTER Bush was re elected - ie they didn't want to damage his re election chances.
"True, but the fact is that until a non-mainstream media outlet published the data, the mainstream-media sat on it. If the government could block the non-mainstream media outlets, that information would have either never been released, or released such a long time from now that it would no longer be useful."
You seem to have a very strong view that the Gov't can block or censor the non-mainstream media outlets. Considering the net is NOT controlled by state borders but is readily available to people within those borders, I strongly disagree with you that they can control ANY media or communication outlet EXCEPT by possible use of the Courts and a D Notice which I think are still in use.
The only exception to the above is China which does have a very good set up on censorship AND controls the internet within China.
I await your response.
Does anyone else want to chime in with their views ????
.
"As the ability to broadcast information increases, so will the government's ability to censor it. You have to keep in mind there are various methods of censorship which do not require a person constantly monitoring things."
I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.
Power of information is being more concentrated in the consumer / available to the consumer more than ever.
Recent examples - 1. Arab Spring uprisings - numerous Gov't have tried to censor the net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's etc and have failed badly.
2. London Riots - an example where a whole range of communication systems net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's used by consumers.
"Not many people use radio these days" Agree, but people do still listen to radio in cars, especially talk back. If consumers didn't listen, why do Politicians still go on talk back radio ?????? (They do here, not sure about the UK as I left a long time ago).
" Regardless, they newspapers only followed up after wikileaks leaked the data. The mainstream media didn't intend to publish the leak before that -- they actually seem to have sat on it."
Which of my examples are you referring to ? The NY Times information that they sat on or Prince Harry ? If NY Times, they published it AFTER Bush was re elected - ie they didn't want to damage his re election chances.
"True, but the fact is that until a non-mainstream media outlet published the data, the mainstream-media sat on it. If the government could block the non-mainstream media outlets, that information would have either never been released, or released such a long time from now that it would no longer be useful."
You seem to have a very strong view that the Gov't can block or censor the non-mainstream media outlets. Considering the net is NOT controlled by state borders but is readily available to people within those borders, I strongly disagree with you that they can control ANY media or communication outlet EXCEPT by possible use of the Courts and a D Notice which I think are still in use.
The only exception to the above is China which does have a very good set up on censorship AND controls the internet within China.
I await your response.
Does anyone else want to chime in with their views ????
.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shack 37
Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".
In reply to your question - it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
That still applies - whether the "War" be Hot or Cold.
Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".
In reply to your question - it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
That still applies - whether the "War" be Hot or Cold.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 80
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to your question - it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
I hope SWMBO had a great day.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N
Not if the ability to censor increases exponentially relative to the ability to broadcast information. Do you think the government really has an internet kill-switch just because they're worried about hackers?
In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship.
Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented.
cazatou
Your wife has the same birthday as me (Sept 6)?
I don't know what context Churchill was saying this in, but I would assume he was talking about war. Regardless, there are many politicians who also agree that truth is so pernicious that it must be guarded with a bodyguard of lies, not because it's a matter of national survival, but because it would make them look bad, and expose corruption.
Do you think that is an acceptable application of secrecy?
Keep in mind that being that in our systems of government, people select the elected officials that will govern them, and for this to work even remotely well, the public have to know what they're doing. If government officials are allowed to use secrecy to cover up misconduct, it'd throw a monkey wrench into the entire democratic process
I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.
In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship.
Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented.
cazatou
Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".
it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
Do you think that is an acceptable application of secrecy?
Keep in mind that being that in our systems of government, people select the elected officials that will govern them, and for this to work even remotely well, the public have to know what they're doing. If government officials are allowed to use secrecy to cover up misconduct, it'd throw a monkey wrench into the entire democratic process
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane-DoH
"In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship."
And the UK Gov't has no juristiction outside of the UK so if I wanted to infringe copyright, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
And once it is catalouged in Google and all the other search engines,
then it is very hard to get rid off.
"Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented."
As I said, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
They can take down one but they will never be able to take down all of them
as too many "pipes" into too many countries. China seems to be the only one that does it well by limiting the number of pipes into the country.
I think we will just agree to disagree.
.
"In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship."
And the UK Gov't has no juristiction outside of the UK so if I wanted to infringe copyright, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
And once it is catalouged in Google and all the other search engines,
then it is very hard to get rid off.
"Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented."
As I said, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
They can take down one but they will never be able to take down all of them
as too many "pipes" into too many countries. China seems to be the only one that does it well by limiting the number of pipes into the country.
I think we will just agree to disagree.
.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N
Yes, but as it passes through the UK, it could be blocked.
Irrelevant, even in China when Google stopped censoring access to the search results, users in China still could not access the websites that pertained to Tiananmen square for example.
And the UK Gov't has no juristiction outside of the UK so if I wanted to infringe copyright, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
And once it is catalouged in Google and all the other search engines, then it is very hard to get rid off.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane
It took you 6 days to come back.
Why don't you answer the actual question instead of answering it with another question ?
I'm still waiting for your pearls of wisdom.
.
It took you 6 days to come back.
Why don't you answer the actual question instead of answering it with another question ?
I'm still waiting for your pearls of wisdom.
.
Last edited by 500N; 18th Sep 2011 at 20:15.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see on CEEFAX that the nice Mr Assange is threatening to sue a UK publisher for "breach of contract" for releasing drafts of his autobiography without his approval.
