TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Does the world need Wikileaks and people like Julian Assange?

Does the world need Wikileaks and people Julian Assange? Or should we continue living in the reality created by media.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 5 2012: No. The way Assange approaches the acquisition of truth is incredibly dangerous to people who are trying to PREVENT the destruction of humanity.

    What the world needs more of is people understanding that not ALL information should be released to EVERYBODY "just because" the information exists.

    If you agree with Assange's tactics, then anything that is "true" should be public knowledge. Please immediately post here the account numbers to all of your OWN banking accounts, ALL of your passwords you use to access them, and ALL personal information of your OWN that anybody else might be able to use to do "bad things" to you. Trust me! NOBODY who has access to reading this forum would EVER think of using it in a derogatory or harmful way against you.

    Just because information exists DOESN'T mean everybody should have access to it. If you have never had a Security Clearance (military, government, etc), there are THREE requirements that you must meet before you can "see" the information:

    1. Proper identification (to prove who you are)

    2. The proper level of clearance (commensurate to the level of information you will "see")

    3. The NEED TO KNOW the information (just because the information exists doesn't mean you NEED to see it)

    I am all for seeking the "truth". But not all "truth" information SHOULD be made available to everybody just because the information exists.

    I'm waiting to see your bank account numbers and passwords lists posted here. Where are they? Maybe I need to contact Assange so he can post them for you?
    • Oct 5 2012: Rick posting my back account numbers on a ted forum is nowhere near analogous to posting information about government corruption. Who decides who needs to know what information? All you need is a minor understanding of history to see how dangerous of a sentiment that is.
    • thumb
      Oct 5 2012: I don't believe Julian Assange has posted anyones credit card numbers, seeing as thats the type of argument you're making (false equivalency).

      Certain pieces of information have come out, not necessarily about specific people, but often examples of how something that consitutes as a crime has been swept under the rug by those involved and would have remained the case had they not been leaked.

      It seems its perfectly fine for illegal wiretapping, viewing peoples emails and passing unconstitutional laws..along as it doesn't apply to the ones passing the laws.
      At present, I have yet to hear a single example of someone being killed, attacked, bombed or arrested because of a wikileaks document being exposed (besides the ones leaking it), but I have seen alot of panic from people who's skeletons are coming out of the closet and would most likely wish to have Julian placed on Death row before we find out more..
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2012: @Brian and Xavier

        Who gets to decide if there was corruption? Assange? You? Me?

        We have a legal system that does that. No citizen is allowed to take the law into their own hands. If you want to "force" your government to make everything public, do it the way you are allowed to do it under the laws that exist for YOU. Start a petition. Get enough of your fellow citizens to sign it so it must be placed on a ballot. Then get enough of your fellow citizens to vote for it.

        Assange broke the law..several of them. He is just as much a criminal as the people you accuse of commiting corruption. He, nor anybody else, should be exempt from laws. If you want to change the legal system, do it LEGALLY. You do not have the right to make up your own "rules" and execute them just because you don't like the current rules.

        And it is totally analogous to compare your bank account numbers to nation-state's "secrets". They are both "private information". So what if Assange isn't the one to post your bank account numbers? What if I did it? Is he still right, but I'm wrong? It is not a decision that should be made based on personal opinions, emotions, or any perceived "level of severity" of the crime. It is a decision based on rationality. If the information is private, and there is a law against publicizing it...especially if the acquisition of the information was conducted in an illegal manner (like hacking into the bank's or government's computers)...the law was broken and the person who did it is a criminal. The level of PUNISHMENT may be different depending on the information released, and I'm OK with that. Our legal system allows for that. But that doesn't mean the criminal is any "less guilty".

        He stole the information...Crime #1. Then he published it in violation of the law...Crime #2. Now he's bragging about it, like he's some sort of "Guardian of the People". Sorry...he's still a criminal.
        • Oct 6 2012: i get where your coming at, however your argument that broke the law is not viable as he didn't actually break ant law, it was even proven the Australian government looked into this and actually said he didn't break any laws
          1. He did not steal the information he was given the information by a military personal who voluntarily gave it to wikileaks and is now in jail
          2. He didn't actually break any laws, the only thing the US has on him is that he had sex with some women who agreed but then said i want you to wear a condom, then the smear campaign started that he was a rapist.

          therefore he is technically not a criminal
        • Oct 6 2012: The people get to decide what corruption is in a functioning democracy, which we obviously do not have. My question is how can you decide if corruption has been committed if it has been swept under the rug by bureaucrats who are accountable to nobody?

          Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law is he just as much a criminal as the purporters of the Jim Crow laws?


          This country has an unbelievably poor record when it comes to lying and manipulating its citizens do I need to list some? Iran Contra, project MKULTRA, COINTELPRO,The Gulf of Tonkin incident, East Timor, need i say more. People like Assange are absolutely essential to an evolving society, the last thing we need is more obedience and mindless submission to the law. Do you really think the United States citizens would have ever seen the tape that Bradley Manning released unless the law was broken?

          Im not sure what your argument is supposed to mean, Assange is still a criminal? So what, thats a term used to describe just about any and all of the individuals involved in the civil rights movement, or basically any movement that challenges the status quo.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2012: @Brian (your quote): "The people get to decide what corruption is in a functioning democracy..."

        Popular misconception of most of the people. The law determines what corruption is, and when. The people elect Legislatures to make those laws. Once they are made, the LEGAL way to remove those laws is NOt to just disobey them.

        There is no law against a Theist standing on a street corner and passing out literature about their religion. But what if I...one of "the people"...disagree with it and think that person is corrupting Mankind? Can I kill him? Don't think so.

        @ Barry: Doesn't matter who gave Assange the information. Once he was in possesion of it, he had a choice. He KNEW he was in possesion of classified information that wasn't intended for public dissemination. He released it anyhow. He wasn't found guilty because the U.S. didn't have jurisdiction over him. The military member went to jail for breaking the law by releasing the information to Assange. Are you saying the military member was not guilty too?

        What if the military member was the one who posted it all on the Internet?

        Hmmm...seems then all we have to do is let anyone who wants to get any information they want to, then use it any way they want to, but stay outside the jurisdiction of the country's laws that own the information.

        No...wait. That's how Internet Identity Theft occurs today in most cases. Well, I guess there's nothing wrong with that then, too.
        • Oct 6 2012: This is just patronizing Rick, obviously the legislature forms the laws, indirectly the people form them.

          "There is no law against a Theist standing on a street corner and passing out literature about their religion. But what if I...one of "the people"...disagree with it and think that person is corrupting Mankind? Can I kill him? Don't think so."
          Another ridiculous analogy, we are talking about Bradley Manning releasing documents of the savage murder of a family, which is then callously laughed about by our soldiers. If you saw the theist murder someone and you did not break the law to stop this it would be morally reprehensible. Just like it would be morally reprehensible to lie to the citizens of the United States and not highlight this kind of tragedy.
          Again ill ask you Should Martin Luther King Jr. not have broken Jim Crow Laws and protested.. according to your logic he should have tried to pass some new laws. Well I think we both know the powers that be would never allow that to happen. In fact most of the time when change was needed laws absolutely had to be broken. According to your logic then we wouldn't have labor rights, woman wouldn't be allowed to vote, your essentially endorsing pacifism in the face of systematic corruption and discrimination.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.