Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London

first previous 11 12 13 14 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

quicksilver

Mon Dec 20 2010, 08:44PM

Registered Member #1408 Joined: Fri Mar 21 2008, 03:49PM
Location: Oracle, AZ
Posts: 679

There is a subtle similarity of information to a hardware store. As one would walk around a hardware store and see all the hammers and axes and so forth; if one's mind is of that nature; all one sees are weapons. As one would walk around a university library one could of course imagine that areas of chemistry, physics, biology could all be used nefariously.
Extrapolate that to personal information used in marketing or the inventions in a patent office and one sees the same similarity.

It's never the tool per se' - but the goal of the user. Certain tools make it easier for one to use them in a destructive fashion (acids, sledge hammers, flammable solvents) as does personal information (reading & entertainment proclivities; medical records, etc) - the list would never end. Yet in and of themselves they are simply "things": information or objects.

Motivational aspects as well as character issues lean the individual toward constructive or destructive ends. But the means can be found in any place man exists.

My belief is that just is it may be the right for the public to know certain aspects of the world around them; individuals have the right to a degree of privacy. Finding that middle ground is what intelligent dialog is all about when a goal is reached. The very first aspect of any interpersonal or societal goal is what is in the best interests of the population?

GluD

Mon Dec 20 2010, 09:19PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

"However, if Chris and I had not challenged you on this point, you would still be under the impression that this information IS confidential."

You are abseloutly right, I just wish you would have said it instead of asking trick questions. I dont mind a challenge, I wouldnt be in this thread for this long if i did. Aperantly I misunderstood something. I dont follow the US news channels so its the danish ones who are to blame aperantly. I figure it would make perfect sense though if such things were kept secret, and why leak stuff thats already out? I dont get it.

What annoyed me most is, that it would appear to me as though you were well aware that the infomation was not confidetial, yet you ask a question indicating it is confidential. Thus I answered the question assuming that it was correct the infomation was confidential, in which case I think it would be very irresponsibel to publish it.
And only then did you reveal the true nature of things, it is aperantly not confidential at all. However I still think it would be irresponsibel IF it had been secret infomations, because they would be of use to terrorists. No I dont want to censor "any and all infomation usefull to terrorists" I just think its irresponsibel publish new infomations (luckily thats aperantly not what happened here..?). Surely none of us here have any interest in the terrorists gaining new infomation about our countries weaknesses? Thats what I meant by saying I'd be suprised if someone thought otherwise.

Maybe I got your trickery question wrong but I still dont understand why you could think I should want to see 4hv closed, any such actions would make me very upset, so I find your statement totally absurb.

edit; just noticed Quicksilvers posting

"My belief is that just is it may be the right for the public to know certain aspects of the world around them"

I agree that it is our rights to know certain (but not all) aspects of the world around us. If you guys spoke danish I'd post a link to a danish chemistry forum where I have made endless complaints about how stupid I think it is that Sulfur (and other chemicals) are illegal in Denmark (as of september 2009 i think). The reason I brought that up is simply to attempt to make it clear that it is because I think the infomation is of no value to the public and of great value to a determined terrorist, that I think it shouldnt have been published. Of course now it turns out it wasnt new infomation so it doesnt matter now.
Im just trying to clear up a few misunderstandings...

Mattski

Mon Dec 20 2010, 09:55PM

Registered Member #1792 Joined: Fri Oct 31 2008, 08:12PM
Location: University of California
Posts: 527

wrote ...
I was making the point that the information regarding undersea cable terminals was not, and never has been, confidential.

(Nor is the location of BAe defence sites)

The most serious allegations against Wikileaks seem to be regarding publication of details of these, and other, sites which is not, and never has been, confidential.

My opinion on posting the list of civilian high-value targets is that while it's true that most/all of that information is not confidential, the list itself is confidential since it represents a comprehensive (in a certain scope) list of how the party compiling the list can easily be hurt. That's why the list was probably classified while few/none of the items in the list itself are classified. A terrorist or enemy state could easily compile such a list, and doubtless some of them have, but that requires time, effort, and skill and they can always miss things.

As a comparison, it's like checking the answer in the solutions manual for your homework assignment. Sure you could have done it yourself from scratch, but you saved a lot of time, and it's a lot easier to check that an answer is correct than to come up with it yourself.

GluD

Mon Dec 20 2010, 10:11PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

"Sure you could have done it yourself from scratch, but you saved a lot of time"

Yep, alot of time in which the terrorist might have been spotted by the police/intelligence services/whatever. Now he can just walk right in and blow it up. Its quite possiable other countries intellence services have similar lists, but I doubt the average lunatic would be able to pile up this infomation without rasing attention (if he had to do it himself that is and if it was classified).

Conundrum

Mon Dec 20 2010, 10:23PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4059

One word. Drumhead.
To paraphrase a certain person. "Five hundred years ago, generals used to upend a drum on the battlefield and dispense summary justice. Decisions were swift, punishments severe, appeals denied. We think we have advanced so far, yet sooner or later someone tries to start the whole thing all over again. Vigilance is the price we must all pay."

-A

Ash Small

Tue Dec 21 2010, 03:26AM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

GluD wrote ...

"However, if Chris and I had not challenged you on this point, you would still be under the impression that this information IS confidential."

You are abseloutly right, I just wish you would have said it instead of asking trick questions. I dont mind a challenge, I wouldnt be in this thread for this long if i did. Aperantly I misunderstood something. I dont follow the US news channels so its the danish ones who are to blame aperantly. I figure it would make perfect sense though if such things were kept secret, and why leak stuff thats already out? I dont get it.

GluD, I've already apologised for any unintentional offence caused, I didn't want to be more direct about this for fear of appearing confrontational. I don't follow the US news channels either. I'm in the UK. The point here IS that the stuff is already out there. The accusations of leaking confidential information are a FICTION instigated by the US Government and spread by most of the media.

GluD wrote ...

What annoyed me most is, that it would appear to me as though you were well aware that the infomation was not confidetial, yet you ask a question indicating it is confidential. Thus I answered the question assuming that it was correct the infomation was confidential, in which case I think it would be very irresponsibel to publish it.
And only then did you reveal the true nature of things, it is aperantly not confidential at all. However I still think it would be irresponsibel IF it had been secret infomations, because they would be of use to terrorists. No I dont want to censor "any and all infomation usefull to terrorists" I just think its irresponsibel publish new infomations (luckily thats aperantly not what happened here..?). Surely none of us here have any interest in the terrorists gaining new infomation about our countries weaknesses? Thats what I meant by saying I'd be suprised if someone thought otherwise.

At no point did I sugest that this information was confidential (that certainly wasn't my intention) As I've previously stated, terrorists don't target installations, they target innocent civilians. Personaly, I'd rather see them try to hack up a fibre-optic cable on a beach that blow up a train, plane or skyscraper, but that is just my opinion.

GluD wrote ...

Maybe I got your trickery question wrong but I still dont understand why you could think I should want to see 4hv closed, any such actions would make me very upset, so I find your statement totally absurb.

The question wasn't meant as 'trickery', I was simply making a point that once you start to censor information, where do you stop?

GluD wrote ...

edit; just noticed Quicksilvers posting

"My belief is that just is it may be the right for the public to know certain aspects of the world around them"

I agree that it is our rights to know certain (but not all) aspects of the world around us. If you guys spoke danish I'd post a link to a danish chemistry forum where I have made endless complaints about how stupid I think it is that Sulfur (and other chemicals) are illegal in Denmark (as of september 2009 i think). The reason I brought that up is simply to attempt to make it clear that it is because I think the infomation is of no value to the public and of great value to a determined terrorist, that I think it shouldnt have been published. Of course now it turns out it wasnt new infomation so it doesnt matter now.
Im just trying to clear up a few misunderstandings...

I'm just trying to clear up some misunderstandings as well. (BTW, I had to set up a business (limited company) so I can buy chemicals here, if your laws are similar to ours, the chemical companies only require an order on headed notepaper, and possibly a brief description of why you need it, in order to cover themselves, but don't tell the terrorists that)

Please accept my apology, before I decide to retract it.

Proud Mary

Tue Dec 21 2010, 09:25AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

The corporate media have fastened on this blandly uninformative "List of Terror" for want of evidence of any real risks to life that anti-Wikileaks politicians keep blethering on about.

In the UK at least, some of the self-apppointed jihadis have been educated men - at least two were hospital doctors - so the idea that they would not or could not be able to compile such a list - even if they wanted to - is rather silly.

In Britain, the cry of 'national security' has become the last refuge of the political scoundrel, the last cloak of invisibility behind which to hide all the organized lying, kidnapping, torture, illegal imprisonment and other human rights abuses, agents of influence, crimes in public office, bribery and self-serving financial corruption. Even politicians caught fiddling their expenses have tried to hide behind 'national security.'

GluD

Tue Dec 21 2010, 11:54PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

I didnt mean to seem offensive in my last reply Ash, I was trying to explain why I thought your question was trickery (and thus offended me), but as I said I must've got something wrong... I apologise that.
In case its not clear, Im happy to be told Im wrong when i am, wouldnt learn new things if everybody just ignored me or insult me because they disagree. Im glad you took the time to challenge and explain things.

"The point here IS that the stuff is already out there"
I dont think that has even been considered in the danish media. I thought it was confidential until Chris informed me it was not. I think I said it earlier too but in my opinion it would make perfect sense if it was confidential, so I had no trouble in beliving the media when they said it was secret documents.

About setting up bussinesses I think that may give the tax people(dont know their name "over there") a "right" to search your house (the adress of the company), without notice and require full documentations of what you sold and what you bought, basicly a lot of trouble and paper work..I rather be without the ilegal chemicals and perform the few legal experiments that remains, than spend all my time doing paper work in case they show up. But hopefully its diffrend in the UK and you dont have to go through all that trouble. Its also kinda odd because for example nitric acid is only ilegal here if it is stronger than 30% by volume.(Sulfuric acid is 50%) The problem just is that nobody sells that other than the real chemistry dealers who dont sell to private hobbyists.
So even though its legal, its impossiable to obtain without setting up a bussiness, but that means paper work.

"I was simply making a point that once you start to censor information, where do you stop?"

You/they should stop when its more usefull to the public than to the terrorists. Of course that would require a bunch of competent people to decide what is what, but I think it would be well worth the expenses instead of either having nothing(no chemistry, no lasers, nothing except total censorship like we are aproching now) or having everything (abseloute anarcy which some people aperantly wishes for).

For example, here in denmark its totally absurb to make those chemicals illegal because a terrorist could just drive a ton of TNT or whatever over the border. Thats how the gangs get their weapons and drugs in. Nobody checks the borders regularly, only randomly once in a while. Also I think the Sulfur is more usefull to the public (back when it was legal I think it was used to keep away cats and such, possiably because it would stink if mixed with something else and of course the hobby chemist enjoyed it too for its various other uses), than to the terrorists so it should be legal even though they could use it.
Maybe thats not the best exampel as its an element and the question was about infomation, but then lets consider a recipe for blackpowder or a blueprint for a tesla coil. In some far out case that might be usefull to a terrorist but mostly it would in the case of blackpowder just be kids fooling around, or in the case of tesla coils, both kids fooling around and serious people doing a really amazing job (we got both right here on the forum

) but neither of that infomation is of no particular use to terrorists either as a bomb recipe or as a taser like device, although it _could_ be used. Its value to us, the public, is however significant (in my opinion) so it should be legal. I think the list of targets however are more usefull to terrorists than to the public, so that shouldnt be published in my opinion. (yes they are out allready I see, but I dont understand why they were published in the first place, whoever did that).

"As I've previously stated, terrorists don't target installations, they target innocent civilians."

That is not always correct, see for example:

"I'd rather see them try to hack up a fibre-optic cable on a beach that blow up a train, plane or skyscraper, but that is just my opinion."

You could argue that at first look it might seem as just material damages of a wire is more acceptabel than civilian casualties, but in these days I wouldnt be suprised if someone would die if the internet went down, or electricity just went off. Almost everything is connected somehow. I would also suspect emergency back-ups at hospitals etc to be out-dated and not frequently tested and so on, but thats just speculation (it apears that everything is being "saved" on these days). Without further knowledge I cant say which is worse.

Dont get it wrong please, but to be honest I find it quite funny with those apologise because I feel I should be apologising for not knowing proper english and causing so much confusion. I accepts yours and offer my own

Ash Small

Wed Dec 22 2010, 07:49PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Thanks for your reply GluD. I just wanted to clear up the point that you thought I'd asked a trick question. That was all.

I do have strong opinions regarding censorship, especially when politicians 'twist' the truth regarding 'freedom of information' in order to take our hard fought for rights away.

Personally, I think terrorists will always find a way to carry out their plans regardless of how much censorship of information or restrictions on sales of chemicals are introduced.

The only way to fight it is through information and vigilance, rather than lulling ourselves into a false sense of security by denying normal, law abiding people access to these things.

quicksilver

Thu Dec 23 2010, 06:29PM

Registered Member #1408 Joined: Fri Mar 21 2008, 03:49PM
Location: Oracle, AZ
Posts: 679

I had posted this discussion in another forum but I think it bears repeating here. Depending upon where you live there is available [to the informed]: raw arsenic (it occurs naturally). In other areas, especially where there are volcanoes, as much sulfur as one could possibly pick up. Roasted Cinnabar is the material from which Mercury is obtained, & on it goes.
In many formats, hundreds of common industrial chemicals are used everyday. Making an item "restricted" is focusing upon the object instead of the behavior and that is a foolish thing to do because it does nothing to alleviate the issues at hand; which will always be the behavior of the individual. I deeply believe that one cannot legislate the thinking of the disturbed mind nor can one even provide a framework that will pose a situation of preventive measures that deter those determined to are a threat to society. It's a child's reaction to fear.

Those areas that have a "death penalty" [in their] legal framework do not have a greatly diminished amount of murders because those with such a thinking pattern will not be deterred by their own destruction. One man could have an anti-tank gun in his living-room & live responsibly though out his life while another would use a carpentry tool or common chemicals to harm multitudes. Legislation of behavior via an object is window dressing on a problem much more complex than the availability of the object. This may make it easier for the disturbed or problematic individual from misusing information or objects but it does little to alleviate the core element (no pun intended).

I am NOT saying there should be no legislation addressing the use of automobiles, anti-tank weapons, chemical weapons, etc. But when does the political aim of gathering votes with quick-fix solutions stop and viable alternatives start? As we have seen there becomes a thin line between the aspect of mental disturbance and political radicalism or religious fundamental radicalism.

It could be man's inherent selfishness or narrow-mindedness or stupidity that generates societal problems but it not the object. Since stones and tree branches have been available to man, violence has been enhanced. Since societies existed there has been theft. Whether you cut a man's hand off of collect a fine from him, it's his thinking that must be changed & that doesn't appear to be enhanced by knowing the punishments are sever to a percentage of people.

I do NOT believe that Wikileaks even had information that presented a serious threat! I believe that Wikileaks as a conception was the threat! The idea that freedom of information can continue may have some people's genuine concern due to their perception of the world around them.

A very simple example: If Wiki had some absolute proof that there existed intelligent life aside from human within the Cosmos; there would be (in some people's viewpoint) a serious threat to world stability. This may come from both Religious & Political perceptions & in fact could never be truly controlled by inhibiting the information because it's not the information (the object) that makes for the behavior. Witchcraft never existed (contextually as reacted to) but the fear of witchcraft did. Revision of Religious issues have always existed but the fear of such a thing carries further fear that the actual issues ever will. The classic marketing agenda of politicians has been fear & the solution to that fear has always been control.
All of which are fabrications to a certain degree but if lies have a thread of truth - then the appeal will rise to the occasion due to man's need to simplify a complex world. This is something that cannot happen with sulfur or "A War Against........", or a new toy.
Simple solutions to complex problems are children's way of parenting. The fact that most of use rarely grow out of that way of thinking is self evident in our supportability marketing & advertising in general because it appeals to the child in us.

first previous 11 12 13 14 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob