[dalke]

> wouldn't you just move the files and change the password?

Quoting from http://unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-passwo... - "speculation says that since it was on the WikiLeaks server temporarily, and WikiLeaks was aggressively mirroring their site to avoid being taken down, it was copied within the few hours that it was available online, and spread from there." Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_diplomatic_cables... - "This included WikiLeaks volunteers placing an encrypted file containing all WikiLeaks data online as "insurance" in July 2010, in case something happened to the organization." In either case, the encrypted file could not be moved from everyone's computers.

Several people knew the password. One was a journalist. The journalist published the password.

> He has his own political agenda, and is given a huge volume of classified information by a third party, and he then decides what of these classified information gets published and what doesn't. What makes him the deciding factor in all of this? If you think you're doing good publishing information that others think is classified, than publish the information. Don't pick through it, see what you think will make headlines or embarrass people you don't like, and publish only that which you feel is fit to press.

Don't we all have our own political agendas? Assange is at least somewhat direct about expressing them.

But ... have you not read any of the history of Wikileaks? Assange invited the US to "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed" and "reached an agreement with media partners in Europe and the United States to publish the rest of the cables in redacted form, removing the names of sources and others in vulnerable positions." (Quotes from that Wikipedia leak.)

Your proposal might kill people.

Slow leaks also keep the pressure up. If your agenda, for example, is to point out the contradictions in the government's statements and actions, then a partial release may elicit an official response, then a later release of more information can be used to show that that response was a lie, or to highlight how certain words were carefully chosen based on differences between an internal meaning of certain words and the general public meaning of those same words.

[pedalpete]

I wasn't proposing that the leaks be published without names being redacted, so with your comment regarding having names and such redacted to protect people.

I'm not sure I agree regarding slow leaks to keep pressure up. If that was the purpose, do you think that has been effective?

I don't think we all have 'political agendas', I would hope that most of us have humanitarian agendas which manifest themselves through political influence. There are definitely those with political agendas, but I don't think it's the majority.

[dalke]

I took "Don't pick through it, see what you think will make headlines or embarrass people you don't like, and publish only that which you feel is fit to press." to mean that everything should be printed. Otherwise he needs to decide what he feels is fit to press, and what is fit to be redacted.

Now you are saying that he should redact certain items. What judgement should he use for that? Since it seemed like you were questioning his ability to make that judgement.

I think Greenwald's slow release of the files from Snowden has done a superb job of making the US wary about what it can do and say, which I think was part of Greenwald's agenda. Compare that to the Wikileaks cable release which, once it went public, had a burst of fingerprint pointing and then became yesterday's news.

I don't understand your statement. The Newsweek describes Assange as beliving "the liberating power of the Internet is based on its freedom and statelessness". How is liberation not part of a humanitarian goal? Based on what he's said, his political agenda is meant to pursue his humanitarian agenda.

So even if I'm wrong, and there are people who have no political agenda, why do you say that Assange has a "political agenda", when it's apparently actually his humanitarian agenda that you see?

[pedalpete]

Specifically that the redacted parts were to ensure the safety of the people involved was what I meant by the pieces that should be redacted. Hiding names and details which may harm people is responsible, but not publishing whole pieces of content, I think, makes WikiLeaks the 'editor' of information rather than 'liberator'.

I don't think I said that political agenda's can't be lead by humanitarian agendas, if I did, that isn't what I meant, but not every humanitarian agenda is also a political agenda.

I do believe that Assange has a humanitarian agenda, but that doesn't mean he doesn't also have a political agenda, and those two may be different things.

[dalke]

Quoting from https://wikileaks.org/About.html :

"WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public."

That makes them an "'editor' of information". If you send them video from the surveillance cameras of your local Kwik-E-Mart, showing how the cats gather around the trash bin, then I see little need for them to publish that information. While a 'liberator' of information would do so as a matter of principle.

You appear to know little about the history of Wikileaks or about the leaked cables. Why do you think you know enough about Assange's political agenda, as distinct from his humanitarian agenda, to be confident about your statement?

I of course agree with you, but that's because I think everyone has a political agenda. You don't, so you must have other, specific reasons, which you haven't explained.