With WikiLeaks dumping all sorts of confidential government documents on the Internet indiscriminately, and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on record as saying that he doesn’t care if innocent people, such as Afghan informers and collaborators, are killed because of his leaks, as long as he can achieve his ultimate – left-wing – goal of destroying the United States of America, one has to wonder whether the public has a right to know everything there is possible to know. Or, more precisely, whether people should know everything.
Forget for a moment about Osama bin Laden’s ideological twin brother from Australia. Also ignore the fact that WikiLeaks is nothing more than a fence who peddles stolen property (a criminal offence in itself). Focus instead on the types of leaks we have read about in the past few weeks. How much of that did you really need to know? How much of that was in any way helpful to you and/or the international community?
If you think that all of that material had to be made available to the public at large, then you probably also believe it’s your right to know the medical record of your neighbours and how much money they make exactly. In which case, you are certifiable, with all due respect, and you seriously need to get a life (after seeking professional help).
You really don’t need to know your neighbour’s medical history or his salary. As a matter of fact, your right to know this information is less than zero, if that were possible. The same is true of a lot of business conducted by companies or governments. It’s become kind of a fad to talk about accountability and transparency in government, but it would be insane to release all information to the public.
Quite often it is necessary to protect information as well as the persons involved. This is why much of what government does is shielded from public view for 25 years or longer. The reasoning behind this is that government officials and leaders may be restricted in what they can do if some of their actions or decisions were to become public knowledge almost instantly.
Imagine if WikiLeaks had been around during the Cold War. None of us would probably be here today to ponder that possibility, because the US and USSR would have annihilated our planet in a nuclear holocaust decades ago. As trivial as it may sound, but when marriage counsellors sometimes advise their clients not to tell their spouses about an affair they had, because it would unnecessarily hurt them and may ruin any chance of saving the marriage, they do so for a very good reason. (Continues on next page)
Individuals have the right to privacy. Democratic government do not, because to vote we need to make judgments based on government's actions, so we have to know what they are. You shouldn't equate the two.
Too bad, then, for you and your viewpoint that Assange has potentially exposed so many individuals to real harm or danger. Government is not an abstract concept but made up of real people (individuals, as per your definition), who put their lives and those of their families on hold to achieve important things for all.
"Assange has potentially exposed so many individuals to real harm or danger"
People keep saying that, but never point to a specific instance where that happened, because Wikileaks has been removing name of people who could be in danger.
Wrong! Assange himself called those innocent lives lost “collateral damage”. Not WikiLeaks, but the various mainstream news sources have been cleaning up those files to protect innocent people.And publishing social security numbers of soldiers, for example, as Assange has done, is a criminal offence and also opens the door to identity theft crimes, which he has thus facilitated. Assange is a criminal, and severely mentally deranged. Someone like him should be a closed facility for the rest of his live, because he is not normal. Anyone who supports him is not normal either, by the way.
Do you have evidence that they published social security numbers? I did a Google search for that, but the only thing I found are people giving examples of they think goes to far.
Reliable newspapers have reported this – yesterday or the day before, in fact. They have no reason to make this up. Unlike Assange, they are not liars and psychopaths.
Of course, we have the right to know everything. We can start with the names and addresses of the anonymous clowns of "Operation Payback."
Pingback: Steynian 432nth « Free Canuckistan!