Hello,
I am impressed why so many people agree with Wikileaks. Well, I don't clearly agree with them.

First thing is, that there are things that are supposed to stay hidden, like why should army documents be public? Is there a reason for it to be public?

I am not talking about "hiding what really happened", I think people have right to know what really happened somewhere or informations like this.

Another thing is, that government (or some other organisations, etc.) are trying to shut them down. I beleive, that there should be freedom of speech on the internet, so it's not right to shutdown web pages just because their presence does not suit some other organisation/entity. But - do they have any other option? I mean, it's officially not correct, and there (probably) is no law to make it cirminal, but where is morality, and security of ambassadors. People should know what are they doing at all, and stuff like that, but nothing like secret communication.

Also, the accusations that leader of Wikileaks has been blamed for - I actually disagree they doing it, but again, have they any other option? (But this way seems to be kinda wrong, it reminds me of times of whole constructed judgement processes)

It's little bit complicated to explain what I mean (or think), and also I don't speak English nationally, so it's little harder (hope my sentences make sense at all), but I don't got why everybody stand for them.

Oh yes, and also, of course those informations seems interesting to us, but there is a thing about security, and each and every state has some program in case of war (or attacks).

Note: is there something I am missing on this? Please post what do you think. I guess there will be many disagrees, I would change my mind if I hear reason. Thanks.

edit: found another info, so I include things like "why government did it, why they let some criminal go etc." into things that should be known.

I don't really side fore or against the wikileaks site. But I find the releases incredibly interesting all the same. I think most of the stuff that has been leaked (not that I've read it all) is not necessarily sensitive to current operations (i.e. no detailed plans for bombing such and such, etc). I think the problem is that many politicians, ambassadors, and foreign heads of state will take a public relations hit based on things in the cables and will be less candid in foreign relations in case something gets leaked. For example, Middle Eastern nations may not talk as frankly with US envoys about their fears of Iran in case it gets leaked and Iran decides to attack them.

I do NOT agree with the actions taken by WIKILEAKS! I do think, on the other hand, that if (as it appears) those actions were not themselves in violation of any law: that the actions of the government and corporate entities in reaction to those actions were themselves criminal and unjustifiable. What WK did was what any radical news organization might have done in print, online, or broadcast if presented with insider information they deemed valid and newsworthy.

The legal action that can, should, and is being taken shoudl be against the person who had access to the information as a matter of trust and BROKE that trust by leaking the information to WIKILEAKS! He needs to pay for that crime.

Those cyber criminals (NOT HACKERS! I am a hacker, but I do NOT break the law! ) that have attacked anyone online that they perceive as being 'anti-wikileaks' have performed criminal acts and should be brought before the courts and made to pay for their crimes.

I was initially supportive of Wikileaks on freedom-of-speech grounds. What they did may have been unwise, but was not illegal or beyond their rights. I still feel that an important standard, but I cannot support anyone who engages in online DOS attacks against ANYONE!

NOTE: I consider that WK and its illegal supporters as NOT being the same people: that may or may not be true, we have insufficient evidence to be sure.

NOTE: I also do not support rape, which is the only crime for which the founder for WK has actually been arrested! That should be considered a totally separate issue.

Do not not think WikiLeaks is responsible for this action.
I find this highly unlikely also.
Is there any reason for it not to be public?

Yeah, it's like revealing your email communication log. There is no reason for it not to be public, but I guess you would not like it.

And I made the point that we do not know that anyone from WK is involved in those crimes in the NOTE that followed.

Find what unlikely? Unlikely that I do not support rape, unlikely that the founder has been arrested, unlikely that the arrest was for rape, or that it should be considered a separate issue?

Even if there is reason, it no longer mattered once it went public. The information was burned when it was carried beyond control of the parties who wanted to control it. At that point it might really be better that it be publicly distributed: that is better than it be only in the hands of an enemy without your KNOWING who it had been burned to or even that there was a leak!

While I doubt seriously that anyone is going to say "thank you", WK did them a great favor! By making such a splash with the leaks it forced discovery and closure of the leak, possibly preventing far more damaging losses later.

Had it been AP or BBC that broke the stories they would have done so in a far more responsible manner, but the end result would have been only a little different: we would be focused on the leak and what was leaked, and almost not noticing who published it. The parties involved should be focused on "damage control", rather than on attacking non-criminal entities in retaliation! The actions of the governments and corporations involved make them look petty, fearful, vindictive, and significantly less than intelligent!

How disappointing!

(Ok, also "how entertaining"! I love my country, but some of the government would serve better by simply creating great theatre! Oops, I guess they just DID!)

I agree. It's sad to see the US and most european countries governments suddenly forgetting some of their values and acting at the same level as China's government by using the same old dirty tricks: intimidation, propaganda, and so on...

I agree with them. And I especially agree with what they're doing now that I've seen the length the US government is going to trying to suppress the information. Transparency keeps politicians honest.

I'm glad someone brought this up. I have followed Wikileaks for some time now. Initially, I agreed with them and what they were doing. Wrong-doing needs to be exposed, to be stopped. Governments should be held accountable to their people. People need to know the real truth about what is occurring around them in the world.

But then Wikileaks seemed to change. Their site, at one time I visited it, was basically shut down. I forget the exact wording used, but the point was basically 'donated a bunch of money else no more documents'. The website was up, but all the links to files were removed, with only the 'donate' message remaining. This I though somewhat odd, as Wikileaks is only really a download point for files, sent in by the public in the first place. The public was being held back from files they themselves sent in to begin with? Why, when even now, I could post gigabytes of files to the 'Net for free (Tor, p2p, file share sites, etc.) safely and anonymously, so why do they need hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the same? Was it really needed? Also, if Wikileaks was really a collective effort, why was Mr. Assange's face the only one to appear?

To be a whistle-blower, there needs to be something to blow the whistle about. Sadly, the recent Wikileaks disclosures (after the Iraq 'Collateral Murder' ones) do not meet this criteria. They may be 'secret' or 'classified', but they don't, by and large, expose a wrong-doing that needs correcting. So politicians have opinions of each other and world leaders are not sometimes so nice in them. Is this wrong-doing to have an opinion? No, it's not. Nor is it that some soldier watched people cross the street and buy bread in Afghanistan. Classified government knowledge, possibly, but certainly not wrong-doing. And that's the bulk of what constitutes the latest Wikileaks offering: classified, but not wrong-doing. Yet Mr. Assange still continues to blow the whistle.

The US government isn't being helped. I'm sure they would like the cables to remain secret. Nor is the Afghanistan gov, the Chinese, the Russian or any other government. Are the peoples of these places (and any other) being helped? Is your life better now you know a soldier saw people walking around on his post, or that one world leader thinks two others are acting like Batman and Robin? Surely not. So, who then, does this "Cablegate" benefit? Who? The answer is only Mr. Assange himself, the jet-setting playboy who appears in a different country every time he's photographed (air-fare isn't cheap...perhaps this is the reason he needed hundreds of thousands of dollars?). The man who's sexual antics appear on papers around the world now, who's on every Internet news site, who's reveling in glow of every second of his 15 minutes of fame (thought it appears now that he's gotten more attention than even he wanted). In his quest to grab up secrety-bits and toss them up in the air, he's lost his sense of purpose of what this whole thing is supposed to be about: exposing wrong-doing. You see, just because something is classified or secret, does not necessarily mean that people, or at least the right people, will benefit from its disclosure. Contrary, alot of innocent people actually stand to be hurt by some of what was released. To think the Internet entity known as 'Anonymous' supports Julian's freedom while DDoS'ing the likes of Paypal and MasterCard for exercising theirs is hypocritical at best, criminal at worst. A peace-prize? Seriously? How can people support someone who doesn't seem to care at what price, especially to others, that his fame comes? Cui bono, Mr. Assange?

Well already there have been some defections from wikileaks, and tomorrow you will see the opening of a site called openleaks.org.

As for Anonymous carrying out DDoS attacks, they have already changed tactics to the whole 'operation leakspin', http://operationleakspin.org/.

While perhaps most if not all the cables being released are nothing ground breaking, I will admit that I still find it an interesting peek into how things work.

I however don't buy the 'someone can get hurt bit', I heard a lot of that when some of the Afghan and Iraq files were released, nobody died because of it.

Yes, I wonder what openleaks is going to look like. But anyway, Jeebizz: sure it's interesting, even more if there are documents about your country, but although nobody died, it's risky (kinda), and also, stance of ambassadors is their private thing, isn't it?

Please don't mind this, I actually like that I can read all of those materials, and I am not clearly against Wikileaks. I agree with them in something, but in something not.

I still think that there could be a possibility of something 'juicy' sooner or later anyways, after all considering the number of diplomatic cables released verses how many there are total, you never know there could be something noteworthy there. Then again maybe not, but as of right now only 1,344 out of 251,287 have been released.

Plus not all of it is strictly about or from US diplomats; since some cables released also place the Vatican in the spotlight too, though yes it is already known about the Vatican how they drag their feet about the whole pedo-priests, but now perhaps even more so.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/9122...hy-commiss.htm

Ok, so not entirely that newsworthy, but like I said this is a mere percentage of what has been released.

I just stumbled upon an interesting documentary about wikileaks, and I encourage everyone to watch. Link

Although the site points to a Swedish domain, luckily anyone can watch regardless of their location. Quite a fascinating look, and also reveals the rifts between Julian Assange and others (hinting on openleaks).

-edit

The documentary is in English btw.

Thanks for the link, Jeebizz.