Secrecy News had concerned about the largely automated posting of classified documents. While they feel that way too much information is classified, some of it is classified for legitimate national security concerns.

Speaking for myself, I have the same worry. It would be nice if they had an editing team that could try to decide what had likely been classified so that the government wouldn't be embarrassed (i.e. Taguba Report) vs something that could enable bad actors to do serious harm (i.e. publishing a set of nuclear weapons access codes for a nuclear power).

I firmly believe that the government should operate at about five percent of the current level of secrecy it had in 2000, but even I think there a few legitimate government secrets, as long as they are of limited duration.

------------------------------------
"And besides all that, what we need is a decentralized, distributed system of depositing electronic files to local libraries willing to host them." -- Daniel Cornwall, tipping his hat to Cato the Elder for the original quote.

Daniel:

Thank you for the thoughful analysis of Wikileaks. I absolutely believe in keeping documents classified for legitimate National Security reasons. It is unfortunate that so much information is unnecessarily classified. Wikileaks is still in its infancy, and it will be interesting to see how it develops.

The site is already unaccessible from China.

Psiphon, which was/is an attempt at reaching virtual private server network to act as sort of proxies... also is unaccessible from China.

Contact points seem to be blocked almost as quickly as they are created...

thought one
presumably the documents themselves won't be editable otherwise the first wiki vandal who comes by can censor them; how you stop comments and analysis on a wiki being censored is another matter - or will it be non-editable too?

thought two
sources? authenticity? I could put together a dossier on Company X and Government Y and dodgy deal Z - will wikileaks have any process to check that it's legitimate other than audience scrutiny? How would the faked Hitler Diaries have stood up? This is an issue not just of pranks but propaganda and misinformation - I worry that partisans of one regime may try posting fake information detrimental to another...

For the greater good there is always a price. While some documents may be posted that contain information a government may consider," Top Secret " it is not the job of Wikileaks or any other site to censor postings. If information is "Top Secret " it is the governments job to keep it "Top Secret". As for sending a posting and secrecy of donor, common sense is called for. Never send information from your personal or work computers. No one,, no one can assure anonymity. So be it. the Bunkerman

Automation should not be applied to tasks that morally require human judgment and human accountability. The name of the person or authority who asserts the need for secrecy should always be publicly available to allow challenges. Clearly, to automate that which should never be automated is an attempt to preserve anonymity where it is inappropriate. Government officials who attempt to hide their actions behind a computer shield are guilty of a crime against humanity., the crime of irresponsibility.

I like to think that the government still has the ability to keep whatever they want to secret, through whatever means they have to use. A totally open and instant media such as the internet is really the only way to provide a forum in which to bring government and large corporations actions to the light of day. Television, newspapers, and radio are all censored to the point they are no real help to anyone. What people have to understand is that the information is really only half the answer. Once I know something I must choose to act on it or not. Just as an example, nuclear weapons codes, you could tell me the launch codes, what safe guards are in place, and how to direct it at a target of my choosing but I still couldn't launch it if I wanted to because I don't access to it. The down side to an uncensored forum has always been the fact you can libel someone or something without having to prove your case. That is where the intellegence of the public comes into play or not in some cases.

Quote: "Once I know something I must choose to act on it or not. Just as an example, nuclear weapons codes, you could tell me the launch codes, what safe guards are in place, and how to direct it at a target of my choosing but I still couldn't launch it if I wanted to because I don't access to it."

Information is as much a weapon as a gun or an ICBM. You might not have access to those nuclear weapons, but do you trust every 18-year-old "BB-stacker" (ordinance troop) with that code? What happens when this kid's high-school sweetheart dumps him and he loses his mind - with access to nuclear ordinance AND launch codes for the same?

Or, what about an insider in these oppressive governments, reporting to friendly intelligence services. What happens when a report by this friendly service is released and the insider is exposed?

Embarassing documents should be released to the public to effect policy change. These documents shouldn't be classified in the first place, and improperly classifying them is in itself harmful. How can we fix these embarassments if we can't know about them?

Properly classified information should NOT be released. We must err on the side of caution: improperly releasing classified information can literally cost people their lives.

Yesterday I live-blogged the talk given by Daniel Ellsberg at the Stanford Law School. While he didn't specifically mention wikileaks, he talked at great length about the absolute need for government employees to inform on their employers and to be willing even to go to jail for the rest of their lives in order that our government not abuse its power. He said one of his deepest regrets was that he didn't leak the pentagon papers earlier so as to save hundreds of thousands of lives. Ellsberg is a man of high moral conviction and should be seen as an American hero. He's certainly that in my eyes!

That's the problem with security - who decides what is and is not a matter thereof? Yes, Lewinsky polishing Clinton's knob is no matter of security and names and identities of CIA agents are. But, unfortunately, it is not always so clear - cut.

Knowledge is a weapon, true, but like any weapon, it can be used against us. Of course, government accountability is the paramount issue of the day, but looking at some of the recently leaked "classified" documents, the relevance to government transparency or transparency of any organization is nonexistent. Citizens of America have no need for knowing the nature of our equipment in Iraq beyond a certain extent of the number of people and a general understanding of the magnitude of the conflict. This knowledge can be used as a weapon against government corruption. However, it is irresponsible to report on the exact nature of our deployments. This knowledge is an even more powerful weapon, and its only target is our soldier's lives.

Don't take this as a political standpoint. All I am saying is that knowledge is necessary, but not when it puts people's lives at risk.