Go read this

[solarbird]

Go read this:

https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-“to-destroy-this-invisible-government”/#

Key excerpt:

For Assange... a conspiracy is something fairly banal, simply any network of associates who act in concert by hiding their concerted association from outsiders, an authority that proceeds by preventing its activities from being visible enough to provoke counter-reaction. ...most of the media commentary on the latest round of leaks has totally missed the point. After all, why are diplomatic cables being leaked? ... most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps... But Assange is not trying to produce a journalistic scandal which will then provoke red-faced government reforms or something, precisely because no one is all that scandalized by such things any more. Instead, he is trying to strangle the links that make the conspiracy possible, to expose the necessary porousness of the American state’s conspiratorial network in hopes that the security state will then try to shrink its computational network in response, thereby making itself dumber and slower and smaller.

Emphases added.

Comments

[stolen-tea.livejournal.com]

Oh. Now it all makes sense. That's *awesome*.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

I still think my favorite take on it was a rip-off that involved leaking the cables between Santa and the elves who were making up the naughty-and-nice list.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I've read this, and I'm not sure where I come down on this. On the one hand, I'm an advocate of openness, and I'd like any acts of government that constitute a conspiracy to be thwarted. But I'm not convinced that government per se is a conspiracy, and fear that a strategy designed to bog down the security state will necessarily also bog down the essential and positive functions of governments just as much. It's also ironic that it's the very lack of secrecy in American diplomatic practices (using a computer network that 2 million people have approved access to and millions more can get at with minimal difficulty for the essential communications of diplomacy) that makes this document dump possible. The worst authoritarian conspiracies of government (say, much of what Iran does) are not subject to this strategy. That might limit their power to act but it also means in the scope over which they can act they are not vulnerable to this. And with all the abuses of our own government, I think it's possible and even likely that a world with a weakened American state and (say) a still-secure North Korean state is not an improvement. Assange seems to believe that as the preeminent power, America should be weakened to strike a blow against global authoritarianism. Maybe. But I'm not convinced.

I am enjoying the individual revelations that are coming out, even though that's not the point of the exercise. I'm enjoying the freak-out by the powers that be even more. But the larger picture bothers me, because I'm not sure it gets us to a better place.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree w/your take. The past Wiki dumps were more, shall we say, productive, in their tendency (and I assumed actual motive) to expose actual wrongdoing. This most recent seems *mostly* (from what I've read thus far) merely an attempt to embarass people by exposing things that (mostly) shouldn't surprise anyone but will gum up the works for actual diplomacy, good diplomacy as well as ill (ex: *of course* the US has certain valuations of every world leader and of course some of the things said in internal memos are going to be not entirely complimentary; I fail to see how "exposing" this does any good to anyone).

I think Arther Silber makes one of the better pro-this-particular-info-dump cases here: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-hate-authority-well-except-for-my.html

but I'm also inclined to think his take on these things is wrong. Maybe we should dump all spying, maybe we shouldn't, but certain basic diplomatic intelligence gathering seems to me a normal and healthy and useful thing, as does the ability to communicate about said intelligence. (tho, again, he does make a compelling case for his point of view, I'm linking to it particularly because I think it makes a coherent and sensible sounding argument, albeit it's kinda long, so if limited time to read, be warned)

I'm closer to the view expressed by anglachel here (again, linking because I particularly liked the way she phrased it, and I'm not an anglachel groupie; she's one of those bloggers I normally find interesting but not quite in sync w/my view on things; here, I'm mostly right there):

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2010/11/suspect-intelligence.html#more

I'm referring more to her take on diplomacy and intelligence in general than the specific likely fall-out here, which I'm hoping will be less bad and more subtle than she predicts.

Done yesterday (20101201 We)

[pingback-bot.livejournal.com]

User mdlbear referenced to your post from Done yesterday (20101201 We) (http://mdlbear.livejournal.com/1290271.html) saying: [...] via solarbird [...]

Arguably but not entirely off-topic

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Assuming one doesn't think the US government is an entirely hopeless mess that is unfixable this side of complete collapse and can only be reigned in to minimize its awfulness, there is the issue of "who best to lead us out of the frightening mess we are currently in?"

My SO thought Maria Cantwell might be good, but then did and found she was in the DLC. She does otherwise seem a cut above the vast majority of Democrats, however, w/a very non-DLC voting record according to On the Issues. She's in your state, so you probably know a lot more about her viability as/inclinations toward a presidential candidate, and more importantly, how she'd likely govern.

If you ever have the time/inclination, thoughts?