We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Mastercard
Comments
-
I do miss CarolT
lone.
What about the point, not the grammar.
point is any important infrastructure will have levels of protection anyway. other than that it's not hard to identify a key target for maximum impact if you really want to carry out an attack (assuming you even have the means to do so and don't merely have to resort to maiming and killing a few member of the public on tube trains). twin towers / 9/11 was pre wikileaks. perhaps a wikileak over its vulnerability might even have prevented an attack somehow (public pressure to be more aware of vulnerability of passenger airlines).Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
-
point is any important infrastructure will have levels of protection anyway. other than that it's not hard to identify a key target for maximum impact if you really want to carry out an attack (assuming you even have the means to do so and don't merely have to resort to maiming and killing a few member of the public on tube trains). twin towers / 9/11 was pre wikileaks. perhaps a wikileak over its vulnerability might even have prevented an attack somehow (public pressure to be more aware of vulnerability of passenger airlines).
again, I think you forget how targeting staff has an effect on other members of staff and operations, you don't have to target the whole place to effect how it operates.
It has been used by many militant organisations.0 -
Frankly, I don't know how to get hold of this information because I don't want or need to know.
Does that mean that people who would find it useful all know?
My point is why do wikileaks think the world needs to know, who would it be useful for. If you and I say it is no use to us they must think it is useful to someone?0 -
OK an example,
Jeremy Clarkson and his bank details relating to identity fraud.
There are profesional gangs who will pay for information, yet he released his free of charge to the whole world.
Just because he published them did not mean no one would empty his bank account or it was less likely to happen.
So even though the vast majority never acted on it, it does not mean some will not use the information if you make it available.
You have a lot less chance of something happening if you don't make information public to all.
Stands to reason really.0 -
-
Like I said I support some leaks (like the one against the friendly fire journalists), just not ones ones against sites of national security.:)1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »Yeah....
Next time we don't need to know voting numbers or preferences or MPs expenses.;)
They can make people look like fraudulent fools as much as they like.
It is hard to argue that some of the information leaked recently has got way off track? who needs to know the top 100 sites?
I can only think of a few who the information is useful to, yes it may expose weakness in how the us do things but would you not feel a bit different if you worked at one of those sites?0 -
Does that mean that people who would find it useful all know?
My point is why do wikileaks think the world needs to know, who would it be useful for. If you and I say it is no use to us they must think it is useful to someone?
It would probably be better to look at what wikileaks actually says about what it does http://213.251.145.96/about.html . They say they are a journalistic organisation which wants to inform the public.
Personally, I think they have done some good. They have exposed a lot of corruption, particularly loan deals in Iceland, where they exposed 40 billion euro in loans made by the Kaupthing Bank to shareholders, employees and other members of the elite, many of which were not on commercial terms, and many of which were forgiven immediatly before the Kaupthing Bank collapsed.
They also exposed the fact the US knew it had killed hundreds of thousands more innocent civilians in the war against Iraq than it had addmited.
Their purpose isn't to help terrorists, or the enemies of the US or any other nation state, it is to expose government secrets to the people who own the government. The citizens.
I'm not saying they are right in this particular case, but before I decide, I really would like examples of the documents that the US thought were too dangerous to release.
Given that wiki leaks provided the database, and asked the US what documents it felt endangered lives or national security before releasing these documents, I honestly feel they acted with at least some responsibility.
I don't personally hold to the same ethics as Wikileaks, but if people are going to accuse others of endangering lives, it should be quite easy to list the specific documents which do so. And to explain why the US did not take the opportunity given to them before publication to explain to wikileaks why these documents should not be published.
As I say, I don't think these secrets were guarded adequatly, and I really doubt that the larger enemies of the US couldn't have got hold of them.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
Like I said, I agree with some of the work they have done (my perplexing post) I just find some of the newer stuff unneeded that is all.It would probably be better to look at what wikileaks actually says about what it does http://213.251.145.96/about.html . They say they are a journalistic organisation which wants to inform the public.
Personally, I think they have done some good. They have exposed a lot of corruption, particularly loan deals in Iceland, where they exposed 40 billion euro in loans made by the Kaupthing Bank to shareholders, employees and other members of the elite, many of which were not on commercial terms, and many of which were forgiven immediatly before the Kaupthing Bank collapsed.
They also exposed the fact the US knew it had killed hundreds of thousands more innocent civilians in the war against Iraq than it had addmited.
edit re read it looks like I missed out the bit where I agree with some of their stuff.0 -
You have a lot less chance of something happening if you don't make information public to all.
Stands to reason really.
it does not stand to reason at all. information can actually be preventative to something (bad) happening.
if i lived near a massive foreign/terrorist target i'd want to know about it.
if there was a large gas pipeline that could shut down the continent i'd want to know about it so that pressure could be put on govts to protect it.
if the saudis call for bombing of iran i'd like to know about it.
all of the leaks could well serve the public interest.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards