Whenever a secure system is breached, there’s almost always another system that isn’t breached - and by definition, it is more secure.
That’s an international variation of the “job creators won’t create hypothetical jobs if they are regulated/supervised/taxed” line. Countries and companies will continue to do business in response to their interests. Transparency is as much a shield for the kind of business and state dealings most citizens would regard as desirable as it is a barrier to that which shouldn’t be happening (eg the Swedish example I cited above).
There’s a distinct difference between your government purporting to be an honest agent on your behalf and your government strongarming the Swedes into benefiting a tiny American elite at the expense of everyone else worldwide, which is exactly what happens when power is allowed to work without any scrutiny. But sure, keep pretending that it’s heroic diplomats with heads on sticks as a result of this.
That’s an altogether different argument from transparency being undesirable per se. You can’t just switch gears halfway for “difficult” when “right” becomes hard to argue.
never mind, go for the jugular time!
It’s not uncommon for the abjectly immoral to ascribe to naivete what was previously defined as basic decency. But hey, you’re just a useful idiot, so what would you know.
So why did you do it then?
But hey, you’re just a useful idiot, so what would you know.
Oh, is that what you call left wingers?
Just stop, idiot.
Why? Because I’ve accurately called out your biases? Because you can’t accept that not everyone thinks Wikileaks is the best thing since sliced bread, because it won’t actually help in the longer-run?
Aww, how cute. (And hi, yes, actual left-winger here!)
I don’t think you’re very good at trolling, that’s all. You should tag in an alt and try again.
I don’t need alts to piss you off, the truth works just fine for that.
(Oh, and I never use alts unless it’s an obvious joke. Hihi Grammar Gorilla!)
Well, it certainly has the desired effect of redirecting the conversation to being all about you and your bullshit rather than the issue at hand, so congrats on bretting it up. You’d think by now with respect to American politics we’d be used to the whole “smear yourself in shit and dance the electric boogaloo while repeating conservative talking points ad nauseaum” and it would lose the capacity to catch the eye, but hey, there you go again.
Yea, I mean, it’s not like the left can have actually valid political views unlike the right!
Wait…you think LK is on the right?
I’m not thinking anything of the sort, his behaviour is rather telling.
Also, do remember I use British definitions.
Anyway, no, I really don’t think that wikileaks has done much in the longer term for transparency, there are things that could…but they’re also destructive of privacy generally. See D.Brin, The Transparent Society.
Up is down, black is white, and apparently Britain has a serious contestant in the ring to try and give the Germans a run for the gibberish crown. It’s going to be an exciting season for sure.
I’m pretty sure “Information wants to be free” is about as far left as you can get on this subject.
There’s a price to involuntary and absolute transparency which is the ending of the “You didn’t hear it from me but…”
If you’re arguing that’s the price of the counterweight, that’s certainly something I can understand and appreciate.
Yeah, that basically defined communism ;).
It’s libertarian, which is cross-spectrum, not left…
I thought it was petulant teenager?