Aim Number Two
The second aim seems to have three parts.
Part one is to vindicate the sources of WikiLeaks by defending through speech the good name of anyone alleged to have risked life and comfort to inform the public.
An informed public is vital to our well-being as citizens of a republic. I am glad that there are those willing to risk comfort and life ti inform me and my fellow citizens. I do hesitate to defend everyone who breaks our law, or worse, their word, in order to inform me. So far Bradley seems to be one to be defended.
Part two is keeping WikiLeaks strong so that it is able to defend its sources.
Defening its sources is the job of every institution. Journalism seems our main source for information on the doings of our politicians and bureaucrats. I have not decided how much I am willing to do to support this cause of WikiLeaks. I do believe that WikiLeaks has a legal and moral right to defend its sources.
Part three is ensuring through advocacy that the information that they seek dies not fall on deaf ears.
Advocacy is an every-day legal and honorable activity. Honestly informing listeners of that which is vital ti their well-being is fair and honorable. I support efforts to deliver information to our citizens which helps them to develop and exercise their citizenship in the name of democracy and our republic.
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikileaks. Show all posts
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Considering the FoWL Manifesto
They have written of "the inviolability of history."
What is "the inviolability of history?" Who will tell me what it applies to? I suspect that it means that big lies are unfair history, but who knows?
I do know that someone sees it as an important part of the "Manifesto" of FoWL. It seems it is meant to be one of the broad ideals to which FoWL are committed. It is number two on their list of five.
What is "the inviolability of history?" Who will tell me what it applies to? I suspect that it means that big lies are unfair history, but who knows?
I do know that someone sees it as an important part of the "Manifesto" of FoWL. It seems it is meant to be one of the broad ideals to which FoWL are committed. It is number two on their list of five.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
FoWL Manifesto Continued
Among "Broad ideals" are "Privacy for the weak" and " "Transparency for the powerful."
These sound right and good to me if "privacy" means privacy for communications which effects principally the participants and "transparency" refers to communication which effects many beyond the participants.
These sound right and good to me if "privacy" means privacy for communications which effects principally the participants and "transparency" refers to communication which effects many beyond the participants.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
"The Inviolability of History"
The second of the five broad ideals of the FoWL manifesto speaks of "the inviolability of history."
What do they mean by "the inviolability of history" What it seems to mean to me is that history is history. Perhaps there is a hint of a hope that the men who hold it are honest. What is your guess?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
FoWL
FoWL is an organization begun by persons interested in WikiLeaks. I am not a member, but I do tend to check into it?
I am asking for your comments and critiques. Please enter them below.
I'm just taking my first look at FoWL information. I have printed out a page from the web. It's title is "Join FoWL." Subtitles are "How is FoWL different?" and "Why FoWL?"
The organizations stated purpose looks to be "... build a mass global movement." Nearly their first words are, "Your privacy is our core concern." Oh, FoWL stands for Friends of WikiLeaks.
I'll begin with the "manifesto." It's divided into two parts. The first part is is a brief statement of five ideals. The first "ideal" on the list is the longest.. I'll write it out just below:
"1. The right to communicate, including the right to speak, and the right to listen, the freedom of thought, the right to communicate privately, and the right to communicate anonymously."
The writing and punctuation seems awkward., but I think that I understand what they intend to say. I suspect that I may agree with that which I imagine they have intended.
I claim and support the right to communicate, speak, and listen. Freedom of thought sounds right too. I know that I don't want anyone messing with my mind.
"The right to communicate privately," sounds right. Keeping the whispers and writings between my lady friend and me seems fair. If my younger brother tells me in confidence that he intends to vote Republican and has had me agree not to tell my older brother, that is fair too, isn't it?
We have long agreed that a private letter or or phone conversation ought to be private.
I seem to have some reservations about communicating anonymously that I don't completely understand. One thing I am certain of, I need to identify a person with whom I am conversing. According to the FoWL literature; if I join FoWL, I will be communicating directly with as many as a dozen persons. If one of them, say, sends me an email saying one thing and later sends my another email say that which seems to contradict the earlier message, I want to be able to say, "Now wait a minute Mr X, you said such and such in a message in an earlier message, but in this recent message you say such and such; I see a contradiction, don't you?" I don't need to know that according to his mother and father his name is Ben Franklin, but I do need to know that the same person wrote those two messages. I need to get to know Mr. X.
On the other hand if you want your comment below to be anonymous. I am fine with that.
To be continued:
I am asking for your comments and critiques. Please enter them below.
I'm just taking my first look at FoWL information. I have printed out a page from the web. It's title is "Join FoWL." Subtitles are "How is FoWL different?" and "Why FoWL?"
The organizations stated purpose looks to be "... build a mass global movement." Nearly their first words are, "Your privacy is our core concern." Oh, FoWL stands for Friends of WikiLeaks.
I'll begin with the "manifesto." It's divided into two parts. The first part is is a brief statement of five ideals. The first "ideal" on the list is the longest.. I'll write it out just below:
"1. The right to communicate, including the right to speak, and the right to listen, the freedom of thought, the right to communicate privately, and the right to communicate anonymously."
The writing and punctuation seems awkward., but I think that I understand what they intend to say. I suspect that I may agree with that which I imagine they have intended.
I claim and support the right to communicate, speak, and listen. Freedom of thought sounds right too. I know that I don't want anyone messing with my mind.
"The right to communicate privately," sounds right. Keeping the whispers and writings between my lady friend and me seems fair. If my younger brother tells me in confidence that he intends to vote Republican and has had me agree not to tell my older brother, that is fair too, isn't it?
We have long agreed that a private letter or or phone conversation ought to be private.
I seem to have some reservations about communicating anonymously that I don't completely understand. One thing I am certain of, I need to identify a person with whom I am conversing. According to the FoWL literature; if I join FoWL, I will be communicating directly with as many as a dozen persons. If one of them, say, sends me an email saying one thing and later sends my another email say that which seems to contradict the earlier message, I want to be able to say, "Now wait a minute Mr X, you said such and such in a message in an earlier message, but in this recent message you say such and such; I see a contradiction, don't you?" I don't need to know that according to his mother and father his name is Ben Franklin, but I do need to know that the same person wrote those two messages. I need to get to know Mr. X.
On the other hand if you want your comment below to be anonymous. I am fine with that.
To be continued:
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks - Technology Review
Everything You Need to Know About Wikileaks - Technology Review
Informative article about Wikileaks.
If you are reading 'cables' or other Wikileaks info, please tell us about it.
Its a lot of reading for a busy person. I really need the help of people breaking it down for me.
If you know of anyone doing a good job of breaking it down and simplifying it, please let us know.
Informative article about Wikileaks.
If you are reading 'cables' or other Wikileaks info, please tell us about it.
Its a lot of reading for a busy person. I really need the help of people breaking it down for me.
If you know of anyone doing a good job of breaking it down and simplifying it, please let us know.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)