Of wikileaks and literacy

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Literacy has 3 pertinent definitions. 1: The ability to read and write. 2: Being knowledgeable in a given field or subject. (you may not be able to read or write, but if you can fix a car's engine you are literate in automotive repair) 3: Familiar with literature.

I am sick and tired of hacks who think they can write, stretching an analogy beyond its breaking point while trying to push an agenda. The Wikileaks fiasco has NOTHING to do with literacy. It has nothing to do with preventing a caste system of "in-the-know" and not. It TRULY has to do with tabloid titillation, the tweaking of the so-called "Powerful" and the incalculable hubris of people who think they know better than their boss what should and what shouldn't be kept secret.

I haven't read anything Classified since I left the Marine Corps, but I am still literate. To those of you who have NEVER read any Classified material and can read and understand this post, you are too.

Please, if this is a true topic of concern that you wish to discuss, state plainly your position and why. This obfuscation and misdirection to push an agenda is intellectually insulting.

[Matt-Chicago]

I think it's an extremely valid point that far too much knowledge and information about how the international system works are classified and therefore denied to everyone else, especially when the attitude of those in power is "trust us".
This kind of stuff used to be the job of investigative journalism which has now been destroyed by tabloid info-tainment journalism.

I find it very difficult to listen to any argument about people possibly being killed because of the release of information, when it's coming from those who support or take part in killing hundreds of thousands of people, and cheering for more of that.

I also think some detractors here haven't read the article. This is about literacy of foreign relations, not being able to read english. When the Catholic church wouldn't allow the bible to translated into a language people could actually read, or say mass in anything but Latin which nobody could speak - that didn't mean people couldn't read - it meant they were illiterate of the information held by the powerful, information often used as means of authority.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I think it's an extremely valid point that far too much knowledge and information about how the international system works are classified and therefore denied to everyone else, especially when the attitude of those in power is "trust us".
This kind of stuff used to be the job of investigative journalism which has now been destroyed by tabloid info-tainment journalism.

I find it very difficult to listen to any argument about people possibly being killed because of the release of information, when it's coming from those who support or take part in killing hundreds of thousands of people, and cheering for more of that.

Wow, speaking of "tabloid info-tainment journalism," killing hundreds of thousands of people is an incredible charge to make. Not since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge has someone been accused of mass murder on that kind of scale. Even Slobodan Milosevic was only accused of tens of thousands. (I checked)

Like too many who don't dig when they see a statistic you have fallen for the glitz. Consider the vast amount of data now collected by secret means by this county. Why is it surprising that the volume of classified material is so large when our ability to gather intelligence data has so clearly been shown to rise too? How many Clancy novels have told you about spy satellites, each with their thousands of images taken each day on the shear CHANCE of getting useful intel. How about the thousands of cell-phone intercepts of Columbian drug dealers, foreign nationals and military personnel. Get a grip. Of COURSE there is more data gathered and labeled classified then gets published and purchased by the world's libraries. The vast majority of it is boring bull-spit, but gathered in a way that we don't want to let other people know we can.

BTW, who are you to say that "far too much knowledge and information about how the international system works are classified and therefore denied to everyone else." No one man can make that pronouncement for sure. What arrogance to try. I won't say that there is not information out there that need not be secret. I will tell you that I have seen much that seems trivial, but actually has a very good reason to be not in general circulation.

Someone must make the decision on what should be secret. We must trust someone to do their job well. You're not dumb enough to think that the doors should be thrown open wide on all classified material. You would even concede the point that someone must make the decisions on classification. You'd also agree that is should be technically proficient, A-political professionals who make the decisions supervised by elected representatives of the people. Your REAL beef is the apathy of the American public. You are upset that they will accept any information fed them on the boob-tube and won't take any time (or really appreciate those that do) to really explore the Truth of the world around them.

Whether you believe the argument or not leaking secrets can endanger lives. Simple example: Why if we know that attack helicopters and jet fighters have cockpit recordings (audio and video in many cases) do we not see more footage of combat action? Is it because we hit so many innocent civilians all the time? I know for a FACT it is because too much can be revealed about military capabilities and tactics from some of the most trivial footage. Not to mention, it helps no one to see someone else die in living color.

Investigative journalists see classified material all the time. Most have the good sense and judgement NOT to just spew it out there for everyone to see. Some material might be too sensitive. Most is just too boring.

[mrjamwin]

So Matt, for the sake of this discussion would you be willing to post a copy of the police report of your arrest and any and all follow up documents? If yes is your answer then let me take the absurdity of question even further. Would you be willing to post your Social Security number, Home address, Your wife's name and SS#, your annual income for you and your wife? Place of employment, address and phone numbers? Would you post the names, sex and ages of your children along with their SS #'s? Would you post all your telephone records, credit card statements and income tax records for the past 10 years? Would you post the history of your internet browser?

[WD-40]

Would you post the history of your internet browser?

Everything Jam?...Or do you just want the Porn sites?

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

I also think some detractors here haven't read the article. This is about literacy of foreign relations, not being able to read english. When the Catholic church wouldn't allow the bible to translated into a language people could actually read, or say mass in anything but Latin which nobody could speak - that didn't mean people couldn't read - it meant they were illiterate of the information held by the powerful, information often used as means of authority.

Either I missed it the first time or you edited your post to include this passage, I can't help but address it.

I HAVE read the entire article and to those of you who haven't, don't bother. MC's summary should suffice to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument presented in the full piece.

The definition expansion of "literate" you propose from deduction of it's negative (illiterate) is improper. To be literate someone must be able to read and write. Failing that or in addition to, one can be literate in a subject one has intimate familiarity of. It does NOT follow that one is illiterate if you do NOT have intimate familiarity in a subject. The proper term is ignorance. You can be ignorant of a subject, not illiterate.

Peasants were by an large illiterate because they could neither read nor write in ANY language. When peasant worshipers could not read the Latin Bibles used by the clergy it did not make them illiterate of scripture. They were taught scripture by the clergy, by their families and their communal history. They WERE literate in the teachings of Christ. They were simply ignorant of the language used to convey the message when praying in church.

BTW: it wasn't a crime to teach a peasant Latin. It is a crime to reveal classified material.

[Corpse]

Consider the vast amount of data now collected by secret means by this county. Why is it surprising that the volume of classified material is so large when our ability to gather intelligence data has so clearly been shown to rise too?

I think that's a good point, and it is indeed possible that the apparent rise in the volume of information that is classified is simply due to an increase in the total volume of information being collected. However, I think that the truth is more likely to be a combination of increases in information gathered and increases in the proportion of information kept hidden.

The definition expansion of "literate"

At the end of the day, a surprisingly large number of disputes are only due to disagreements on the definition of a word or phrase. Matt's article's message is that people are better off knowing information released by wikileaks than not knowing it. However, the majority of the counter arguments in this topic are based on "I don't quite agree with what you say literacy is. I think literacy is X. X is at risk because of Y, not because of wikileaks, stupid!"

....Well that's how I interpreted everything here.

[Matt-Chicago]

So Matt, for the sake of this discussion would you be willing to post a copy of the police report of your arrest and any and all follow up documents? If yes is your answer then let me take the absurdity of question even further. Would you be willing to post your Social Security number, Home address, Your wife's name and SS#, your annual income for you and your wife? Place of employment, address and phone numbers? Would you post the names, sex and ages of your children along with their SS #'s? Would you post all your telephone records, credit card statements and income tax records for the past 10 years? Would you post the history of your internet browser?

100% of this information is already available to the government, and most likely hundreds of commercial databases.

On the other hand, people who themselves have been mistakenly kidnapped, tortured, and jailed for years, one because his name was close the guy we were actually looking for, can't sue the government for redress because the entire program is a "state secret".

[Duel of Fates]

So Matt, for the sake of this discussion would you be willing to post a copy of the police report of your arrest and any and all follow up documents? If yes is your answer then let me take the absurdity of question even further. Would you be willing to post your Social Security number, Home address, Your wife's name and SS#, your annual income for you and your wife? Place of employment, address and phone numbers? Would you post the names, sex and ages of your children along with their SS #'s? Would you post all your telephone records, credit card statements and income tax records for the past 10 years? Would you post the history of your internet browser?

100% of this information is already available to the government, and most likely hundreds of commercial databases.

On the other hand, people who themselves have been mistakenly kidnapped, tortured, and jailed for years, one because his name was close the guy we were actually looking for, can't sue the government for redress because the entire program is a "state secret".

You did not answer Jammies question Matt. He asked if "you would post the info", not what the government has on you.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

On the other hand, people who themselves have been mistakenly kidnapped, tortured, and jailed for years, one because his name was close the guy we were actually looking for, can't sue the government for redress because the entire program is a "state secret".

The Washington Post broke that story on December 5th 2005!! The journalist sites several classified documents and hints at his further knowledge of classified material relating to the case that he was responsible enough not to reveal. I think the system is working and you are just paranoid to give your self something to do. Would having classified information available to all prevented the mistaken identity? No.

What you hope is that by making an embarrassing mistake public you can stop secret programs from happening. I'm sorry, but in 2003 if it were public that a suspicious arab man with the same name as a friend of one of the 911 hijackers was detained by police in Macedonia on suspicion of traveling on forged passport documents while trying to get back into Germany, no one would say "Mr. CIA man, don't pick him up and take him somewhere for questioning. Let him continue on his way into the EU and have a nice day." It's only in hindsight that mistakes like this are revealed. Wikileaks couldn't help this situation one bit. It just makes for good tabloid television.