Publishing Classified Information

[JohannesGunn]

Okay, the recent WikiLeaks debacle has begged the question: Is publishing classified information immoral, as well as illegal?

[ub3rman123]

It's usually classified for a reason. Sure it may be interesting to read and make a good gossip, but I'd rather trust people who get paid to know such information and leave me out of it. Honestly, if we were told the world would end in a nuclear war tomorrow, would you be better off if you knew now or tomorrow?

[AliasTheory]

It's usually classified for a reason. Sure it may be interesting to read and make a good gossip, but I'd rather trust people who get paid to know such information and leave me out of it. Honestly, if we were told the world would end in a nuclear war tomorrow, would you be better off if you knew now or tomorrow?

 

This. Illegal, I would think so. But immoral? We are going to have to go down that lane again.

 

It's a really broad question, period. In some cases it could be better for the public to know, others not. As the saying goes...ignorance is bliss. Again, its classified for a reason, but those reasons can easily be flawed ones.

[Dark0ne]

Reporting on massive breaches of public trust such as knowing there weren't any weapons of mass destruction then using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war -- acceptable

 

Reporting on a diplomats opinion of another diplomat or significant figure -- not acceptable

[phoneyLogic]

Yeah, I think as well this highly depends on the subject we are talking about. One may say, if all secret services can publish all their classified information without having to worry, we live in a better world. But if information gets published which is not relevant for the public but could destroy the life of a person, it's absolutely inappropriated. Hard to say what's relevant for the public though. In case of organisations, I'm for publicizing.

[Harbringe]

As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter to me the things our so called intelligent government officials say about each other or to each other ,the only thing I like about it is that it gives us a better idea of what is really going on and the only concern I have is those type documents that can put peoples lives in danger ,other than that I hope it embarrasses greatly.

[marharth]

Reporting on massive breaches of public trust such as knowing there weren't any weapons of mass destruction then using weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war -- acceptable

 

Reporting on a diplomats opinion of another diplomat or significant figure -- not acceptable

 

I would like to point to what he said...

 

In all honesty it depends on what it is and why it got out there.

 

If congress and the media approves of what got released, very few people care about it (in the case of the whole "OMG THEY HAVE NUKES LETS INVADE THEM!")

 

Now if the media and congress doesn't like something, such as putting out documents about the Iraq war that posses no threat to the country at all, and would HELP us in the long run... The media says the person should be put to death.

 

Hop fully people see what I am saying, really its not a legal issue at all...

[JimboUK]

If our representatives are telling us one thing while doing something completely different behind the scenes then yes it is right to publish, after all we employ these people. Going to war in Iraq based on a pack of lies is a good example. The Wikileaks thing doesn't really tell us much we didn't know anyway, it's hugely embarrassing for all concerned but nothing more. The reaction to the leaks have been far more telling than the leaks themselves, calling for the death of those responsible is frightening, "embarrass the state and we'll kill you" is a very disturbing message.

[BlackBaron2]

It depends on the situation and the intent behind the leak.

 

If the intent is personal gain, or sabotaging someone else, that's really not a good idea.

 

However, if it's correcting disinformation (e.g. the Iraq situation) or to stop disasters before they start, then I have no issue with it.

[roquefort]

"Prof Tom Flanagan said Barack Obama should “put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something” to rid the world of Mr Assange. "

 

This is incredible: a former senior advisor to the government of a respected western democracy (Canada) is suggesting that agents of another western democracy should facilitate the murder of a citizen of a third. :blink: