[Steve Henderson]

 First of all, please excuse any spelling, syntax, or grammatical errors because it is almost 4:00am, and I am quite tired. Secondly, please take a moment to read the attached IRC chat log. At the moment, Wikileaks is a monolithic beacon of free press on the Internet and (forced) open government. This organization is operated with a tremendous risk for those involved, all to support a idea that we include in our core platform. I would argue that there isn't a single government in power that would wipe Wikileaks out of existence if not for the political reprecussions of such actions. Because of all this, I personally believe that we have an obligation to publically release a carefully worded statement supporting the existence and actions (with relevance to corporate and government whistleblowing) of both Julian Assange and Wikileaks (I argue that you have to support them both for the same effect, because to many they are synonymous). There is no other party in Canada (and probably North America) that would even think about supporting Wikileaks even if ideologically. In doing this, we will send an undeniable and powerful message across the globe that the Pirate Party of Canada supports freedom of the press and open government. However taking the time required to write and edit this release, this would need to be done as soon as possible because quite frankly we may not have this same opportunity in the near future depending on the actions of various governments. In addition to this possibly pessamistic observation, Wikileaks is currently an extremely hot topic due to the recent diplomatic cable leak.

 In releasing such a powerful message and taking a stand against governments who keep secrets from their people, we would also be opening ourselves up for a lot of media exposure (via both the Internet and news outlets) and discussion which would further spread the name "Pirate Party of Canada" through the masses. Why? Because this is incredibly controversial. Governments and political figures (predominantly within the United States, unsurprisingly) have jumped to criticize Wikileaks. This includes comments from figures such as Peter King (chairman of the Homeland Security Committee of the United States House of Representatives) labeling Wikileaks as a "foreign terrorist organization." [1] Sarah Palin (VP candidate in the last US election and possible 2010 republican candidate, for those unfamiliar with American politics) also stated "Assange is not a 'journalist', any more than the 'editor' of al-Qaeda's new English-language magazine Inspire is a 'journalist'" in addition to asking "Why was [Wikileaks] not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders?" [2] Additionally, I'm sure we're all familiar with Tam Flanagan's (ex-senior advisor and strategist for Stephen Harper) remark "I think Assange should be assassinated." [3] These are only statements found on Wikipedia and only statements made by political figures, and I'm sure Google would produce more. If needed, I volunteer to help with writing or editing the release.

 Who knows, maybe the rest of PPI will follow our example.

1. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20023941-38.html#ixzz16keYyAPb
2. http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/it-business/3251386/sarah-palin-says-target-wikileaks-julian-assange-like-the-taliban/
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqtIafdoH_g

[JasonCarr]

The Privacy issue demands some rational consideration. It really isn't a privacy issue when you boil it down. The issue is whether or not the PPCA supports an organization that does not exercise discrimination in what it chooses to report on. Wikileaks was not specifically looking to violate personal privacy rights but the very nature of their organization sometimes necessitates it.

Personally this one kinda stumps me, I am not sure were I stand on this.

My personal take on it is more pragmatic then I usually like to be. I don't see this as being something which aligns with what I see the PPCA being about. HOWEVER, I really really like wikileaks and I really really like what they are doing. I really want to see wikileak survive and continue to undermine the nation-state's ability to conceal their activities.

It is also VERY natural for people to associate wikileaks with the pirate party. I don't think there has been a single time where I spoke to people about the pirate party were someone has not mentioned wikileaks.

I, for one, would support a PPCA statement of wikileaks and an subsequent sanctioned demonstration in Calgary against Tom Flanagan. We could also set up a donation jar for wikileaks at the demonstration since Assange is constantly saying that he needs more cash to continue on which all these attacks.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Which is not just a violation of our principle of protecting privacy, it's a violation of what is in Canada at least a constitutional right: freedom of association.

[trailblazer11]

While Wikileak might have resulted from government's tight control of the press or less vigilant press nowadays, I feel like there is no real revelation on the content that are being released. It is more gossip type stuff.

It is one thing to release revealing information about government malpractice but it is another to arbitrarily release irrelevant private conversation. It does run counter to our privacy policy. IMHO.

[Mikkel Paulson]

Steve, if you feel strongly about this, why don't you make a motion of it at the December 19th meeting? I know some people strongly support your position, and it would be nice to have a discussion on the matter.

While Wikileak might have resulted from government's tight control of the press or less vigilant press nowadays, I feel like there is no real revelation on the content that are being released. It is more gossip type stuff.

That applies to the most recent series of leaks, but the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs were important. Furthermore, they've done a pretty impressive job of indirectly exposing the press for its pro-government anti-free speech bias.

[JasonCarr]

Unfortunately wikileaks DID violates people's right - few years ago or so, they released a membership lists of everyone that belongs to British National Party - as a result, some people were fired from their jobs and some were chastise for joining such parties thanks to wikileaks.

Thinks of it like this, if someone writes a Wikipedia article that violates privacy rights does the PPCA no longer support wikipedia? If a leaked cable appears on a torrent site, do we consider torrent sites to be against the fundamentals of the PPCA?

The implicit message of calling their site wikileaks is that they are not the arbiters what they release.

[Mikkel Paulson]

But Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to recall information improperly released, including permanent deletion of personal information. Wikileaks has no such ability, and therefore has an obligation to exercise more care in choosing what to release—and choose they do. They review submitted information to determine its significance before leaking it, and they have also more recently deferred to major news organizations to determine what is unacceptably dangerous or compromising to release. This being the case, failing to exercise due diligence in protecting the personal information of private individuals is reckless to say the least.

[JasonCarr]

and they have also more recently deferred to major news organizations to determine what is unacceptably dangerous or compromising to release.

If this is true then I agree, don't suppose you have a source to verify?

[Joshua Doucet]

I agree wikileaks causes some harm but its almost a situation of 'for the better good'.

Once the fiasco is over hopefully the impact will be large enough to put some real moral responsibility into the government.

[Steve Henderson]

Unfortunately wikileaks DID violates people's right - few years ago or so, they released a membership lists of everyone that belongs to British National Party - as a result, some people were fired from their jobs and some were chastise for joining such parties thanks to wikileaks.

I agree with you 100% in that the BNP membership leak was a violation of personal privacy, even if they are a dangerous fascist group. However it has been two years since this leak, and Wikileaks has released a lot of extremely important information since the BNP membership leak, including Internet censorship lists, JSP 440 (government instructions for avoiding information leaks), 570,000 intercepts of messages sent on the day of the September 11th attacks (Bradley Manning commented that they were obvious NSA messages), the Baghdad airstrike video Collateral Murder (showing questionable military behaviour bordering on clear efforts to cover up the facts), the Afghan War Diaries, and the Iraq War Logs (both of the latter two showed that our governments were willing to lie about the amount of civilian deaths). That's not even all they've leaked, just stuff off the top of my head. The stuff I've mentioned is certainly not arbitrary conversation or "gossip type stuff." I'll assume trailblazer11's mention of "gossip" is with relevance to the recent diplomatic cables leak, to which I would argue: As a supporter of open government I believe this information should be available for all to see. Why should governments be able to have discussion behind a veil of secrecy when they are clearly willing to twist facts and lie to us? You either have open government or not. The Internet and (by extension) Wikileaks, allows for forced government transparency rather than an illusionary sense of openness.

Steve Henderson, it is best if you discuss this issue with the party members before claiming to be on our behalf on this rather controversial issue.

Because what you said isn't completely true and it gives a false impression that wikileaks is a 'beacon of freedom of speech' when it facts, its the opposite

Do be a favour and quote where I claimed to represent the Pirate Party of Canada. There has clearly been a miscommunication that I would like to fix. Furthermore, I never said that Wikileaks was a "'beacon of freedom of speech'" and if you believe it is in fact "the opposite" I would appreciate if you would expand upon that idea, because it almost seems like you're calling a website that releases classified documents "the opposite [of free speech]" which is rather silly in my opinion.

But Wikipedia has mechanisms in place to recall information improperly released, including permanent deletion of personal information. Wikileaks has no such ability, and therefore has an obligation to exercise more care in choosing what to release—and choose they do. They review submitted information to determine its significance before leaking it, and they have also more recently deferred to major news organizations to determine what is unacceptably dangerous or compromising to release. This being the case, failing to exercise due diligence in protecting the personal information of private individuals is reckless to say the least.

I wouldn't say Wikileaks is reckless. The groups claims to review each document "line by line" before releasing them and additionally, Wikileaks has approached both the Pentagon and Amnesty International for assistance in releasing the documents and redacting personal information from them. Both organizations refused. I agree with Assange when he referred to Amnesty International as "people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses" with relevance to Wikileaks and the release of documents.

[Steve Henderson]

There is no other party in Canada (and probably North America) that would even think about supporting Wikileaks even if ideologically.

 Ron Paul has gained more of my respect, and he had a good amount of it before.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/ron-paul-what-wikileaks/

[Mikkel Paulson]

If this is true then I agree, don't suppose you have a source to verify?

In a article provided by The New York Times:

The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose — either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material — anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports. We have avoided anything that might compromise American or allied intelligence-gathering methods such as communications intercepts. We have not linked to the archives of raw material. At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.

WikiLeaks provided the information in advance to NYT, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel to give them the opportunity to sort through the data, choose what information would be too damaging to publish, and where personal information needed to be redacted. They no doubt have statements on Twitter and Facebook to that effect, but they've been very active since the release of the cables and it would take a good deal of work to come up with their remarks from some months ago.

The stuff I've mentioned is certainly not arbitrary conversation or "gossip type stuff." I'll assume trailblazer11's mention of "gossip" is with relevance to the recent diplomatic cables leak, to which I would argue: As a supporter of open government I believe this information should be available for all to see. Why should governments be able to have discussion behind a veil of secrecy when they are clearly willing to twist facts and lie to us? You either have open government or not. The Internet and (by extension) Wikileaks, allows for forced government transparency rather than an illusionary sense of openness.

I don't think anyone has argued that none of their leaks have served a public good, and indeed I believe that the majority of leaked material has done so. Even some of the diplomatic cables have contained important pieces of information for citizens of a supposed democracy. However, they also contained a great deal of personal information that never should have seen the light of day. If we are to support them, it would have to be with some very significant reservations.

I wouldn't say Wikileaks is reckless. The groups claims to review each document "line by line" before releasing them and additionally, Wikileaks has approached both the Pentagon and Amnesty International for assistance in releasing the documents and redacting personal information from them. Both organizations refused. I agree with Assange when he referred to Amnesty International as "people who prefer to do nothing but cover their asses" with relevance to Wikileaks and the release of documents.

Do you really think they expected either of those organizations to go along with the idea? If they really wanted support they would have gone to EFF. Approaching the Pentagon and Amnesty was them “covering their asses”.

You are seriously misguided, apparently you see things in black and white (open or close government)
[…]
You did claim to represent the PPCA by issuing a press release in PPCA forum

So? What does that have to do with Canadian politics? How is using the Ron Paul card is relevant about the violation of the wikileaks to individual privacy?

Cool it. This is a place for rational discussion. Please behave respectfully towards those with differing viewpoints.

[Steve Henderson]

You are seriously misguided, apparently you see things in black and white (open or close government) but it does not work that way in real life - we do have law that protects individual privacies - wikileaks violate that with BNP list (by the way is NOT a dangerous fascist group so stop your smearing on others by dictating your opinion as 'fact'). Therefore we shouldn't not endorse or support any organization with a history of violations regarding to personal privacy.

As Mikkel had said, in Canada we have, according to constitution - "freedom of association" which wikileaks violates. So how can we support an organization that would've have violate our constitutions?  

You did claim to represent the PPCA by issuing a press release in PPCA forum

 I'm entitled to my opinion on the BNP just as you are. However, because their ideology is entirely irrelevant to this discussion I'm going to drop the subject on this note: The BNP is racist, violent, sensationalistic, and I find them absolutely disgusting. Wikipedia includes fascism as a part of the BNP's ideology, and cites six references supporting that statement. If the British National Party interests you, I recommend checking it out. Moving on, I would argue that while Wikileaks has in the past violated the right to privacy individuals should possess, the recent trend of extremely ted the right to privacy individuals should possess, the recent trend of leaking information with serious potential political ramifications and important information that should be available to the public warrants considering supporting them. Furthermore, Wikileaks did not violate anyones freedom of association. That would have technically, be done by the employers and society within the UK. The former doing so demonstrates a problem with the State not protecting the individual's freedom of association. Lastly, I didn't issue a press release. You're mistaken.

So? What does that have to do with Canadian politics? How is using the Ron Paul card is relevant about the violation of the wikileaks to individual privacy?

 Well, Canadian politics is largely influenced by American politics but aside from that I had previously stated that no political party in North America had openly supported Wikileaks before, so an outspoken member of the republicans and speculated 2012 presidential candidate supporting Wikileaks seemed relevant.

I don't think anyone has argued that none of their leaks have served a public good, and indeed I believe that the majority of leaked material has done so. Even some of the diplomatic cables have contained important pieces of information for citizens of a supposed democracy. However, they also contained a great deal of personal information that never should have seen the light of day. If we are to support them, it would have to be with some very significant reservations.

 What personal information are you referring to? We have to keep in mind that these leaks are arguably evident as to how information flows in the digital age, and it's quite likely that unless governments seriously secure their methods of diplomatic communication this information will continue to be public, but even then there is no such thing as a completely secure network that is connected to the Internet especially when you add human stupidity to the equation. Shit, if I recall correctly Gary McKinnon broke into US military systems with a perl script that looked for blank passwords. But of course you're completely correct that there would have to be significant reservations if PPC was to release a statement (partially) supporting the actions of Wikileaks, there would have to be reservations. These reservations would have to be considered carefully though, seeing as it would be rather foolish for PPC to look as though it believed the notion that information such as this can be controlled and yet it would be hypocritical for PPC to not support the individual's right to privacy. I think if this is to be considered, contacting Wikileaks and asking for their assistance in the creation of of the release would be something to seriously consider, even if only to ask for the names of the documents detailing personal information (since they have combed through it line by line).

Do you really think they expected either of those organizations to go along with the idea? If they really wanted support they would have gone to EFF. Approaching the Pentagon and Amnesty was them “covering their asses”.

 I think that while they didn't likely expect either of these organizations to go along with the idea it's arguable that this may have been considered a possibility with Amnesty International given that Assange and Wikileaks had previously won the Amnesty International media award in the catagory "new media." Even then, while EFF has been involved in a coalition that previously protested a lawsuit against Wikileaks and Dynadot, it's uncertain whether or not EFF would have agreed to actually being involved with the leaking or processing of the documents themselves, especially since the EFF is based in the United States. Though for the most part I agree with you.

[Mikkel Paulson]

I'm entitled to my opinion on the BNP just as you are. However, because their ideology is entirely irrelevant to this discussion I'm going to drop the subject on this note: The BNP is racist, violent, sensationalistic, and I find them absolutely disgusting. Wikipedia includes fascism as a part of the BNP's ideology, and cites six references supporting that statement.

I'm with you there.

Furthermore, Wikileaks did not violate anyones freedom of association. That would have technically, be done by the employers and society within the UK. The former doing so demonstrates a problem with the State not protecting the individual's freedom of association.

And you think the leak of personal information didn't contribute to that at all? It would be like if the UK government published the name and address of every sex offender, then acted surprised by the mob lynchings. Oh wait, they already do that. Doesn't excuse irrational behaviour just because it's popular, though.

What personal information are you referring to?

As has been previously mentioned, the BNP list and certain of the diplomatic cables, among others.

I think if this is to be considered, contacting Wikileaks and asking for their assistance in the creation of of the release would be something to seriously consider, even if only to ask for the names of the documents detailing personal information (since they have combed through it line by line).

We don't need their help with drafting press releases. What position we take and how we react will be decided by the Federal Council and members of the Pirate Party, no one else.

[Biogrand]

There is no evidence that the BNP is a racist/facist organization - because wikipedia says so, doesn't make it true.
I've seen the BNP website and their policy, and I fail to see anything racist or even close to fascism - therefore they are mainly nationalist.