Please help me design a Wiki Leaks research project

[swimmermom3]

I would like my 7th and 12th graders to pursue a research project on Wiki Leaks with regards to the company, the most recent set of leaks and freedom of speech. I think I would like the issue of freedom of speech to be the central issue, although Swimmer Dude is fascinated by the technical aspects of attempting to shut Wiki Leaks down.

 

How would those of you who are interested in this type of thing whittle the project down to a manageable size?

Edited December 6, 2010 by swimmermom3

[swimmermom3]

You all would not torture your children with this type of research project?:001_huh:

[Melissa in Australia]

Have you heard the Swedish authorities have dropped the rape charges against Julian,(from wikileaks) and now have an arrest warrant on the newly passed law of sex by surprise?

My dh and I just about fell over with laughter when we heard this on the news.

[swimmermom3]

Have you heard the Swedish authorities have dropped the rape charges against Julian,(from wikileaks) and now have an arrest warrant on the newly passed law of sex by surprise?

My dh and I just about fell over with laughter when we heard this on the news.

 

Can't wait to read about that, Melissa!:lol::lol::lol:

 

We have had several discussion at dinner about wikileaks. We just can't keep pace with all the info. Every once in a while we work on a media project and this one is just too good to pass up.

[Melissa in Australia]

Here is an interesting bit of information to add to your project. http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/8454203/wikileaks-safeguards-data/

[MSNative]

If I were to organize this type of project I would probably have my kids research and argue the case from both sides. They would make the case defending WikiLeaks and the case prosecuting it (freedom of speech, legitimate reasons for secrecy, cost of both, etc. Personally I'd avoid the whole sex charges and keep it clean as possible.) They would have to review real case law in the US and then learn about international law, extradition, etc. Then, I'd have them review what's been done to shut down the site, what problems that has encountered, and have them develop a proposal for how they would being a site down. Let me know how it turns out.

[Catherine]

I read through it with my 13 yo and we talked about the constitutional issue of free press vs. the desire of government to keep more information secret. One fascinating thing we learned was that Kennedy later wished that plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion had been known publicly beforehand; he might have been saved a poor decision. We also talked about the conversation between the NYT and the government and speculated about what they might have talked about. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[Pippen]

One thought is to have them examine the freedoms issues that have come up since 9/11--Patriot Act, airport screenings, right to protest the war near military funerals, mosque near Ground Zero, Wikileaks, etc.

[jld]

I read through it with my 13 yo and we talked about the constitutional issue of free press vs. the desire of government to keep more information secret. One fascinating thing we learned was that Kennedy later wished that plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion had been known publicly beforehand; he might have been saved a poor decision. We also talked about the conversation between the NYT and the government and speculated about what they might have talked about. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

 

:iagree:

 

I've been reading that some current world leaders feel the same. Transparency makes so many things so much easier.

 

I'm pretty dismayed by the reactions of so many Americans. I can't believe how quick people are to shut off freedom of speech and free inquiry. It's not just on the right, either, but among moderates, too. It's as though people don't want to be mature and look at facts and take responsibility for our government's decisions. We're paying for what they're doing, after all. Why wouldn't we want to know and have a voice in it?

[MSNative]

Not to hijack, but quick response to your question. You said you were dismayed and I don't think you should be. I don't think those who disagree with you in this instance disagree with the principles of freedom of speech or inquiry. They just don't think that this was the right way to do it.

Everyone I know supports more transparency in gov't . They just don't believe that what WikiLeaks did leads to more transparency. If anything, it will cause the gov't to be more secretive and gave terrorist organizations a list of people who helped our allies. So we're all still reading from the same book, we just have different takes on this chapter, kwim.

 

 

However, all of this is great fodder for that research topics. Hmm, now I'm wondering how I can modify it for my kids....

 

:iagree:

 

I've been reading that some current world leaders feel the same. Transparency makes so many things so much easier.

 

I'm pretty dismayed by the reactions of so many Americans. I can't believe how quick people are to shut off freedom of speech and free inquiry. It's not just on the right, either, but among moderates, too. It's as though people don't want to be mature and look at facts and take responsibility for our government's decisions. We're paying for what they're doing, after all. Why wouldn't we want to know and have a voice in it?

[Melissa in Australia]

:iagree:

 

I've been reading that some current world leaders feel the same. Transparency makes so many things so much easier.

 

I'm pretty dismayed by the reactions of so many Americans. I can't believe how quick people are to shut off freedom of speech and free inquiry. It's not just on the right, either, but among moderates, too. It's as though people don't want to be mature and look at facts and take responsibility for our government's decisions. We're paying for what they're doing, after all. Why wouldn't we want to know and have a voice in it?

One of the many interesting things that I find about the whole Wikileaks thing is that they haven't broken a single international law, or a law in any country except America. .. And America is the one that goes on and on about their great freedoms of speech.

Edited December 7, 2010 by melissaL

[Pippen]

It's sure making me confident in the "secure, confidential, electronic exhange of health information" that's mandated in the US healthcare reform package. :tongue_smilie:

[Melissa in Australia]

Here is a other interesting link, more of a definition really

http://www.youngzine.com/article/wikileaks-hundred-james-bonds

[Onceuponatime]

I would like my 7th and 12th graders to pursue a research project on Wiki Leaks with regards to the company, the most recent set of leaks and freedom of speech. I think I would like the issue of freedom of speech to be the central issue, although Swimmer Dude is fascinated by the technical aspects of attempting to shut Wiki Leaks down.

 

How would those of you who are interested in this type of thing whittle the project down to a manageable size?

 

Can't remember where I saw it, but I recently read something about government employees being told they could lose their jobs if they accessed the site, and colleges being warned that if students accessed the info their future prospects of getting a government job could be in jeopardy. Don't know if it is true.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

One of the many interesting things that I find about the whole Wikileaks thing is that they haven't broken a single international law, or a law in any country except America. .. And America is the one that goes on and on about their great freedoms of speech.

 

Most countries do not have a law against the publication of materials classified by other countries. IE, I doubt that you'd get any judicial excitement in the US about publishing something that was classified by Spain or Moldova or Russia.

 

But I think you would find that many countries have laws restricting the publication of something classified by that government. I can think of several instances of UK prohibiting the publication of various writings under the Official Secrets Act.

 

Personally I haven't noticed a dearth of books, articles or websites in the US that are critical of this or that aspect of the US govenment. Protesters routinely set up outside the White House or near to where the president is vacationing. So yeah, I'd say there is a pretty healthy freedom of speech here.

 

And the recent news that the pro-WikiLeaks hacker attack on Visa and Master Card may have included linking to customer information makes me question just how much they are on the side of the angels. Sounds like the pro-leaking side is much more aggessive in their attempts to stifle freedom of commerce (including the freedom not to engage in commerce with WikiLeaks) than the US government has been in restricting Assange's speech.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Can't remember where I saw it, but I recently read something about government employees being told they could lose their jobs if they accessed the site, and colleges being warned that if students accessed the info their future prospects of getting a government job could be in jeopardy. Don't know if it is true.

 

FWIW, material does not cease to be classified just because it has been leaked and published.* #

 

I found this article about the college student issue.

 

*The analogy I might use is if someone stole credit card info and published it, it wouldn't be ok to access the card numbers, save them to your computer, comment about the purchases on the cards or retweet the numbers just because you weren't the one to originally steal them or because they are out there for anyone to see.

 

#The concept that classified material is still classified even when compromised is not new. I think I heard about it back around the time of the Walker case in the 90s and it is probably far older than that. So no blaming it on current or recent administrations.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not to hijack, but quick response to your question. You said you were dismayed and I don't think you should be. I don't think those who disagree with you in this instance disagree with the principles of freedom of speech or inquiry. They just don't think that this was the right way to do it.

Everyone I know supports more transparency in gov't . They just don't believe that what WikiLeaks did leads to more transparency.

 

I agree. These leaks had nothing to do with transparency. They had to do with making specific governments look bad. For example, the video wikileaks released was heavily edited. They edited out guys with RPGs and AKs. How is that increasing transparency? There are interviews in which Assange admitted to editing this video specifically for the purpose of political impact. You can't heavily edit information to create a political fervor and claim transparency.

[Melissa in Australia]

Most countries do not have a law against the publication of materials classified by other countries. IE, I doubt that you'd get any judicial excitement in the US about publishing something that was classified by Spain or Moldova or Russia.

 

But I think you would find that many countries have laws restricting the publication of something classified by that government. I can think of several instances of UK prohibiting the publication of various writings under the Official Secrets Act.

 

Personally I haven't noticed a dearth of books, articles or websites in the US that are critical of this or that aspect of the US government. Protesters routinely set up outside the White House or near to where the president is vacationing. So yeah, I'd say there is a pretty healthy freedom of speech here.

 

And the recent news that the pro-WikiLeaks hacker attack on Visa and Master Card may have included linking to customer information makes me question just how much they are on the side of the angels. Sounds like the pro-leaking side is much more aggessive in their attempts to stifle freedom of commerce (including the freedom not to engage in commerce with WikiLeaks) than the US government has been in restricting Assange's speech.

It wasn't wikileaks that attacked MasterCard and Visa, it was their supporters who simply overloaded their servers with too many hits, not really hijacking. And the protest was about the Banks succumbing to pressure from the US government stifling freedom of commerce.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/09/3089114.htm

Edited December 9, 2010 by melissaL

[Melissa in Australia]

I personally haven't heard anything from Wikileaks that wasn't already public knowledge. And it has been the response of diplomats and politicians that has been the most interesting of the whole thing. Quite a bit of red faces and anger. Which shows to me that allegations are true.

[Melissa in NC]

FWIW, material does not cease to be classified just because it has been leaked and published.* #

 

#The concept that classified material is still classified even when compromised is not new. I think I heard about it back around the time of the Walker case in the 90s and it is probably far older than that. So no blaming it on current or recent administrations.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120901124.html

 

Yes, if you have security clearance, viewing Wikileaks can jeopardize you job. If you are looking for a job with clearance, it can affect it. When you get a secured job, you do loose some of your freedom of speech, that is just a fact of life.

[Mrs Mungo]

I personally haven't heard anything from Wikileaks that wasn't already public knowledge. And it has been the response of diplomats and politicians that has been the most interesting of the whole thing. Quite a bit of red faces and anger. Which shows to me that allegations are true.

 

Which "allegations" of illegal activity or wrong-doing have been proven true, thereby showing that "transparency" of these documents is warranted?

[Melissa in Australia]

Which "allegations" of illegal activity or wrong-doing have been proven true, thereby showing that "transparency" of these documents is warranted?

Sorry I probably used the wrong word. What I meant is that the politician's reactions prove to me that they said the things that wiki-leaks have claimed they have said.

Edited December 9, 2010 by melissaL

[Melissa in Australia]

Here is another interesting link for your children's report.

it involves Putin's support for wikilieak's founder.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8485435/putin-supporting-wikileaks-boss/

[Mrs Mungo]

Sorry I probably used the wrong word. What I meant is that the politician's reactions prove to me that they said the things that wiki-leaks have claimed they have said.

 

Regardless of whether or not they are true, how does making them public knowledge actually improve transparency, honestly and diplomacy in government?

Here is another interesting link for your children's report.

it involves Putin's support for wikilieak's founder.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8485435/putin-supporting-wikileaks-boss/

 

And do you think he would feel the same if it was Russia's secrets Assange was leaking? Given what we actually KNOW about Putin? I think not.

[Melissa in Australia]

Regardless of whether or not they are true, how does making them public knowledge actually improve transparency, honestly and diplomacy in government?

 

 

.

 

How would it not??

[Mrs Mungo]

How would it not??

 

Because the leaked diplomatic cables don't contain knowledge of nefarious deeds. The private impressions of a diplomat about this or that other diplomat does has no impact on national policy. Look up the Pentagon Papers. Do you see a difference?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

How would it not??

 

Step away from the specific cables in the recent WikiLeaks release.

 

There was a recent incident where the confidential and proprietary contents of an Air Force aircraft bid was released to the other companies making bids.

 

Does it somehow increase transparency for all the companies to know all the details of each other's bids? Or does this compromise the integrity of the bidding process.

 

Likewise, I think that it is often in the best interest of a nation's diplomatic efforts that the professional assessments of its diplomats be submitted to the government without being blasted onto the front page of the daily paper.

 

It does not seem in the interest of further diplomatic confidences for people to think that what they say and whom they said it to is not going to be treated as a confidence.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I would like my 7th and 12th graders to pursue a research project on Wiki Leaks with regards to the company, the most recent set of leaks and freedom of speech. I think I would like the issue of freedom of speech to be the central issue, although Swimmer Dude is fascinated by the technical aspects of attempting to shut Wiki Leaks down.

 

How would those of you who are interested in this type of thing whittle the project down to a manageable size?

 

What about a discussion of the relative merits of the freedom of the press and the government's interest in having some information classified? What are the circumstances in which it is in the state's interest not to have certain information public? (I don't mean covering up crimes. I do mean allowing the government to more effectively negotiate or conduct diplomacy or promote state interests.)

 

Or for that matter, how do the roles of a diplomat and a spy differ? Where is there overlap?

 

You might take a look at the Educator pages on the International Spy Museum for some thoughts.

 

My books are packed up, but a look at the Zimmermann Telegram incident and WWI might be useful. If memory serves, this is also a case of information being leaked and involved what was high tech for the time.