<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/08/2012 03:13, Henry Rivera
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMdUVLy47tjgDrDvYTDEhX=LtufBRRMokCFx17s319kq6B0p1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
Assange personifies the worldview of full transparency,
information anarchy, information needs to be freed, the leveling
of the playing field, dethroning people who use an information
imbalance to maintain power, exploit, and oppress others. ... Any
persecution of Assange is an attempt to make an example of him and
giving the big middle finger to cracker/hacker transparency
movement. </blockquote>
<br>
Aaaaand that is the problem. When choosing a personification, try to
find one less flawed. Because now valid criticism of his flaws get
mixed up with criticism of what he stands for. And when the
personification does stupid things the ideal is also smeared.<br>
<br>
Objectivists get stuck with Ayn Rand. Leftists today have to deal
with Hugo Chavez. Americans elect one president after another. <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMdUVLy47tjgDrDvYTDEhX=LtufBRRMokCFx17s319kq6B0p1g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">This is personal as far as US intelligence agencies
are concerned, so emotional decisions are being made which is
escalating the situation IMHO.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Nah, when I went to DC a while ago the intelligence people were
pretty laid-back about it. Leaks happen, global transparency might
be around the corner ("All our secrets are going to be on a torrent
server in Kazakhstan, right next to the secrets of our enemies") -
but they would still have a job. The real rancour against Wikileaks
came from the diplomacy people. They were upset.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University </pre>
</body>
</html>