Again, define "all government records". Are you saying that the schedule and itinerary of every single researcher and mailman needs to be public? Because I bet you would complain if we didn't know where the President of Zimbabwe was eating dinner this week (HE EATS BABY DOLPHIN!!! :p), so we need his info. But what if the lady working on vaccines for the soldiers is hanging out with old guys with eye patches and women who refuse to zip up their coats? She might start injecting people with targeted viruses (I may have played MGS recently :p)!

And what do you mean by "what happens behind the closed doors" at the DMV? Do you mean if Laura the photo lady thinks that Phil the brake-tester's comb-over looks fake? That could be important since it could cause a problem if she giggles at the wrong time.

And do you know why I keep "going to extremes"? Because the people who are arguing for "full transparency" likely don't know what they are asking for. They don't understand just what it is that this constitutes, and I suspect that they actually just want "more transparency", which will actually probably show that a lot of people on the other side agree with them.

You say the entire government. That is a grey area, once you consider contractors and the post office and the like. So specify. What parts of the government do you feel deserve no privacy whatsoever, and which ones are allowed to function?

And you say you don't want to look at Senator Smith's bathroom to see what he reads when he is on the toilet? What if that has a major impact on policy. I mean, clearly we need to know if a Diplomat thinks someone is an idiot (even if they have no intention of ever letting said someone know). What if Senator Smith is reading Rand? What if he is reading Camus? Won't that have an impact on how he does his job, and shouldn't we all be made aware of it under a "full transparency" government?
Or, god forbid, what if he is reading something in the 40k universe and decides that chainswords are freaking awesome? :p
Okay, email monitoring. Totally possible (and currently done in a lot of cases).

Let's say you make a joke about blowing up President Papa Smurf. BAM, you are taken away. Where is the government secrecy involved in that?

I "love" the fact that you can use MasterCard and Visa to donate to religious institutions but not to Wikileaks.

I really would love if they release that info about those banks now, instead of the first quarter in 2011.

Woah, woah, woah. I am not proud of Bush at all. I think he's an asshole. I'm just not into this whole WikiLeaks thing.

(maybe not you personally, but at least it seems that way by reading comments made by US citizens on few other forums)

Nah, not proud with people in particular, just with the war and all that. :) I find that quite sad actually. :)

Agreed. A presumably very clever person once said "Patriotism is the virtue of the wicked". And then Sean Connery quoted him in a very, very good movie. Anyway, it's true.

Reminds me of Metal Gear Solid games. Big Boss is betrayed by his own patriotism.

Yes they did, yet people weren't bitching about innocent lives lost then ... I actually used that in one of my arguments about people not really giving a fuck about people dying they just want to join a "band wagon" and think they can validate their yelps yet they are ignorant to events like this ...

According to your standards. Which are not mine. I don't believe one single second that Assange has ever threatened my life. If a terrorist attack happens AFTER he released information, this would only mean that my government, my military forces are totally stupid not to have changed the security procedures. And then I will be angry against my government because it would have failed to do what I contributed to elect them in the first place: to protect me.

If an "amateur attack" succeeds after Wikileaks revelations, I humbly suggest you to overthrow your government and the military forces of your country, because they are blatantly unable to protect you.

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Unlike you, I have no desire to "do the justice myself", I let that job to the police. But I understand you might link that to the fact I'm a "weak european". Sorry not to have been brought up in the cult of firearms and self-defense, as some americans seem to have been. Fortunately I know enough american people to know it's not a rule in your country.

I didn't and don't expect any excuse from you, any apologies. You're clearly trapped into your freakish paranoid patriotic complex and that makes this whole discussion irrelevant anyway

What the fuck? "Weak European?" Why would I ever say that? Gee, thanks for stereotyping me, asshole. Let me guess, you think I have a gun rack loaded up with weapons, that I drive some giant gas-guzzling car, and shoot defenseless animals for fun. No. I don't even like guns, apart from using them in video games, so that stupid "cult of firearms" generalization won't work on me. I am simply concerned that some idiot would release important documents that could launch attacks INTERNATIONALLY. Oh, what's that? You thought I was only concerned about America? Guess again.

But of course, it's far too easy to win arguments by stereotyping the speaker, even if nothing said about the speaker is even remotely true. Truth is, I'm a lot smarter than you make me out to be, but of course that wouldn't help your argument, would it? Instead you choose to portray me as some backwater hick.

I am not some flag-waving prick. I don't like the war we're currently in. I didn't like our last president. I think illegal immigrants shouldn't be kicked out of the country. I am angry that the idiot GOP governors recently elected decided to get rid of plans for a new train system that would mean extremely efficient public transportation, and less money in their pockets.

You can argue against my wish to kill Assange all you want, but don't you dare make generalizations about me like that. It's not like I stereotype people in other countries, but of course, everyone wants to pick on the American.

Can we please leave all these personal attacks and focus on the subject? :)

...

BBC announced that Paypal was indeed under pressure to close wikileaks' account.

Judging by how the PayPal representative reacted today at LeWeb conference when asked about the Wikileaks account I'd say that they are just a bunch of idiots and hypocrites.

First they made an analogy on how when you travel you always have an adapter to plug your devices in the different countries' power plugs and then how PayPal wants to be that adapter on the web between your wallet and all the website out there, but when they get asked about Wikileaks and how they didn't violate the terms of use they weasel themselves out by saying that they'd rather avoid the scandal and staining their name.

Just look at the tweets with the #fuckpaypal hashtag :D

Try going to www.mastercard.com

Sure, sorry. Just got a little defensive there.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they duck away from their account with WikiLeaks. Right now, I'm sure anyone associated with them is a target of angry articles and boycotting.

No problem. Its quite strange actually, half of us say we fight for freedom of speech, but then attack the other half who think the government is right. Seems illogical. :)

We should be attacking the government and the companies that side with it, not the average citizens that post of the forums. :)

I've been trying to incite a revolution for years, just for the lulz. Unfortunately most people are too concerned with keeping their rapidly devaluing pension than risk change and take a stand.