I read the manifesto; it's troubling for people who, like me, are in support of the general principle of greater transparency but don't support an ideological reading of the US as an authoritarian conspiracy.
As for "morally unassailable", that's a ridiculous assertion. HN can't even decide whether or not TechCrunch was right to publish the Twitter emails; this is at a much more morally complicated level. The potential to put people in harm's way is being used by politicians as a stick to beat WikiLeaks, but nonetheless there's something to it.
When Amnesty International says you're putting people in danger, there's more than just hype to it.
As for "morally unassailable", that's a ridiculous assertion. HN can't even decide whether or not TechCrunch was right to publish the Twitter emails; this is at a much more morally complicated level. The potential to put people in harm's way is being used by politicians as a stick to beat WikiLeaks, but nonetheless there's something to it.
When Amnesty International says you're putting people in danger, there's more than just hype to it.