I feel that WikiLeaks is the most important thing to happen to the internet since the inception of e-mail. It is more important than YouTube or Facebook. YouTube allowed user-generated content to be the forefront of media. It allowed us to see more of the world than simply what cable companies choose to show us. Facebook made it infinitely easy to share content, such as pictures, thoughts, links, etc., and connect with others. WikiLeaks is trying to change how the world operates.
When I was first presented with the idea of WikiLeaks, I thought it was a place for confidential documents to be revealed to the world. It was anarchic in nature. Images of Al Queda having unlimited access to blue prints of American covert operations filled my head. This perception is completely inaccurate.
WikiLeaks concerns itself with the operation of governments; that much is easily apparent. More specifically, it deals with the idea of conspiracies. The definition of a conspiracy, as defined by Julian Assange, the visionary behind WikiLeaks, is a collection of conspirators operating together with knowledge not shared with non-conspirators.
With that definition, is there any way a conspiracy can be viewed as a positive thing? When at the negotiations table, isn't it better to have everything on the table? Is it a good idea to keep secrets from your spouse? If a piece of information is kept from one side, it gives one side an unjustly power over the other. This alters the course of negotiations from one of mutual benefit to one that benefits the conspirators. When applied to governments, this unjustly and adversely affects millions of people.
How do you fight conspiracies? You reduce their ability to communicate in secret. WikiLeaks aims to expose communications between government officials through lines of communications which are mislabeled as confidential. With individuals paranoid that their communications will be leaked, the size of a conspiracy network will be limited and their communications, and as a result their effectiveness, will be reduced.
I don't believe that transparency can ever be a bad thing. Since governments, especially democratic ones, are supposed to operate based on the opinions, beliefs and values of its public, why is there information that is kept private? Government officials are elected to be singular avatars of the public, their intentions and goals should be fully visible and clear. But with the amount of corruption that is blatantly taking place, we know that is not true.
Even if you don't agree with my stance on the freedom of information, I feel it is important for everyone to understand what WikiLeaks actually is. With news corporations using WikiLeaks as source material for their stories, it is important that you comprehend what the evidence truly represents.
For example, I read an article stating that WikiLeaks revealed that China was halting their support for North Korea because of their spoiled child behavior. What should have been reported was that this was the opinion of a government official. China's official or unofficial stance on the matter is not decided based on that single communication and should not have been reported as such.
Whether WikiLeaks changes the world or not is still up in the air. However, at its heart, the desire to create transparency within governments is an ideal that I stand behind. Part of a successful government is its adherence to its constituents. I believe that people have been too comfortable with their lives, allowing governments to work in the shadows and have forgotten how to be vigilant. WikiLeaks reminds us that the people should be in power.
Required reading:
Couple of additional and useful links on the government response to Wikileaks:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45930.html
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/us-limits-database-access-to-curb-leaks/story-e6frfku0-1225963677397
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/12/152291.htm (long transcript, you'll have to search for Wikileaks to read the government opinion on various aspects)
Personally, I'm a little uncertain whether Wikileaks is a great thing. I feel it is necessary at the current time, but is it appropriate to have such open discussions of raw incoming data? I mean, maybe Wikileaks itself is fine, but is it appropriate to have 3rd-parties analyse what is ultimately a partial picture?
Any organisation (such as the goverment) must be given the chance to analyse raw incoming data before announcing "official policy". Exposing all the raw incoming data leads to confusion and, as you've noted, bad reporting.
If there was a move to a more open system of government, it would be necessary to flag some data as "RAW" and discourage the media (or indeed anyone) from making concrete conclusions based on that data. The current system of journalism seems to suggest "if you can reference it, you can report on it", which isn't appropriate when handling raw data.
I think it's totally okay for the public to receive RAW data. What they do with it is a totally different matter.
ReplyDeleteEven if WikiLeaks doesn't achieve what it sets out to do, having more information available to the public is never a bad thing. I know a lot of articles regarding hardware and tech usually quote "from a reliable source". I hate seeing that.
We now have the source at our hands. IF we wanted to really do a double check on our information, we possess the ability to do that. I think that's great.
This is the first not-quite-anti-WikiLeaks article I came across. (Not that I've been looking really hard.) It more states how ineffective its format is, rather than its a bad thing. I tend to disagree. More people are becoming connected. Just because a revolution hasn't come about because of the internet doesn't mean it cannot happen. All people need is information.
http://www.slate.com/id/2276889/
I am struggling with the notion of a completely transparent government. I fear that the general public, as a whole, are emotional and reactionary and unable to see the long term view. For example, I see value in "controlling the press" when a crime happens, to ensure that the police officers are able to do their job without the public interfering, or possibly providing information to the criminal themselves. There is a line there, and I feel that WikiLeaks is on the verge of crossing it. How did they get their information? Were non-disclosure agreements violated?
ReplyDeleteGood points, everyone.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, does anyone else notice the blatant sociopathic attributes of W-Leaks and it's founder?
- Parasitic Lifestyle
- Lack of Remorse
- Irresponsible
- Paranoid
- Manipulative
A service that profits by searching your mailbox for the most embarrassing emails you've ever sent? Destroying relationships and getting people fired for a quick buck?
I think W-Leaks will lead to a privacy revolution, not a transparency revolution.
Where is any of this coming from? Firstly, how did you come to the conclusion that he has a parasitic lifestyle, is irresponsible, paranoid and manipulative? How is he getting people fired? How is he making money? Are there any ads on the site? Where are any of these accusations coming from? I'm not saying you're wrong, but to me it seems like they're merely opinions without support. Citation please.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I find it ironic that it sounds like you're one for protecting people's privacy (or their "mailbox") but feel completely content at diving into his personal life to make conclusions based on his lifestyle. (Assuming you're making judgments based on his "sex crimes".) Pick a side and run with it. Don't straddle and play both sides.
Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by a privacy revolution. Please explain what a privacy revolution is.
I didn't mean to trivialize your blog with my unsupportive opinions of W-Leaks and JA. It feels like you felt that. Let me know. I appreciate the your blog and the time you put into it.
ReplyDeleteMy response is editorial. Yes, my opinions are shallow. They're developed from listening to random CBC radio news bits and not from research.
I feel a little irked that you're egging me on to prove my point. Your response is kind of: go-hard or go-home. So...
By the powers of irony!!! Google Search!!!
Sociopathic:
He calmly dismisses the death of 1300 people who died as the result of one of his leaks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan
"
... tells me the story of the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election".
The leak exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country. "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak," says Assange. It's a chilling statistic, but then he states: "On the other hand, the Kenyan people had a right to that information and 40,000 children a year die of malaria in Kenya. And many more die of money being pulled out of Kenya, and as a result of the Kenyan shilling being debased."
"
Profit:
a) JA and W-Leaks are being showered with attention.
b) W-Leaks makes money from donations and selling exclusivity to leaks:
http://stefanmey.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/leak-o-nomy-the-economy-of-wikileaks/
"Privacy revolution", I made it up in attempt to quickly articulate the following:
Many people demand the right to be not profiled, not searched, not exposed. There are necessary legal and digital security protections required to shield everyone's personal/private/sensitive information from being leveraged by others. If W-Leaks can operate successfully then perhaps our existing system is broken and extra measures are required to make improvements.
I wasn't as offended as I feel you felt. But bringing mere opinions in bullet point form to the table when I wrote nine paragraphs (of attempted justification) seems kind of unfair. If nothing more than from an effort standpoint.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your revised comment. I can see where you're coming from and feel as if I understand your reasoning better. However, I'm not sure I entirely agree.