The pro Wikileaks argument sounds an awful lot like the music piracy thing. "Information wants to be free." The corollary is, "We have a right to know everything our leaders are doing and saying."
That is total bullshit.
And what is so fascinating about this is that the same people who make these arguments (like the EFF) are the ones up in arms about our loss of privacy. The issues are two sides of the same coin.
All information does not want to be free. My private information deserves to remain private. And if I must share it with the government for some reason, that doesn't mean that I should lose my right to privacy. If I have an opinion, or a need, or a "situation" and I share it with an ambassador, or the state department, or my local congressman, that does not mean that I am OK with that information being broadcast over the Internet for all the world to see.
To be clear, I am sure that there are things that are in the Wikileaks trove that should be public. But there is a huge difference between providing curated information that the public has a right to have and a need to know (like the Pentagon Papers), and broadcasting absolutely everything with the ethos that if the government is involved then we as citizens all have a right to know.
The reality is that we are not the government. We (hopefully) elect our government, and they act on our behalf. One of the ideas behind government is that it should act on our behalf, but that it must also keep our individual confidences, and the confidences of other nation states with which we deal. This is a huge issue because to the extent that government cannot be trusted to keep anyone's confidence, a hugely important role of government no longer works.
For example, we cannot negotiate with other states if everything they say will immediately be broadcast. There will be no dialog and no opportunity for understanding. And because many of the governments on the other side of the table (think North Korea, China, etc.) do a much better job of keeping their secrets, they will just know that they cannot trust any discussion with the US to not go public. This has no effect other than to make us more isolated.
This is not just hypothetical. One of the things the Wikileaks trove reveals is how difficult it is to deal with a foreign government when you know nothing about the leader or that country. We have been reduced to guessing what we should do and what North Korean might do and why. To be clear this information void is not because of Wikileaks (in fact the knowledge of the void is because of Wikileaks), but the point is that lack of information creates very difficult problems. And because other states are much less likely to have such leaks the US will be the only state that can't be trusted to communicate with.
Further reducing the US information flow making us a less effective state operator is not a good thing. One of the things that is clear from Wikileaks is that while there are unquestionably a few bad acts, the vast majority of the leaks reflect a US government that is trying to keep the world from blowing up, employing, at times, extraordinary statesmanship. There is nothing shocking in the Wikileaks release which is why everyone is spending so much time talking about the context of the release and not the actual content. So far, the most interesting leaks are personality issues such as our views of Karzai, Putin and Berlusconi. These are leaks that do nothing to improve our relations with these countries, and they do not in any substantive way help our citizens understand the world in which we live.
The bottom line here is that privacy has its value, not just between members of the public, but between citizens and their governments, and between government officials. Everything does not need or deserve to be public. There is a line. And while I certainly would not elect myself to decide where that line is, it does exist. And to those that say such a line is unneeded or inappropriate, I call bullshit on that. Of course whether we can do anything about it is a different matter.
I think we may compare these leaks as publication of half-baked ideas when people decide something in the committee. In private discussion, there may total bullshit be said: people won't be afraid to make suggestions if they know that their foolish thoughts won't be published.
ReplyDeleteThat just were non-public messages, so that's why Putin, for example, was not offended at all.
In the case of North Korea - I agree, a hypothetic renegade in NK would think thrice before trusting smth to American foreign office.
I just read RollingStone's interview with Jacob Applebaum, "the American face of wikileaks" (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/17389/238944) and I was also thinking about this contradiction between wanting privacy for one'sself, but not for the victims of leaks.
ReplyDeleteI'm still not sure I agree with it, but I think I can see how it makes sense to them. The concept is that people should have technology that lets them make the choice between private or public. So if you and I want to share some information privately, Applebaum supports that, and wants to assure that you have the technology (Tor, encryption, internet access) to do that.
BUT, if I send you an email, and you decide it should be public, then he wants you to have the tools to make it public, and make it stay public. This brings it back to a place of trust, which is a very old model of security. If you trust someone, you share with them, and you have to rely on them not to share it with other people if you want it to stay private.
Put another way, I think wikileaks believes your right to privacy ends when you share the information with another person. Then trust takes over. BUT, they believe you have an absolute right to share the information with whomever you want. And that you have a right to use technology to keep private information that others will conspire with you to keep private.
"Put another way, I think wikileaks believes your right to privacy ends when you share the information with another person."
ReplyDeleteSo then the government should be free to intercept any phone call and transmit it because by talking to another person you were sharing that information and so have given up your right of privacy. So wikileaks should be pro universal wiretaps because we have all given up our privacy.
"And if I must share it with the government for some reason, that doesn't mean that I should lose my right to privacy."
ReplyDeletePrivacy is just lost, when you share your PI with the government. .. You trust your government, do you?
"Privacy is just lost, when you share your PI with the government. .. You trust your government, do you?"
ReplyDeleteAll the time. I dont know what country you live in, but if you live in america so do you. For example if you pay taxes, your tax returns are private. It is not public unless someone steals it. If your argument is that since anything can be stolen then the information is therefore public. I reject that argument. Its like saying that since anyone can kill anyone we are all already dead.
Is everything like music piracy?
ReplyDeleteWell, think of it like this...
ReplyDeleteLet's say that in a moment defined by an amorous mental meltdown, I do a 'Favre' and send a compromising photo to my woman.
The only reason that the photo even exists is because of the trust I have in this woman (which can of course be blurred by the amount of alcohol we drank together) but the trust is none the less implied.
Now, does she have the ability and the right to redistribute that picture? Sure.
SHOULD she? Probably not...
Otherwise the trust is gone and real, honest and sometimes necessary communication is a thing of the past.
Now if it was in the publics best interest, she could show the picture to those necessary, but the implied trust would suggest that she should digitize the sensitive parts, unless she is a scorned lover, hell bent on the destruction of my reputation.
That is where the problem is with the wikileaks case. Diplomats (ours and theirs) no longer feel comfortable to have the open and honest communication that COULD save countless lives. The bargaining chip is gone.
Julian Assange is considered a journalist by some, but to me he seems more like a jilted lover with an axe to grind.
True journalists, like a responsible partner, would release that which is required for the public interest, but would censor that which is not and is likely have a chilling affect on the parties involved.
As you might imagine, its likely that Jenn Sterger is angling for a big payday from Brett Favre and the NFL.
When I saw the cartoon-like artists rendering of him in the British court, I had to wonder, What is Julian Assange's angle here?
We've already determined that it is NOT pure journalism.
Growing up reading superhero comic books, I had to wonder...
Is it a financial reward, like so many these days?
Or is he just another one of those ego maniacal, cartoon arch-enemy villains, that we know so well, who is hell bent on ruling the world and of course, your 'Favre' picture?
Hank - You should write more. A LOT more.
ReplyDeleteUgh. What will it take for Americans to realize that your government is far more dangerous to you and us than Fidel, Ayatollah and Kim Il Jong combined?
ReplyDeleteEducation, healthcare, and basic infrastructure are crashing around your ears, your kids are dying in some godforsaken desert half a world away, five companies pretty much control your food production, and fewer than than control your media, and you are seriously arguing that your government needs less transparency? or believe that "follow the money" is an argument *against* Assange...?!
Of course there is a line in the sand. Some 80 years ago the supreme court already ruled on free speech and defined the line for you (on your behalf, as it were) - and this was reinforced 40 years ago through the decisions on NY Times and Washington Post. Black and Douglas were right to fear the potential for abuse of power that comes with lack of transparency.
As a side note, that righteous belief that America is "keeping the world from blowing up" - that's just propaganda. Really. America doesn't act except in self-interest, and usually without regard to consequences for others. And has done so for decades. Read some Noam Chomsky?
(it's turned into a rant. Like your blog in general, but this post - well, sounds like you were watching too much CNN or Fox... ;)
T
Another USA is The Righteous nation nonsense.
ReplyDelete@Ochyming Actually your comment is nonsense since its not what I said. What I am discussing is what was *exposed* in the wikileaks trove... which is almost nothing substantively negative about the US. But there is lots of stuff reflecting excellent work on the part of the state department. That is fact. There are embarrassing unvarnished cables about what US diplomats think about foreign leaders, which clearly effects diplomacy, but that certainly does not serve to expose the US Govt as evil. I am sure there are bad things the US is doing. If you want to expose those things, fine. But indiscriminately exposing stuff that does not achieve that goal, while creating collateral damage for innocents, is little more than self aggrandizement.
ReplyDelete@
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"""… There is nothing shocking in the Wikileaks release which is why everyone is spending so much time talking about the context of the release and not the actual content. So far, the most interesting leaks are personality issues such as our views of Karzai, Putin and Berlusconi.
…""
Did you really read the bulk of info regarding European states cooperation regarding Gitmo?
Cooperation of european Banks in sharing customers (not only USA citizens) information in exchange for biz in Iran?
Spying on other head of states?
Actually my post resumed this statement:
"" … the vast majority of the leaks reflect a US government that is trying to keep the world from blowing up, employing, at times, extraordinary statesmanship.
…""
Total bullshit!
You wrote:
"" … Everything does not need or deserve to be public
… ""
Why not?
Those info are not private.
Again:
"" … There is a line. And while I certainly would not elect myself to decide where that line is, it does exist. And to those that say such a line is unneeded or inappropriate, I call bullshit on that. Of course whether we can do anything about it is a different matter.
… ""
And you failed to specify where the supposed line lies.
We are talking about civil servants, diplomats are civil servants not elected by the people but appointed by those elected, and USA is a Democracy.
"Did you really read the bulk of info regarding European states cooperation regarding Gitmo?"
ReplyDeleteI guess you are the only person on the planet who didnt know what the US was doing in Gitmo before wikileaks. It was widely reported. For the rest of us, Gitmo is one of the most controversial (and unpleasant) things that has ever happened in this country and we have all been well aware of it, including the US efforts to get other countries to cooperate. Perhaps over in your country the news has traveled a bit more slowly. So no, that was not news.
"Spying on other head of states?"
You've got to be kidding, right? Never heard of the CIA? -- or the KGB, or the intelligence agencies of most western nations I guess.
And no, civil servants are not the only ones whose information was exposed. When I as a private citizen have a conversation with you, and you are a civil servant, that does not mean my information should be exposed. And yes, there is a line. The fact that you see none at all is a reflection of your extremism, and not at all rational thought.
And yes, the vast majority of what was in wikileaks reflected civil servants doing a very good job. The fact is that there have been no explosive revelations. Interesting, even entertaining stuff, but very little of substance that was not already known.
@Hank Williams
ReplyDeleteWell, let get rid of some misconceptions first.
"" … The fact that you see none at all is a reflection of your extremism, and not at all rational thought.
… ""
What is extremism, if not flourishes from a different system of belief core values?
"" … I guess you are the only person on the planet who didnt know what the US was doing in Gitmo before wikileaks
…
Never heard of the CIA? -- or the KGB, or the intelligence agencies of most western nations I guess.
""
USA is perhaps the flag of the West, a word that means european ( note that european is not A nationality ).
Democracy has a little more than 50 years but the West paints it like it is part of the West's society DNA.
And your post mirrors that hypocrisy.
If none of the shenanigans confirmed by WikiLeaks and the attempt to shut it down ( which was Shameless! ) do not annoy you, it is because your system of values did not got harm.
But it is strange that you can bother about biz strategies by corporations more than what branches of USA's government do. Perhaps because pop stars and CEOs are more important.
The West uses Democracy as a weapon to advance its interests disregarding Democratic means, which is a fair juggling of interests.
I know that doing shenanigans for the sake of your own interest is not hypocrisy, but pretending you are Cesar's wife, looking like one is not enough.
""… Perhaps over in your country the news has traveled a bit more slowly. So no, that was not news.
… ""
In the age of Broadband?
Wikileaks is a tool, with it the voiceless can confirm if the King is naked.
""… And yes, the vast majority of what was in wikileaks reflected civil servants doing a very good job. The fact is that there have been no explosive revelations. Interesting, even entertaining stuff, but very little of substance that was not already known.
… ""
You forgot that suspicion in a democracy equals-not proof.
Again personal assertions are personal assertions, they are one sided, like mine and yours. But that of a civil servant can change the life of a million.
And USA has been changing the life of millions for the worst.
I am now at a loss. You have become incoherent and unresponsive so I guess the discourse is complete.
ReplyDelete@Hank Williams
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're right, perhaps i see more into it than you.