WikiLeaks raises tough questions
For anyone with a vested interest in the Internet, these are perplexing times.
They are troubling for a lot of reasons, but many of them have to do with the culture of total openness on the World Wide Web. The idea is to allow everyone to put everything out there for everyone to see, letting that information and images do whatever good or damage they may.
But an overarching question is this: How much access do Americans need to information which – if revealed –could cause some serious problems?
Hundreds of thousands of State Department documents leaked last November revealed a hidden world of backstage international diplomacy, divulging candid comments from world leaders and detailing occasional U.S. pressure tactics aimed at hot spots in Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. (AP Photo/Wayne Partlow)
Problems on the doorstep
We talking both micro-level problems as well as macro-level problems, and they range from individual humiliation to national security threats.
On one level we have teens committing suicide over unwanted personal disclosures tossed out like birdseed in the social media or via texts. On the other level we have federally classified secrets being leaked at random via a site with that word in its title: WikiLeaks.
This blog has spoken on three occasions about the micro-level problem, so let’s talk a few minutes about that other one.
WikiLeaks focus
From the WikiLeaks website, we get this introduction to what it is all about:
“WikiLeaks is a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists.
“We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.”
Sounds pretty good, no?
Julian Assange
Its founder is Julian Paul Assange, an Australian journalist, turned software developer, turned (according to his own site) internet activist. He created WikiLeaks in 2006 and is editor-in-chief of this whistleblower web site.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrives at Belmarsh Magistrates' Court in London, Feb. 7. Assange is accused of sexual misconduct by two women he met during a visit to Stockholm last year. Sweden wants him extradited from England to stand trial. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)
Since it began, WikiLeaks has been praised by some, deemed controversial by others, and condemned as traitorous by still others. In its short five years of existence it has published sensitive material about Guantanamo Bay practices and policies, Church of Scientology manuals, and – most recently – classified information about American involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Even more recently, it has revealed contents of secret U.S. diplomatic cables, many of which were deemed classified.
Praise and prosecution
On its home page, WikiLeaks quotes Time Magazine as saying, “(WikiLeaks) Could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.” Assange himself has been recognized for his efforts by Amnesty International and was runner-up to Time Magazine’s Person of the year in 2010.
But Assange also has some big problems. He has been charged by Swedish authorities with sexual misconduct and is being detained by British police. He is under house arrest at his estate in England, pending possible extradition to Sweden.
A couple weeks ago, he was the focus of a 60 Minutes segment, and he believes he is being targeted by governments and their prosecutors because he allows secret information to be leaked over his site.
Larger issue
Apart from his personal legal problems, however, is the broader issue of WikiLeaks. What it is doing, and whether that is a healthy or unhealthy thing for the world. And that is an issue that could be debated well into the next decade (and may well be so, should the U.S. decide to prosecute Assange under the almost hundred year-old Espionage Act.)
To the credit of WikiLeaks, no one doubts that people living in democracies need access to accurate and timely information if they are to play a meaningful role in the democratic process. That logic goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, if not before.
Whistleblowers
And no one doubts that whistleblowers who uncover dangerous, illegal, or corrupt practices should have protection from retaliation. Remember Dr. Jeffrey Wigand who exposed the practices by the big tobacco companies in the 1990s of making cigarettes more addictive through a secret ammonia-boosting process?
Former tobacco industry executive Jeffrey Wigand blew the whistle on the tobacco comapnies, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in fines against those companies. (AP Photo/Rogelio Solis)
Further, we have seen over the past two weeks how unaware the West was about conditions that led to a people’s revolution in Egypt. One of the main reasons we didn’t know about it was that there were few foreign correspondents there to tell us about what was happening.
Fewer reporters
Why? Because media owners and managers have decimated the ranks of reporters, especially those covering international stories.
Bottom line: Without those boots on the ground discovering stories like that, how are we to know?
Okay, I’ll go ahead and say the obvious: “If a tree falls in the wilderness and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Egypt made no sound for us, because we had no one there to hear it.
Filling a big hole
Wikileaks can also help fill the gap left by investigative reporters who have been cut from newspapers and television stations. We’ve been living in some pretty perilous times without having many of these watchdogs guarding the premises.
Without them, the climate is more open for wrongdoers in business and government to practice corruption. But knowing sites like WikiLeaks can burst their secrecy bubble might make them behave just a tad better.
These are holes that WikiLeaks can and does fill. But does it also create other holes?
National security threat?
It is punching holes in American national security? Should there be at least a few limits to the kinds of classified documents that are published? Shouldn’t we assume that the government has at least some need to guard state secrets, the revelation of which could compromise its peoples’ security?
The culture of the Internet is, again, one of openness. Very few controls exist on content published on the Web, and few leaders of governmental agencies relish the idea of being criticized for trying to establish information controls.
Deregulation is trend
Even the FCC has been in a deregulatory mode since the Reagan years, backing off on regulating television, let alone the Internet. In fact, it has no mandate to control Internet content since the Web doesn’t come to us over the public airwaves.
But a culture of total openness exists within an American society where freedoms are not absolute nor limitless. We have laws regarding invasion of privacy and we have laws regarding libel.
Wrongful death claims coming?
And it may only be a matter of time before wrongful death charges are filed against individuals who leak humiliating information about other individuals who turn around and hang themselves in their bedrooms because of it.
And, on that macro level, what happens if documents do get leaked that do have the power of compromising national security?
Against that reality stands the Internet and WikiLeaks. In a post-9/11 world, it’s not surprising that many people are now thinking some limits should exist on what shows up on the Web. As always, though, the questions are who will regulate that conent, and how do we keep politics out of it?
Thank you for joining our conversation on A Virtual Unknown. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
The whole topic of Free Speech and the balance needed to delicate what should be protected truly is “an issue that could be debated well into the next decade.” We cannot deny the importance of keeping our government accountable and that of transparency. However, I don’t see any type of easy answer as how to balance this necessity. WikiLeaks has created an interesting space in the Internet and on the world stage because it gives people of all positions the ability to leak these documents; while I don’t agree with everything they do, I do agree with the idea that just as journalism struggled in it’s infancy to protect sources, WikiLeaks should be able to follow the same road.
At the same time, we cannot be lead to believe that they are alone in their actions. Legitimate newspapers are willing to run their information, therefore they should be held to the same standard, if they want to share the same information. Then, just as you stated, there is a huge concern to be had as to who would regulate this content, in a truly unbiased manner. Is that even possible?
I know that I don’t provide a strong argument for siding with WikiLeaks one way or the other, and it’s because I believe in their cause, but not necessarily their actions. I guess in the end it comes down to the question of “Does the ends, justify the means?”
Bryan Carson Comm200 Response
this is a tricky issue indeed. wikileaks has done things that many would say is wrong, and still many others would say is very right. the right to know is a touchy subject with most people and is definitely subjective. the fact is that some people just are not capable of dealing with knowledge of that magnitude. for this site to post things up there for people to see and react in who knows what way is a little irresponsible in my opinion. yes people should not be lied to and the truth should not be covered up just to protect those who committed the transgression.
on the other hand this site is definitely doing a great service to the government at the same time. in putting this information out there, it is showing the government a) how people are reacting to it, and b) that their information is not safe the way they have it currently. in this way wikileaks is actually helping point out holes in security that might not be open for very much longer, if they are at all anymore.
You bring up a very important question at the end of your blog: “Who will regulate that content (i.e. WikiLeaks), and how do we keep politics out of it?”
Although content like WikiLeaks is regulated by its personal organization, I have always felt that critical information that is broadcasted to the world should not be left in the hands of an exclusive group of people.
Those countries or people affected most by this information and the ones who must deal with the information’s consequences should be able to have a say in regulating this content. More than likely, national security involvement should be present.
Now, as for politics, the way to keep politics out of situations such as this is to do just that “keep politics out of it.” In matters that involve the security and freedom of a nation and its people, politics is not the heart of the issue, but rather becomes a distraction to what should be done to fix the problem. What matters is the fact that people are put in danger without ever giving consent or a say so in the matter. This is not a conflict of politics but of human rights and dignity as well as security and happiness.
However, I realize this is my own opinion and a fairly brush stroke at that. Not everyone will hold this view, which is absolutely wonderful because it creates diversity.
Wikileaks is not a site I have personally visited but it is something that I have began to hear about more and more. This is a difficult topic to say weather it is wrong or right because as it was already mentioned, people have different opinions about what information and how much should be allowed to be seen by the general public. I guess only time will tell.
I think the issue of WikiLeaks is probably the biggest ethical issue in journalism right now, one that affects all of us as citizens in a democratic country. These questions really resonated with me: “Should there be at least a few limits to the kinds of classified documents that are published? Shouldn’t we assume that the government has at least some need to guard state secrets, the revelation of which could compromise its peoples’ security?” I think the answer is yes. The government absolutely has the right to not divulge every (or maybe even most) piece of classified information to the public. I do not think corruption should go hidden or unspoken of, but I do think that, as citizens, we are not equipped or trained to handle classified information that should only stay in the hands of the government, at least to an extent.
I immediately related the WikiLeaks raises tough questions piece to the Free Press Theory. Does WikiLeaks use any restraint in their publications? Or do they keep with the philosophy that if there is a story it must be told, without regard for the consequences? There are definite advantages of some of the information that WikiLeaks publishes and their support of “whistleblowers” who may not every truly have an anonymous voice without this service. But what (if any) harm has come from their publications? Are there legitimate national security issues that have been (or will be) published that might put American’s in harm’s way? How does WikiLeaks attempt to exercise social responsibility and who then makes decisions on publications? And what criteria do they use in determining which story should vs. should not be run?
It’s amazing the power the internet media now plays in our world. Never has it been easier to communicate to a mass amount of people. Depending on the message it can be a great, but also very destructive tool. It is a fantastic place for whistleblowers or grassroots campaigns to gain attention and steam. I believe regulating the activity to filter as either acceptable or unacceptable is unrealistic and comes at too great a risk. This is one where you have to take the bad with the good.
When you said “people living in democracies need access to accurate and timely information if they are to play a meaningful role in the democratic process” it made me think of the real reason journalists started reporting. This sentance helps to clarify the fact that today’s media is owned by huge conglomerates and the shareholders have an agenda. This WikiLeaks site is doing us a favor by letting us know the truth, what is really going on in the world that our government and news media are trying to hide from us.
The WikiLeaks issue demonstrates one of the trickiest questions in media: what happens when the public’s right to know intersects with the potential consequences of making such information public? For Julian Assange and the sources who provided documents to him, the potential consequences are mostly legal issues. For the American government, the consequence is embarrassment and a potential risk to national security. Compromised security could also have a negative consequence for the American people.
Ralph Potter’s “Potter’s Box” provides a framework to help individuals work through these ethical issues. However, it doesn’t specify what to do when one individual’s decision conflicts with another individual’s decision. Julian Assange has decided the potential consequences for the American government and American people don’t outweigh the public’s right to know. A lot of other people think differently. Neither Potter’s Box nor any other principle of media ethics clearly outlines who is right.
The WikiLeaks issue is a prime example of our society’s inability to decipher between information on a right to know, need to know and want to know basis. People have a right to know information when it involves health records and safety, etc. They need to know the information when it directly impacts their life or that of the general public, and they only want to know the inforamtion when it has little or no relevance or importance to the general public, such as slander or Hollywood gossip. I do believe WikiLeaks is providing the world with information about which the general public needs to know in order to stay in tuned with foreign and domestic affairs. However, I think there should be a line drawn when the information leaked has the potential to put tens of thousands of soldiers’ lives at risk while they are already sacrificing so much for our freedom. Not all information is public knowledge, nor should it be.
Ted Koppel spoke at Ball State last year and said, “It has always been theoretically possible in this country for anyone to be a journalist…Anyone—under the first amendment can sit down and write something, but when my friend Steve Bell and I started in this business, if you wanted to be heard around the country—let alone around the world—you had to work for ABC, NBC or CBS. Now you need a laptop, that’s it. That’s scary.”
It was a different time back then. Before the days of cable news, the Internet, satellite radio and social media, government used to have much more control over what journalists would report and media outlets would publicize. That’s no longer the case—and WikiLeaks, which calls itself a non-profit media organization, is a prime example of why government is beginning to lose its grip on today’s media (although someone from the inside still had to leak the hundreds of thousands of State Department documents).
Your point about the FCC being in deregulatory mode since the Reagan years is another indication of the breakdown that is happening between government and media. Government has taken more of a back seat to the media—which is a stark contrast to what has taken place in years past. Media is now winning the battle over influence, control and power as technology continues to advance at alarming speeds and consumers continually look to media for its answers instead of government.
Most comments about this blog have related to freedom of the press, and I do believe this is a major issue here, but I believe ethics are as well. When these writers go on to these sites with real or misrepresented information they are posting to the world. When doing so they have to decide it they believe it is ethical. I do not think it is every going to be against the law because of the first amendment, but ethics come into play because of the harm that certain articles can cause. Because of the popularity of the site, information shared can have catastrophic consequences. The blog speaks of national security and even of people’s reputations being ruined. This could really be the case with a blog reaching this many people. The person who chooses to post their thoughts needs to think about how their information will affect society, their place of work, their own reputation and those they are writing about. When a really juicy story is posted, I believe in many cases it is great for everyone to have this information. For example, if a person is trying to be elected, but they have a secret that would sway my vote, I want to know. But at the same time I would not like for national security secrets to be shared with the whole world if they will put our security at risk. Like all this involving ethics, there’s a very thin line between what is right and wrong.
Is Wikileaks ethical? I can’t say that it is. I certainly am one American that feels we as citizens do need to know the truth, but I believe the truth has a time and a place. In my opinion, there is a difference between being lied to and being protected. If Wikileaks is spewing forth information that can compromise National Security, it shouldn’t be allowed. If there are some things that the Government needs to keep to themselves in order to maintain a safe country for the rest of us, then I’m all for it. Also, if there is no regulations then how are we to know whether or not the information presented is accurate, misconstrued, or just simply made up?
“But an overarching question is this: How much access do Americans need to information which – if revealed –could cause some serious problems?” – My response to this is whose decision is it to choose what information we are allowed to see? This certainly provokes concern over what information is in our right to know and what information we need to know, regardless of whether we want to or not. There are certainly ethical concerns to be addressed with the content on WikiLeaks, however, the site is doing its duty to society by providing information to the people, even if the ‘duty to the audience’ is creating controversy – with the audiences being each culture/individual/country that is privy to the information – from John Vivian. I do find some similarities between the case against Julian Assange and Dr. Wigand, as they both went against individuals who may have been viewed negatively based on the information revealed. This is why both came under fire for their actions – providing information to the public that they have a right to know.
This all goes back to asking whether you believe John Milton and the libertarians of his day when they extolled man’s ability to reason and come to the truth in a marketplace of ideas. If you believe this you have to agree in what Assange is doing although you might take in information from Wikileaks with a grain of salt.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Willis, Jim Willis. Jim Willis said: New post: WikiLeaks raises tough questions http://blog.newsok.com/virtualunknown/?p=1215 #newsok #Julian_Assange #privacy #WikiLeaks [...]