Scott Gilmore: WikiLeaks just made the world more repressive
by Volker Weber
I am an aid worker, the kind who rants about transparency, open governments and reforming the United Nations. But, I used to be a diplomat and I used to write secret cables, like the ones being released by WikiLeaks. And I said some very frank and nasty things in those cables.
Comments
Scott Gilmore makes a strong point about the need for confidentiality.
But this does not say anything about Wikileaks. Assange asked the US twice for help in redacting the material and removing sensitive information of exactly that kind S. Gilmore describes in his story.
Check out this very interesting article on the Washington Post: "Why prosecuting WikiLeaks' Julian Assange won't be easy"
Thanks Lucius! The article presents a sane view of the affair.
Although I feel strongly about the subject I refrain from mentioning my personal views. Interesting to see there is more then meets the eye. It seems Volker is still on that same path?
I am not sure openness is his goal. The WSJ suggests he is trying to hamper U.S. diplomatic efforts. This is an interesting (meaning novel and worth exploring) alternative explanation of his actions:
QUOTE
"Mr. Assange is misunderstood in the media and among digirati as an advocate of transparency. Instead, this battening down of the information hatches by the U.S. is precisely his goal."
In 2006, Mr. Assange wrote a pair of essays, "State and Terrorist Conspiracies" and "Conspiracy as Governance."
His central plan is that leaks will restrict the flow of information among officials—"conspirators" in his view—making government less effective. Or, as Mr. Assange puts it, "We can marginalize a conspiracy's ability to act by decreasing total conspiratorial power until it is no longer able to understand, and hence respond effectively to its environment. . . . An authoritarian conspiracy that cannot think efficiently cannot act to preserve itself."
ENDQUOTE
WSJ: Julian Assange, Information Anarchist
Can somebody do a film on Julian Assange or at least rerun the watergate movie 5 times a day to get some sanity back into the world.
We have to thank everybody who runs a high personal risk to bring the real picture of the hypocrisy to the public. And looking at the harrassment case in Sweden, I wonder how cheap you can get.
And I am also asking the 'qui bono' question. Without having gotten the whole picture, I see that a lot of the Bush-era politics are bubbling to the surface as they were, giving us a the confirmation of what most have been thinking anyways all the time.
So what's new?
What's new?
What's new is that everyone now knows that the US government's ability to control and log access to confidential information has been weak, at least for information toward the low-end ("Secret") of the classification system. So we can deduce that the very first thing that will happen (and probably already has happened) in response to WikiLeaks is that a lot of information will have been re-classified at higher levels, which presumably makes it available to fewer people and subject to stricter controls. We can also deduce that the second thing that will happen is that the systems and processes for controlling and logging access to the lower-level classified information will be made stronger. And since tighter control over access to information always imposes significant inconveniences (hence Volker's repeating mantra about DRM), these two things mean that certain processes for which the US government uses this information will work less efficiently. Most of these processes are probably inconsequential, but some might be important and delays in getting access to information could prove to be very costly.
Also new is that the world is aware of the weakness of the US government's ability to control and log access to confidential information, but will almost certainly be unaware of the extent and time-frame for the steps that will be taken (or have already been taken) to fix it. As a result, we can deduce that many people who might have otherwise been willing to talk to US government officials will be more afraid of being exposed and therefore less likely to do so.
Also new is the idea, held by some, that leaking indiscriminately is somehow virtuous. Previously, leakers were for the most part interested only revealing information about specific misdeeds. Now, even the routine communications of people trying to conduct day-to-day diplomacy in a very complex world are considered (again, by some) to be fair game. There are bad secrets, for sure, but there are many good and necessary ones, too, and wikileaks has not shown itself to care about drawing a distinction.
Disagree? Fine. But bear in mind that you might not be alive today if it had been impossible to keep diplomatic secrets in the past. Just one example would be the secret deal for delayed removal of US missiles from Turkey that was part of the agreement between Kennedy and Khruschev that stopped the Cuban Missile Crisis from escalating into a nuclear war. If that part of the deal had leaked, Kennedy would have denied ever having agreed to it, and who knows what would have happened.
"processes for which the US government uses this information will work less efficiently".
You mean like lying ragarding Iraqi missiles at the UN panel? j/k
"we can deduce that many people who might have otherwise been willing to talk to US government officials will be more afraid of being exposed and therefore less likely to do so"
Shit happens. But people are buying Toyotas although there have been problems. Rebuild a trusting cooperation with your customers and your fine otherwise you're lost anyway....
"and who knows what would have happened..".
But mutual mistrust is one reason why the world is sometimes near a nuclear warfare. More transparency could resolve dangerous constellations.
Regarding Kennedy: That's very speculative. Who knows, but one person who prevented the nuclear warfare for shure was Vasili Arkhipov .
Mac - thanks for the link to the article on Arkhipov. I had heard that part of the story of the crisis, but had forgotten about it. Of course, if that incident had not remained secret for so long, who knows... ;-)
Re "more transparency could resolve..." In view of the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's death tomorrow, I'll just say: Imagine.
@Richard: Although I sure sympathize with your point of view, and I refrain from criticizing your point of view as I can sense a very far-reaching mind behind the comment and, there is one point I cannot share at all: Why should anybody make JA responsible for the US governments "more of the same" tactics?
And if the information in the interwebs is still reflecting truths, he has actually informed the US beforehands and asked them to help in "blackening" names (which the authorities have not done).
I have seen at least one cable in which a name of an informat has been changed into "XXX XXX".
In particular, worlds governments "more of the same"-policies brought us the war on toothpaste at the airports. Maybe someone should stop to think? Sometimes, common sense is the least common of all senses. (BTW, the "more of the same" phrase was coined by Paul Watzlawick, a very good scientific analyst with a good sense of humour and absolutely readable publishings).
@Armin: I do understand your point of view, too, and I respect it. And thanks for the reference to Watzlawick. I found a few references, and it looks very interesting. I hope to follow-up on some of them.
Here's an interesting question: If you were running the intelligence organization of your country today, wouldn't you have one of your agents working hard to become part of wikileaks? Wouldn't you assume that other countries and multi-national organizations already have their own agents inside wikileaks organization? Or would you believe that Julian Assange is able to know the true motives of all his helpers?
I am not buying the argument, that because "secrets" have saved many lives, we must have secrets. You could also argue: many people have been killed in order to keep secrets secret, or that because many people didn't know of some danger or action, they were killed. How many times did some parties know of massacres, but kept them secret, no to worry others, so the massacres continued. That includes disasters, which nearly happened. The argument to keep secrets so that we can live worry-free is too convenient and almost always serves as a cover-up story.
And there is the eternal question: who are they to decide to keep it secret, especially if it involves or implicates them?
The argument of Scott Gilmore is to protect the sources. And yes, to reveal a secrecy is often dangerous for the sources. The argument not to leak because of the danger to people is protecting the secret, a catch 22, a chicken and egg question. Wikileaks has tried together with institutions to protect sources. And isn't the idea of wikileaks and other similar projects to create more transparency trying to prevent future situations like that?
@Richard is keeping secrets virtuous (ie better)?
@ Richard: To answer the three questions briefly and without a lot of ado: Yes, yes and no. Simple - I do know, though, that some of his helpers have a history in the Federal Republic of Germany to be highly acclaimed experts. And I do know that a very experienced and weathered german politician, Gerhart Baum, said (referring to the CCC): The experts are *not* with the government.
So, in order to get your interests served in such an organization you have to either corrupt someone (which is possible, of course), or you have to start educating somebody in your own ranks. The latter is the hard route and the most sensible.
In Germany, we are far from arriving at a state of half-way decent knowledge on what security is in particular in the government (and even clever, respected people still think Google Street View is a pretty neat idea!), the government lacks even the most basic understanding due to hypocrisy and selfishness and saving in all the wrong places.
I have heard voices from the US with mouths agape on what the CCC is able to pull off, though.
And I, as a rather uneducated but at least critical individual, can only hope that as in China, as in Germany, in Iran and in the United States of America, there will be always individuals who sacrifice their personal well-being for the sake of humanity and against the at-will behaviour of self-proclaimed and self-appointed elites, who selfishly feel that it would be better if their wrong-doings were kept a secret.
If I may, I would like to add that there are a lot of this type of admirable persons in the US of A, more than I perceive being active in Germany, while need most certainly would be there all over the place, all I can do is humbly bow my head in the general direction of the States and their people.
Just to give you one more name that might be worth looking up: Sibel Edmonds comes to mind when thinking about the people the US can be proud of, because they give the term "land of the free" back its original meaning, something everybody admired way back then. Free to voice concerns, free to think for yourself and free to ignore what media and press and big brothers throw at you all day long to turn your interest the other way and to make you upset about all the wrong things.
Moritz: it depends on the nature of the information, and on the motive for keeping that information secret. There are good secrets, and there are bad secrets. People have secrets. Families have secrets. Small businesses have secrets. Giant corporations have secrets. Governments have secrets. Multi-national alliances have secrets. At all scales, sometimes secrets are good, and sometimes they are bad. Enron had bad secrets, but that does not mean that all corporate secrets are bad.
You ask "who are they to decide...?" The answer is that the authorized officials of the legitimate government of a sovereign nation must have that right. Similarly, the authorized managers of a corporation must have that right for their corporation's secrets, the head of a small business must have that right for his firm's secrets, the adults in a family must have that right for their family, and each individual must have that right for himself. Yes, in the case of government officials they must be required to use that right for the good of their nation and according to the laws of the their nation and according to international laws. At every level down to the each individual person, there are similar ethical standards for virtuous secrets. If they abuse that right and keep secrets to hide violation of laws or incompetence, or if they keep secrets to protect themselves or their friends or their party, or to gain power or wealth, then yes of course they should be exposed. Armin pointed out the example of Sibel Edmonds, who did exactly the right thing. She exposed the abuse of secrecy, but she didn't at the same time expose any good and important secrets. She is a great example of a virtuous whistle-blower.
@ Richard: we Germans are looking at a stained historical track record when it comes to voicing concerns politically at the right moment. The inimaginable pressure somebody is under who has gotten hold of information that is so contrary to things people are made to believe is probably unbearable for every straightforward, honest and upright person.
How strong can a person be?
Now I can imagine, that whoever was the original leak (and I sincerely doubt it was the same young soldier who already has to fear for his future life, is in prison and probably not treated to his liking) this time was aware of what could become of him/her. So, torn between scylla and charybdis, what to do?
I can imagine somebody not being able to stand through the hardships Sibel went through. I can understand a regular person not being fit to stand up against the government of the state that is rightly described as the most powerful of today.
So, maybe the person is justified in putting the proof of what he or she cannot keep to himself/herself on the web, as a kind of life insurance? What would you do yourself in such a situation? Would you choose to keep your mouth shut, publish stuff anonymously or go the way Sibel went?
And another follow-up question: where in the world can stuff be put apart from wikileaks that actually should reach the general public? I tend to look at this as the Washington Post of the internet times (and no, I don't try to print out the internet, really) :-)
Armin, I'd love to continue this conversation but I am very pressed for time right now. You raise excellent points, and you ask thought-provoking questions. The answers are not easy. Of course, I do have some answers ;-)... but I don't have the time to give them the attention that they deserve -- and that you deserve. So the best thing is for me to do is stop now and hope that we have a chance to continue the discussion in the future.
