Thursday, December 02, 2010

I support WikiLeaks*

"Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media."

- WikiLeaks.

Of course, if you currently try to follow that link, you'll find that it gives an error message, thanks to the US government's ruthless harassment and attempts to ostracise WikiLeaks (ironically, a strategy that was outlined in a US Department of Defence document itself leaked by WikiLeaks earlier this year). You can also try here.

There is much to say about the role of WikiLeaks over the last four years. They have broken a wide variety of important information about corruption and abuses of corporate and state power. Not every leak has been equally useful or important, and sometimes perhaps more has been released than was necessary to hold the powerful to account, which may or may not be the case in the current controversy (though currently, only a small fraction of the total files have been released). Nonetheless, from what has already been released, the prima facie case for the release being in the public interest is strong. While we might not need to know internal US diplomatic gossip about which world leaders are liked or disliked (often not that much of a secret in any case), finding evidence that seems to indicate that the US government has been breaking treaties and encouraging other nations to break treaties is no small matter, nor are revelations of the UK Parliament apparently being misled by the Foreign Office.

Yet the most common reaction to these revelations follows the lead of the government currently most damaged by them: distraction through counter-accusation. I am not aware of the legality under US or international law of what WikiLeaks have done (though Assange points out that WikiLeaks have been involved in over 100 legal attacks over the last four years and won them all), but I am aware of at least some of the illegalities exposed. The hunt for Julian Assange is a distraction, as is the witch hunt being put together to assassinate his character (or his person, if some are to be believed). This is what ought to be happening at the very least: resignations of those whose actions have been shameful.

Yet when Assange called on Clinton to resign for issuing instructions to diplomats that apparently break international treaties concerning the UN, the reaction from the White House was "I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with one website". This response shifts the focus from the substance of what Clinton (and Rice before her, for that matter) has done and onto the journalists who broke the story, blaming the messenger. The question is not whether they care about one man and his website, but whether we all care about what government officials do in our name.

There seem to be plenty more stories yet to come out of the cables. The next major release due sometime in the new year is said to contain evidence of corruption and malpractice at a major US bank.
*The fine print is that I don't agree with everything that WikiLeaks has done, and think that Julian Assange can come across with characteristic Aussie bluntness (rudeness) at times, yet the role that WikiLeaks has already played and continue to play is a very important one. Democracy relies on accurate and relevant information available to those who participate in public deliberation. Where corporations or governments seek to hide information that is relevant to matters of public deliberation on the common good, then they ought to be held to account and whistleblowers deserve principled protection.

UPDATE: If you're having trouble getting to the WikiLeaks site, this site is keeping track of the hundreds of mirroring sites and you should be able to find access.

19 comments:

Anthony Douglas said...

There's also some irony in the fact that Google was happy to cave in to the Chinese government, but so far haven't bothered to clear out their cached copy of Wikileaks.

Of course, it is possible they're just following their 'don't be evil' mantra!

byron smith said...

Yes, I noticed that too, though currently, you can access WikiLeaks here without the need for Google cache.

Mister Tim said...

And try http://wikileaks.de/ http://wikileaks.fi/ http://wikileaks.nl/

Wikileaks twitter feed also contains details of new servers and their current status, etc

byron smith said...

Thanks Tim. I think that wikileaks.ch is one of the more reliable ones at the moment (given Swiss neutrality).

WikiLeaks going for a big US bank next.

byron smith said...

Guardian: Amazon and WikiLeaks and more on Amazon and WikiLeaks.

I have written to Amazon letting them know that I won't be using their services until they change their policy or provide a convincing explanation. I am still evaluating their answer (which is contained (and criticised) in the second link).

byron smith said...

The experience of Assange's lawyers and online backlash against US pressure

byron smith said...

PayPal freezes WikiLeaks account.

Hmmm, I've been finding more reasons to dislike PayPal recently and as for eBay...

byron smith said...

Charlie Brooker does WikiLeaks.

Mister Tim said...

You should also read this article on Crikey about the rape charges:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/stic

byron smith said...

"It's not wrong to lie, cheat, steal, corrupt and torture. It's wrong to let people know about it."

byron smith said...

Thanks Tim - very revealing.

byron smith said...

An excellent summary of the situation. I agree with every word here.

byron smith said...

From Boing Boing:
"As Tom Slee puts it, "Your answer to 'what data should the government make public?' depends not so much on what you think about data, but what you think about the government." My personal view is that there is too much secrecy in the current system, and that a corrective towards transparency is a good idea. I don't, however, believe in pure transparency, and even more importantly, I don't think that independent actors who are subject to no checks or balances is a good idea in the long haul.

"I am conflicted about the right balance between the visibility required for counter-democracy and the need for private speech among international actors. Here's what I'm not conflicted about: When a government can't get what it wants by working within the law, the right answer is not to work outside the law. The right answer is to accept that it can't get what it wants.?

byron smith said...

Gillard can't name what crime Assange has committed.

I've written to her about this.

byron smith said...

Open letter to PM Gillard.

byron smith said...

AFP conclude that no Australian laws have been broken.

byron smith said...

Ethos: Gordon Preece has a very thoughtful piece on transparency and nakedness in light of WikiLeaks here

byron smith said...

Guardian: Assange is making a mistake.

byron smith said...

John Pilger: The siege of Julian Assange.