Sunday, December 12, 2010

That Whole Wikileaks Thing...

So, unless you are a cave-dweller (in which case you wouldn't be reading this right now), you know about Julian Assange and his secretive assemblage of super-hackers. In the last few months, several thousands of documents have been released, some of which have shown the public things they assumed but didn't have proof of directly (like say, from the horse's very own mouth where the horse is the government or the Pentagon). People have been stunned and appalled by the relish with which innocent people were mown down with helicopter super-machine guns (whose bullets are made to pierce tank armor). Yes, we all know that war is hell, but we all hope that the mindset which made the Third Reich possible wouldn't seep so easily into the skulls of our supposed protectors. From "Collateral Murder" to the more recent slow dissemination of diplomatic cables, Wikileaks has made a name for itself.

Ridiculous calls to action by certain entertainers/politicians, calling Assange a traitor (which he isn't, obviously, not being a U.S. citizen or acting within the U.S.), a terrorist (again silly and ignorant), and targeting him for assassination, show that this has stirred some pots and some people are scared about the implications (not to the structure of foreign relations, I'll say, but to their own exposition possibly). Wikileaks has so far put out more leaked documents than have all the news organizations combined over the years. This is significant. That the current leaks, the cables, haven't turned out to be shocking or game-changers exactly, doesn't mean that they don't have huge implications to not only government transparency but also the meaning of free speech and the function of an increasingly impotent journalism. These leaks reveal something of all shades of government, throughout the whole world, no matter what ideology is at work. Therefore this has the amazing ability to surpass political identity within the public and let them see exactly in what their representative government has been engaged, be it bad or good.

Already, those who didn't agree with the secrecy of the transparency-obsessed Wikileaks have split off to create Openleaks, which will launch tomorrow. The basis of this more transparent organization would be to act as a protected go-between for leakers and publications, where they themselves publish nothing at all. This is a good thing. And this is not to say that I don't agree with the secretive workings of Wikileaks, but it means that the ideas are finding footing in which to evolve this beneficial process of stopping illegalities on the governmental level. Julian Assange, the media doll, has added mystery-novel flourishes to the story with the news of his insurance file (his "poison pill"), a 256-bit encrypted file (called "nearly impossible to crack" by a major cyber security expert) which includes 1.4 gigabytes of leaked material which may include information leaked from Bank of America and BP and the convenience of the Interpol warrant's timing on spurious charges. The key to the encryption lies with him and will be released to the thousands who have downloaded the archived file from the site in the event of his indictment or murder. That is, I have to say, pretty cool. Since his arrest, so called "hacktivists" have attacked the sites of Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard and Visa for pulling their services from Wikileaks. It looks like an effort by a small and mobilized group representing goals antithetical to the overly secretive governments. This I can applaud, no matter how little it will really affect those companies' abilities to make money.

What does it mean? What will happen in the long run? How will this affect the happenings in the worlds of government and journalism? This is not yet apparent. But, at the least, Wikileaks has garnered a response by the U.S. government and its allies which shows their disregard for transparency and how easily they can slip into tyrannical muscle flexing. Whatever happens, it will be something to watch.

Here are some articles and websites of note:

Posted by Sean Flannigan at 5:21 PM Labels: , ,

1 comment:

  1. Philip Kent WhitfordDecember 13, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    This whole issue is extremely interesting to me. I do not hide the fact that I am an idealist and that I hope for a strong open federal government. The idea of closed off back room deals scare the crap out of me, especially when it involves my tax money. I would consider the entire Bush administration one long back room deal.

    But let's not get off topic because you are onto something brilliant here. Journalism has always been hyper-sensational. I imagine sensationalism is a course taught in every university's communications department. In America "news" means hearing what you want to hear so you can feel good about yourself. At least that's how I perceive it. Wikileaks turns this on its head and says there is a lot going on that the people of the world should know but no one is reporting on or telling you.

    My guess is that 99.9% of Americans have never read any leaked information or have any idea of the implications. Which means most American's hold no opinions about the content outside of what they have been told to believe by the media outlets. They are not asking the hard questions like you have, or weighed the benefits as you did.

    It will be interesting to see where this all goes and what happens in the future. Thank's for you perspective.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)