Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, is an international hero to some and villain to others. (Photo by Espen Moe/Flickr)
Online whistleblower an imperfect but important organization
SASKATOON (CUP) — WikiLeaks released its latest trove of classified U.S. government documents amid dire warnings from officials that the release would hurt national security and jeopardize important international relationships.
The greatest effect so far, however, has been to reaffirm how much information governments collect and how little of it reaches the public.
On Nov. 28, the online whistleblower site started releasing some of its 251,287 documents in conjunction with several prominent media outlets. They comprise embassy cables from around the world that are often candid, and sometimes startling.
Earlier this year, for example, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told his French counterpart that “Russian democracy has disappeared” and the country was “an oligarchy run by the security services.” Another cable from Ankara accuses members of the Turkish government of harbouring “neo-Ottoman Islamist fantasies,” which will surely become an Internet meme very soon.
But as entertaining as some of the revelations can be, others show the more sinister side of foreign policy.
The most shocking cable, from July 2009, comes from Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and calls for U.S. diplomats to spy on the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. The classified directive asked for a detailed sketch of the UN leader’s management style, his plans for certain regions and the collection of “biometric information,” which typically includes things like fingerprints, signatures and iris recognition.
As with any WikiLeaks release, news coverage will soon shift from the content of the documents to whether the controversial organization should have released them in the first place. Without WikiLeaks, however, it would take decades for some of this information to become public — if at all.
There are undoubtedly problems associated with making WikiLeaks the gatekeeper of this sensitive information, but if founder Julian Assange and his international network of associates are guilty of releasing too much, governments around the world are guilty of sharing too little of what they do with the public.
In an age of complete access to the sum of humanity’s knowledge — on anything from the ancient Egyptians to the best chocolate chip cookie recipe — our governments still hoard data as though it’s 1950.
For example, knowing that Afghanistan’s vice president walked out of the country with $52 million in his luggage would be of great concern to countries like Canada that are pouring significant resources into the corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, we do know.
The most consistent complaint against WikiLeaks has been that their releases endanger the lives of individuals who could be targeted by the likes of the Taliban for helping the U.S. But those claims have not been proven to be true. Indeed, after crying wolf for weeks after the Afghan war logs were released, the Defense Department admitted that no real damage had been done.
In this latest release, the State Department warned WikiLeaks that they would “not engage in a negotiation” to help redact the names of people who could be placed at risk, making it that much more likely that someone could indeed by harmed be the release.
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, believes in “radical democracy” in which information flows freely and powerful institutions like governments and corporations are completely transparent about their activities. Those same institutions, on the other hand, have a vested interest in obscuring their activities from the public — sometimes to the point of abuse.
While new technology gives us access to more information than ever, getting government data is still like pulling teeth. The 2010 Freedom of Information audit by the Canadian Newspaper Associationshows that the federal government uses every trick in the book to delay or deny requests. “The concept of freedom of information has been eroded,” said CNA president John Hinds when the audit was released earlier this year.
The government’s own information commissioner has concluded that freedom of information “is at risk of being totally obliterated because delays threaten to render the entire access regime irrelevant in our current information economy.”
Of course, Canada is not unique in this regard. The temptation to cast a veil of secrecy over anything potentially embarrassing is strong around the world, and it is up to citizens to hold governments to account. But when the normal channels fail, leaks become the only viable way to get information out.
Does WikiLeaks always act appropriately? No, of course not. Releasing Sarah Palin’s family photos, submitted by hackers who gained access to her email account, probably did little to advance “radical democracy,” but it also revealed that the then-governor of Alaska was inappropriately using her personal account to conduct state business.
In the end, we rely on an imperfect vehicle like WikiLeaks to reveal important facts because our governments will not always do what is right. There is something to be admired in the organization’s commitment to transparency and without activists like Julian Assange who constantly push to open the world up, the information age could regress. And while we may not absolutely want this WikiLeaks, the world needs some kind of WikiLeaks, and Assange offers us the only option we have.
