NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Wikileaks Saga Reveals Governments' Hypocrisy, Deep Fear of Internet
Wikileaks Saga Reveals Governments' Hypocrisy, Deep Fear of Internet
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000788.html
Greetings. The quotes from mainstream media pundits are all over the
news. "Wikileaks' Julian Assange should be assassinated -- Obama
should order a drone hit!" "Assange is like a James Bond villain!"
"Assange should be hung by his balls in a public square!" And so on.
Meanwhile, Internet domain and hosting companies, PayPal, and
presumably nearly everyone else who has either gotten a private call
from one or more government officials -- or are trying to head off
those calls -- are pulling domain names and payment mechanisms out
from under Wikileaks faster than you can say "Sensitive Compartmented
Information."
A cynical observer might almost imagine that there was an orchestrated
plan afoot to focus attention on the messenger -- rather than the
messages.
And yet, if we step back a bit and survey this situation with a bit of
objectivity, we can see that the reaction to the latest Wikileaks saga
is probably far more important in the long run than the content of the
leaked diplomatic cables themselves.
Various commentators have noted that successfully prosecuting Assange
for anything related to this release is definitely not a slam dunk.
Forget about treason -- he's not a U.S. citizen. The 1917 Espionage
Act has -- as far as I know -- never been successfully used against a
media release of classified information, and attempts to declare
mainstream media (who are also releasing this data) as immune, but a
primarily Internet-based operation like Wikileaks to be culpable, seem
problematic at best.
The politicians and "political analysts" from both major parties are
piling on of course. As usual, Sen. Joe Lieberman is demonstrating
his "we don't need no stinkin' civil liberties" attitude by launching
new legislative efforts to criminalize information releases. Over on
CNN, a pair of left/right-wing talking heads maligned Republican
Congressman Ron Paul -- calling him a "nut" and a "Martian" among
other things -- in response to Paul's suggestion that there might be
some free speech issues involved in the Wikileaks case
( http://bit.ly/fMijaq [YouTube] ).
And a spin right out of the Twilight Zone has already begun as well,
with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton now suggesting that the
leaked cables show how professional U.S. diplomacy really is
(fascinating, though I will agree that many of the documents show very
high quality writing skills indeed!)
Also from Fantasyland, we have the U.S. government ordering government
workers not to look at any of the leaked information now widely
publicly available -- even from their personal, home computers.
Perhaps at the last minute the government removed text also ordering
workers not to think about pink elephants, either.
Assange has quite a swagger, and does not come across as a
particularly likable fellow, which both play into the hands of his
adversaries, and helps them minimize facts like Wikileaks' prior
outreach to governments offering to redact aspects of the materials
before release. If you make yourself easily demonized, you shouldn't
be surprised when you find your yearbook image released to the media
complete with Photoshopped horns and pointed tail.
Amidst all this, the secondary attacks have already begun. Media
commentators have expressed disdain that various bloggers and tech
world "luminaries" have publicly noted concerns about the manner in
which attacks on Wikileaks have unfolded. Whether those concerns are
focused on Wikileaks itself, or on the free speech implications of
trying to shut down Wikileaks' domain names and sites, the implication
is that anyone not enthusiastically volunteering to personally pull
the electrocution switch on Assange is obviously either an idiot,
un-American, or both.
There is indeed considerable concern in the technology community --
especially the Internet community per se -- about the reactions to
Wikileaks. I personally suspect that there are at least two aspects
to this.
On one hand, there are many in the Internet community who feel very
strongly that free speech in most situations should get highest
priority, unless genuine, imminent danger would be associated with
such speech. Given that the material released by Wikileaks from
SIPRNET was all classified Secret or lower -- and had been made
officially available en masse to hundreds of thousands, perhaps
millions, of Defense Department operatives, it seems difficult to
realistically argue about horrendous, imminent threats to result from
the leaking of those materials. If they were so critical, why were
they given such low security classifications? Why were they made so
widely and easily stolen by low-level personnel -- almost guaranteeing
a leak of some sort at some point given the nature of the Internet.
What those leaked cables mainly represent is an embarrassment. And a
key reason they are so embarrassing is that they expose the deep and
enduring hypocrisies of governments around the world -- including the
U.S. -- not only in the ways that they deal with each other, but in
the manner of the subtle fibs and outright lies that they disseminate
to their own citizenries. Naturally though, governments consider it
their prerogative to publicly leak whatever aspects of such
information their deem useful in the furtherance of their own
objectives. But woe to anyone else who dares to assume such an aspect
uninvited and unapproved.
And this may best describe what could be the second reason many in the
Internet tech community are concerned about the reaction to the
Wikileaks disclosures. My own sense is that tech types -- geeks --
whatever you want to call them (including myself), often have a lower
tolerance to hypocrisy than many persons in the general population.
Perhaps that's from spending so much time dealing with the more
"absolute" world of software and systems, where the sort of "fabric of
lies" that seems to underly so much of international diplomacy would
be utterly unacceptable and disastrous. Some may argue that such
falsehoods are necessary to the smooth functioning of diplomacy
itself. If that's true, the Internet indeed poses enormous problems
for the diplomatic corps.
In this context, we can actually begin to "connect the dots" in
interesting and perhaps enlightening ways.
The Internet virtually guarantees that information once leaked can
never be effectively blocked -- a fact that holds true for Wikileaks
data of course, but Wikileaks is just the tip of the iceberg moving
forward ( http://bit.ly/hvHFCN [Lauren's Blog] ).
Overall this is an utterly terrifying concept to governments, in a
manner that has never existed before in human history. Even the
invention of the printing press, for all the furor surrounding it, did
not so utterly decimate the ability to control the flow of
information.
In many parts of the world -- now increasingly including the U.S. as
well -- any entity that creates information, releases information, or
organizes and helps people find information -- and who doesn't also
strictly toe the government line, risks being declared, if not an
enemy of the state, at least a subject of suspicion.
So we see governments striking back, attempting to get the Internet
"under control" -- in a desperate push to bring back the good old days
of information authority.
The domain name system is being increasingly used as a law enforcement
and censorship tool. Governments around the planet are demanding that
the Internet and all systems associated with the Internet be modified
or purpose-built to enable easy government wiretapping and disabling
of any associated encryption systems.
Calls for government-issued Internet access credentials wouldn't only
help to reveal who downloaded a movie without paying for it, but also
whose roving eyes have peered at the latest information leak or other
unapproved forbidden fruits of the Net.
We seem to be approaching something of a "perfect storm" of events,
where the technology and policies of the Internet are colliding
head-on with many traditional sensibilities of government.
While we can always hope for a reasoned "meeting of the minds" to
amicably deal with such controversies, the realities of politics
today, and in particular the reactions to the ongoing Wikileaks saga,
make this something considerably less than a comfortable bet.
Julian Assange is not a hero. Nor does he appear to be a devil -- the
requisite evil intent seems absent. Even many free speech advocates
would call his methodology misguided. Whether or not his methods are
criminal is thankfully not for me to determine (however if they are
indeed determined to be criminal, mainstream media may wish to
consider seriously ramping up their legal teams, post haste).
Regardless of how you feel about the Wikileaks data itself -- the
actual content of those cables -- and no matter where you stand
regarding the propriety or recklessness of Assange's methods, he may
well have done us all an enormous favor.
Through his actions, and critically through the resulting publicly
visible reactions of government, media, and their associates and
minions, the coming conflict between media, government, and the
Internet has been drawn into starker relief than perhaps ever before.
But what will we learn from this? Where do we go from here?
How many really care?
Do you?
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
Co-Founder, PFIR (People For Internet Responsibility): http://www.pfir.org
Founder, NNSquad (Network Neutrality Squad): http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP (Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance):
http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Google Buzz: http://bit.ly/lauren-buzz