Cryptography has evolved as a means of securing information, but WikiLeaks’ indiscriminate release of such information has sparked controversy. This article analyzes the impact of information disclosure on society, the role of WikiLeaks, and presents a debate on how and when information should be disclosed.
Cryptography has evolved from ancient times to the modern world in many complex and varied forms. It has played an essential role in keeping secrets and protecting sensitive information from prying eyes. In warfare, diplomacy, and commerce, it has been used as an important means of protecting life and property. However, as cryptography has evolved, so too has the freedom of information movement. If cryptography exists to hide, there’s WikiLeaks to reveal it. In this blog post, I’m going to write about WikiLeaks, an organization that does the opposite of cryptography, and answer the question of whether information should ultimately be hidden or revealed.
Whistleblowing is the act of an organizational member publicly disclosing corruption within an organization. Since organizations often react defensively and retaliatorily to whistleblowers’ disclosures, countries have enacted laws to protect whistleblowers in order to protect the interests of society as a whole rather than the interests of a subset of society. But it’s a different story when the target of the whistleblower is the state. They are not protected by the law, but rather charged with treason under the Patriot Act. As individuals against the state, whistleblowers are in a very vulnerable position. There is an organization that has taken it upon itself to protect them, and that is WikiLeaks. Shortly after its founding, WikiLeaks set a record for releasing more classified documents than all other sources combined. The organization’s massive disclosures shocked the media and the public, and sparked a debate about openness and transparency. The revelations have had a variety of repercussions around the world. The U.S.-Afghanistan war caused widespread revelations about the military’s cover-up of serious civilian casualties, the torture of prisoners of war, and the corruption of political leaders in the Middle East, which helped spark revolutions in the Arab world.
So, is WikiLeaks an apostle of justice for exposing state corruption? I’m not sure I applaud WikiLeaks for this. WikiLeaks only verifies the classified documents it receives and does not censor them, but releases large volumes of documents to the Internet at once, which is a very inefficient method. First, as social media users know, too much information can lead to public apathy. Secondly, this method of disclosure can backfire in unexpected ways. I’m going to focus on the second reason.
We can categorize the information disclosed in WikiLeaks into three categories: beneficial revelations, harmful revelations, and undesirable but acceptable revelations. Beneficial revelations are the aforementioned revelations of human rights abuses, illegalities, and corruption that would have been hidden forever if not for WikiLeaks. The disclosure of these facts provides the impetus for societies to improve.
Some revelations are not so beneficial. Many of the documents released by WikiLeaks, such as those related to the early years of the Afghan war or Zimbabwe, contain information that threatens the safety of informants hiding in enemy countries. In this regard, Reporters Without Borders has criticized WikiLeaks for abandoning its primary journalistic function of protecting sources. Whistleblowers who endanger the lives of those who fall into this category should be stopped and, more importantly, punished.
Third, there are risky revelations that are not always beneficial. An example of this is the US diplomatic leaks of 2010. The disclosure of documents that ordered the thorough collection of background checks on all contacts and even nicknames for diplomats’ weaknesses and what they called each other exposed the underbelly of U.S. diplomacy. But these revelations do not make for better government or diplomacy. It will not change the intelligence activities of foreign diplomats, which are already part of customary international law, and characterization of diplomats is a normal part of a country’s diplomatic service in order to facilitate negotiations. Therefore, to call hypocrisy by releasing perfectly good diplomatic documents that show nothing untoward, and that are customary in other countries, is to impose a moral standard on the relationship between individuals in the information warfare between nations. If anything, WikiLeaks’ scathing revelations have had the opposite effect of discouraging governments from disclosing information, undermining the transparency that has been guaranteed. The first outcry in the U.S. Congress after the full texts were released was not to condemn WikiLeaks, but to criticize intelligence agencies for granting too many employees access to classified documents. The leaks are said to contain a lot of information that can be accessed without a security clearance, and while it’s clear that such sensitive documents will be subject to tighter controls in the future, in the long run, this is a significant step backward for governments around the world, especially the United States, in terms of voluntary disclosure.
So WikiLeaks, which operates under the anarchic philosophy that “all information should be public,” is far from perfect. The black-and-white logic of “all information should be public” and “all information should be hidden” is flawed in the first place. The decision to disclose information should be carefully contextualized, and the impact it has on society should be carefully considered. Therefore, WikiLeaks needs to practice journalism that draws the line at what information should be disclosed. This will require additional staff to provide specialized insights that the WikiLeaks staff will not be able to provide.
