WikiLeaks

I am the first to admit; through all the controversy I have been totally oblivious to the inner workings of WikiLeaks. It was hard to ignore, given all the media attention but I just hadn’t taken the time until recently to weigh up all the information and form an opinion on the site and its spokesperson/co-founder Julian Assange. My initial view based on my limited understanding was that Assange was a nothing more than a hacker. A cowboy who was stirring up trouble, and who would fade from the spotlight fairly quickly. After some investigation though, my views have somewhat changed.

I say ‘somewhat changed’ as I still find myself questioning much of what Assange and WikiLeaks stand for. I believe in government transparency and accountability and the site clearly offers that. As a voter, taxpayer and citizen I want to know as much as I can about the government and those at the top end of town as I can. I believe that’s my right. If corruption is there to expose, I want it exposed. However I am also a big believer in ethics, and the manner in which WikiLeaks obtains and spreads information raises so many ethical questions that I simply cannot get onboard 100%.

WikiLeaks claims to be intermediary service for whistleblowers. That’s all well and good, however when it’s stolen or hacked information I cannot support its release. Quality investigative journalism is fine, interview, research and dig to see what you uncover. If it’s worthy, print it. However obtaining stolen or leaked information from sources who don’t own that information is a shoddy practice. Furthermore, when information can lead to major consequences for national security and in some cases put innocent individuals at risk, I staunchly believe it should not enter the public domain. Assange himself admitted in an interview with Raffi Khatchadourian (2010) in the New Yorker, that WikiLeaks may one day end up with “blood on its hands”. I ask, if that ever does eventuate, how does it separate Assange and WikiLeaks from many of the corrupt they attempt to expose? He claims in the same interview that this risk is worth taking, as the number of innocents protected by exposing the information WikiLeaks does outnumbers those at risk. Is collateral damage ever acceptable?

I will shy away from labelling Assange a terrorist or a criminal. This is a man contributing to the concept of participatory culture in unimaginable ways. He provides a voice, and an avenue for corruption to be exposed and for real government transparency and accountability to exist. However when ethics is pushed aside to cater to this, I simply cannot offer whole hearted support to the cause.

References:

Bertot, JC, Jaeger, PT & Grimes, J M 2010, ‘Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies Government’ Information Quarterly, vol. 27, pp.264-271.

Guardian News & Media Ltd 2012, The Guardian: Wikileaks, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/wikileaks

Khatchadourian, R 2010, ‘No Secrets: Julian Assange’s Mission for total Transparency”, The New Yorker, 7 June 2010, viewed 20 January 2013, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian

Kinsman, J 2011 Truth and consequence: The Wikileaks saga, Policy Options Institute for Research on Public Policy, Canada, viewed 18 January 2013, http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/feb11/kinsman.pdf