Sunday, December 12, 2010

Wikileaks discussions

[ Over the course of the next little while I'll post content or links to discussions I've had or I am having on the whole WikiLeaks situation. ]

This first one is a debate I'm having with a friend on Facebook. His comments/questions in italics.

Hi Fernando. You said "I fully support prosecuting WikiLeaks and anyone else involved in this to the fullest extent of the law." Who is anyone else? I'd think it is The Guardian, The New York Times, and the people that talk about those news, including you and me, right? what he did was to disseminate relevant information, like any other journalist would do. The  difference is that he was just smarter an more effective.

There's a lot of assumptions on your statement that I think needs to be looked at.

First of all, there's fundamental differences between WikiLeaks and real news organizations:
- Assange himself refers to WikiLeaks as "activists", with an "agenda" for transparency (watch the TED video again). They also want to "punish" the US for starting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
- The news media - Guardian, NYT, ... - use information to publish news articles, not just release the raw data. Personally, I find it objectionable that sites such as the Guardian are publishing the whole cables now, but in reality I don't think they could be prosecuted for it. It is interesting to see that the Guardian makes an effort to distance itself from WikiLeaks in describing how they scrub information more thoroughly that WL.
- Also, WikiLeaks has *threatened* to release passwords to an already distributed "insurance file" in case of severe harm to the organization. How is that compatible with responsible behaviour in news media?

In essence, I don't look at WikiLeaks as "any other journalist": they may have wanted to be that, but by releasing cables with the explicit objective of changing foreign policy, they become activists and not media.

One thing not being taken into account is that the State Department ITSELF publishes ist cables, but usually after a long (25 years+) period just to avoid compromising foreign policy. Who the hell does Assange think he is in deciding for himself that foreign policy is best served by publishing the data now? He doesn't seem to care that policy initiatives will have to changed/scrapped, that people will have to be reassigned, that careers may have been cut short.

To me, "all involved" are:
- the original leaker, for espionage/treason
- those who designed and/or operated the secure networks that allowed this to happen, for gross negligence.
- WikiLeaks, for aiding in espionage/treason. I don't know what specific charges should apply here. Actually one of my links recently was on the complications of prosecuting WikiLeaks. I just think there has to be a way to prosecute someone who engages in this type of "information warfare" action against the national interests.

Actually he has a political agenda, and interestingly he takes full responsibility for that. On his interview on TED (, he said "if a government is making an  effort to conceal an information, releasing it is probably good". In contrast, my personal conversation with my wife would not make the news... (unfortunately :) even if Assange released it.

In my opinion, by having a political agenda, he gives up the protection of being "press". He can't have it both ways. (see above).

Funny enough that he himself seems to take secrecy pretty seriously. When asked about the irony of WikiLeaks being so secretive, he sidestepped the question answering that there hadn't been any leaks at WikiLeaks yet. It'll be interesting to see the fallout of some people at WikiLeaks leaving because of him.

As for that quote, to me Julian Assange has no idea of what he is talking about, and that quote summarizes it perfectly.

Does he not recognize that within the sphere of international relations, governments have ENEMIES, publicly declared or not? Does he not recognize that the relationship between governments and individuals is ABSOLUTELY different than the one between government themselves?

I can see value in investigative reporting and denouncing specific crimes/coverups, such as Watergate, but where is the investigative reporting in exposing to the entire world the opinions of State Department officials about things?

Now let's look at HR. Why would someone want to hide the fact that an overqualified immigrant recently hired makes half of his peer's salary? This loaded question has the answer... Have you ever used that website that tells you what is your car dealers margin (confidential information), so you can negotiate with him and get a more "fair" price? It seems to me that more "advanced" companies are more transparent, so they focus their efforts on building their values, and not on perceptions. The same may happen with society.

Well, I could argue that the company has evaluated that the immigrant is not competent in negotiating a better salary and should not be paid more, or that the other peer offers more benefits to the company (maybe he has better relationships with others in the industry, maybe he has more experience with the company's products, etc...). As a shareholder in that company, I want it to make the best business decisions that will maximize the business benefits: it has to balance how much to pay staff to ensure that works gets done (products are released) and morale and quality don't suffer (so the company can profit).
When I bring up the HR example is this: how does your opinion of your colleagues changes if you know how much they make? To me, the disruption on the workforce would be significant.

What WikiLeaks appears to fail to understand is that international diplomacy is based primarily on NEGOTIATIONS, and revealing the internal discussions of one of those sides can compromise their position.

I think that equating the business relationship between an individual and a company with the diplomatic relations between countries is nowhere near appropriate.

As someone in the auto industry, you may know that the relantionship between the dealer andthe manufacturer is a lot more complex than just the "margin" the dealer gets on the invoice, right? There's joint marketing costs, factory assistance to dealers, documentation fees, prep fees, etc... I doubt any dealer will open up the entire accounting to you to negotiate a deal.

I think transparency is great, if handled properly. What I don't want is that being decided by the leader of an activist organization with no accountability to anyone but themselves.

However, our world may not be ready (yet) to deal with this level of transparency. We will keep following on the news. One thing I am sure, our society will still "function", even if it is with a different distribution of power.

I can go on a tangent here and say that this 'distribution of power' you speak of may end up being extremely negative to the Western values we live under. That's for another discussion, if you wish.

Now if we have to think too much on how to prosecute wikileaks, that suggests a witch hunt. I'd ask something different instead "why does wikileaks make us so uncomfortable"? 

I think that not a witch hunt, but the realization that the legal methods to hold someone accountable for their actions have to match the reality of the 21st century. Not sure how to do that yet...

As for what makes me uncomfortable about WikiLekas:
- the apparent inability (or unwillingness) of the government to hold accountable someone who is clearly attacking it.
- the celebration of this attack by so many in the Western world as "speaking truth to power" when in reality it is an almost anarchist organization doing damage with no regards for consequences

Thanks for the discussion!


  1. [From your friend on facebook]

    Hi, thanks for directly addressing my points. I see that you have seen this from several angles and even watched the TED video, which makes your opinion even more valued.

    In my response I will try to build on what we agree and not to loose focus on the issue, once we find out what it is.

    Assange is an activist, and he is aware and probably very happy that those leaks might result in a 'punishment' of US for starting Iraq and Afghanistan wars. By activist I mean whomever performs "intentional actions to bring change". Well, isn't that what politicians, presidents, Obama, and journalists that filter information do? Now why would the US be punished? by whom? if the people are ok with the government hiding their practices and intentions *for a bigger good* then there is nothing to fear with those leaks, we can just pretend we didn't hear it as we do with many other things and no one is embarrassed.

    If you see his history (being a hacker, moving around, his father being part of a cult) it is no surprise that secrecy is part of his life. The insurance file? Big disappointment... but again, so surprises. I think he is in this for personal reasons. But isn't it what we do sometimes? So instead of attacking him (for having sex with two girls within the same week...) I'd rather concentrate on the discussions around:
    - what is the foreign policy that we want (save it for later)
    - what to do with the other new information released (save it for later), and
    - what makes us uncomfortable (our personal reasons)

    I'd be very uncomfortable if someone attacked me, I didn't do anything to punish in return, and others celebrated due to ignorance of the gravity of the consequences.

    Now let's break this down, as can be interpreted a little bit differently:

    The 'attack' may be a call for discussion on transparency, like in the Watergate. Maybe foreign policy was the target and as a result it may change for the better (at least some people might hope for it). It may become more secret and secure, or governments may find it more effective to do what they say.

    The punishment is very difficult to happen, as new laws *fortunately* cannot rule retroactively. This is prevent witch hunts, as it happened in the past. In some of news someone said "throw the espionage act on him", which seems like a complete disregard for the legal system. That looks more like a dictatorship in a 3rd world country... but not in the USA.

    Others celebrated. Maybe there are many people that want to have open discussions like these. They may not be celebrating the attack itself, but the fact that those discussions are happening.

    By the way, thank you for the discussion!

  2. Hello again! Thanks for the discussion.

    A couple of things before I get to your points:

    - First, to the best of my knowledge, the protections that the US Constitution offers citizens do not apply to foreigners (Assange is Australian) in foreign lands (WikiLeaks is based in Sweden). This means that any comparisons to Watergate or the Pentagon Papers is not relevant, as these were acts of US citizens inside the US.
    - Second, if he is an activist with a very clear agenda to punish the US, then he is not "media" and should not hide behind allegations of "freedom of the press".
    - There is evidence that WikiLeaks has actively solicited secret documents. If that is the case, then there might very well be a legal case for conspiracy to commit espionage or aiding in espionage. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know what statutes apply. Maybe the Espionage Act, maybe something else.

    To me, it is quite clear that he chose to act on a global scale in a "propaganda" attack against the US. If so, I think he should be held accountable as such.

    Let me ask you this: if the PR representative of the Taliban, or the Iranian news agency, would publish the same information, would you still consider it just news and not a propaganda attack?

    One other point: I'm not against transparency. What WikiLeaks originally set out to do is a good thing (there were others before it, such as Cryptome), but when Julian Assange started to use it as a tool to combat US foreign policy, he became an actor/player in this "war on terror" and not just a reporter.

    Ok, moving on:
    - From your ACTIVISM comments:
    . The activism you speak of is directly counter to the typical principles in a code of journalist ethics ( - truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability. What Assange chose to do with WikiLeaks violates at a minimum objectivity, impartiality and potentially fairness.
    . "If people are ok..." would be fine if only the people that can choose foreign policy (i.e. US citizens) had access to that information. But no, he also released it to US adversaries.

    - From your ASSANGE comments:
    . His history of being a hacker (cracker, if you ask me. "Hacker" was originally used as someone who was creative in finding solutions, not someone who breaks into systems) and other details are not excuses - I'm sure there's several other people with the same profile who do not willfully engage in information warfare.
    . The insurance file is, to me, an indication that not only he is not just "reporting the news" but being an aggressive attacker. He is holding hostage the identities of several people that might very well be killed if the names are leaked. Worringly, when asked about the names of people in his previous releases (Afghan files), he just shrugged.
    . The "foreign policy that we want" is for the Americans to decide.

    - From your UNCOMFORTABLE comments:
    . No, the attack was not a call for discussion, it was deliberate release of classified information with no regards for the consequences. Not as Watergate (see my first comments). As for policy changing "for the better", 9/11 was also an attack. Was it acceptable?
    . I agree that retroactively laws are dangerous. As for the Espionage Act (1917), it may or may not apply. One of my disappointments with the whole thing is that the US appears to be stuck trying to determine to prosecute this as a "crime" or as an "act of [information] war by an enemy combatant".
    . Again, I think it was not a call for discussion. People are celebrating because of "schadenfreude". I wish they would not be so naive as to imagine that the alternatives to US policy are much better...


  3. Hi Fernando, you said

    "it is deliberate release of classified information with no regards for the consequences"

    Assange describes his own values on the TED interview, when at 15:40min he says:

    "A capable and generous man does not create victims, he nurtures victims... I'm a combative person... another way of nurturing victims is to police the perpetrators".

    I think his actions are aligned with the above. Probably his issue is with authority, or people in power in general. For a few years he was leaking stuff from some African governments, and no one was bothered with that. But if you are going against authority, doesn't it makes sense to go after the largest authority in the world?

    I don't think it is a simple an inconsequent schadenfreude (a new word for me), but his actions and the people's reactions are starting to make sense.

    I suggest that many people may have some commonality with his values, which I analyze below:

    1. he is very capable - not many people in this world would be able to setup such a bullet proof (or law proof) system. We will see how this story unfolds.

    2. he wants to be generous - I don't think he is being generous in that way, but ask the worst psychopath... even him may have 'good' intentions

    3. Nurtures victims - I think he was a victim, it's all personal...

    4. Combative - it's very clear from his actions

    5. Police the perpetrators - Isn't this what America wants to do with the 'bad' governments in the world?

    It is amazing that people end up doing the exact same thing they are highly against of, and the reason is that they just don't want to see it.

    Now we may want to see how similar WE are with him (combative, etc). This could be a very good self-awareness exercise.


  4. While I understand you see Assange's actions as noble, caring, nurturing, that is a point of view I don't share. To me, he has chosen a political position - against the United States as retribution for Iraq/Afghanistan - and is engaging in sabotaging US interests via disclosure of classified information. This sabotage takes place via exposure of information that either embarasses the US against public opinion or, worse, exposes actions or opinions of other countries that may in turn no longer collaborate with the US on a range of topics.

    As for the beginning of WikiLeaks, it seems he was not as noble as you say. Take a look at and you'll see there's suspicion that WikiLeaks actually stole information early on.

    I find it amusing how so many "activists" appear to have an unbalanced view of the power of the United States. From conspiracy theories ("9/11 was an inside job" or some other nonsense) to assuming that the US is "so much more powerful" than other countries that it can act, as Assange said, "a capable and generous man". Are they blind? Can they not see that there is a global conflict going on, not just between the US and the Taliban, but a large conflict between multiple entities:
    - Western civilization and its values, represented, to the extent it is possible, by the US
    - Radical Islamism and its notion of Sharia law, represented by Al-Quaida, Iran and others
    - Chinese hegemony and its economically modern but politically repressed society

    Plus a host of smaller players, from Russia to the European Union to Latin America and even sub-Saharan Africa.

    Looking at WikiLeaks disclosing sensitive information in the context of world diplomacy I can't help but see sabotage as its main goal, not transparency.