This month I’d like to discuss the issues arising from the recent WikiLeaks publications.
I’ve identified three topics:
1. Freedom of Information
It has been said that information wants to be free. For information to become ‘free’, it only takes one person who:
· Has access to particular information.
· Has the desire and means to publish it.
· Is willing to suffer any potential consequences of doing so (or don’t think they’ll be caught).
Even if these conditions aren’t met, there’s always the potential of illegal access.
So, should governments have the right or duty to keep information secret:
· What type of information?
· In what circumstances?
· What conditions should be applied?
A related question is the extent governments will be able to keep secrets, even if they want to (so is this a mute point).
2. Cyber Conflict
The reaction to WikiLeaks’ publications has been described variously as the first cyber, information or internet war.
Firstly, a number of on-line (mainly financial) organisations have bowed to pressure from the US government in an attempt to weaken and isolate WikiLeaks (PayPal, US Banks, etc.). Then the reaction of the Anonymous group of on-line activists who coordinated a series of web attacks against these organisations. Anonymous’ members span many countries, and probably don’t recognise any particular set of laws, but instead presumably operate within their own individual ethical and moral framework. Also, at this point the group appears to be comprised of a loosely bound set of individuals cooperating towards a common goal, without a formal command structure.
Although the consequences of the recent attacks seems to be fairly limited, the question remains when and in what form these attacks may take in the future; will they become more organised, frequent and difficult to contain; and can governments can learn how to police and/or reduce their impact?
3. Law
Governments seem to be getting increasingly frustrated with their inability to control information and/or prosecute those who they think have contravened their laws or national interest (particularly the US in this case, but I don’t see any reason why it will be limited to them). For example, prosecutors in the US and elsewhere apparently have not been able to identify any law that WikiLeaks has broken, especially when it’s registered and operates in other countries. And new laws that have been proposed almost certainly contravene the US constitution and will therefore be thrown out. Unsuprisingly, WikiLeaks chose to move its operations to Iceland, a country with the some of the strongest protections of the rights of journalists and media organisations.
The main problem for governments here is one of jurisdiction – legal systems evolved in an environment where borders were well defined and could be protected, whereas such borders, at least in terms of information flow, are breaking down rapidly and are virtually meaningless in some contexts.
I realise this has been a growing issue for a long time, perhaps proportional to the rise of global communications, but maybe recent events are bringing it to a head. In some ways it could bring into question the ability of individual countries to govern themselves effectively. The question is how this situation will play out? What are the implications to world governance?
