WikiLeaks, a non-organization has been publishing classified news sources since its launch in 2006. Within its five year span, WikiLeaks has released numerous classified documents of governments from all over the world. This has roused controversy and debates around the world.
In this particular article, WikiLeaks has recently stated that they will release “over 100,000 US embassy cables from around the world”. The files will be uploaded to a filesharing network, where people can access it if they have the password. Ultimately, the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange threatened that the files will be released to the public soon.
The particular issue that is explored in this article is the idea of censorship. Censorship is the idea that freedom of speech and expression should be suppressed. The issue being examined is, to what extent is censorship applicable? Since what WikiLeaks is releasing is supposedly “confidential” government information, therefore, is WikiLeaks wrong for releasing the information? By releasing these confidential documents, many governments may be affected negatively, and national security issues may be threatened. However, through WikiLeaks, people not only know about the corruption that is occurring around the world, but this organization also represents the ultimate freedom of speech.
In addition, there are ethics involved. Is what WikiLeaks doing right or wrong? By publishing stolen information, a nation’s diplomatic relations with another country may be threatened. Furthermore, the released information may also destroy national security of one’s country. Confidential information such as military plans, military resources, and treaties with other nations is exposed in broad daylight. Isn’t that an unethical act? Shouldn’t the government have secrets of their own in order to protect their nation? However, at the same time, is what Wikileaks doing correct? Transparency is important to stop governments from committing acts of corruption or unethical deeds without consequences. For example, by releasing the corruption in Egypt on Wikileaks, the Egyptian revolution was sparked, thus throwing over a despotic regime. Therefore, the issue boils down with ethics and censorship—to what extent is freedom of speech important? What makes releasing confidential information unethical? Should the media expose confidential they obtain with the consequences of jeopardizing national security?
In my opinion, WikiLeaks has represented the idea of media freedom. This organization not only exposed despotic rule in various nations, but it also keeps other governments from conducting unethical actions. Transparency is important to stop unjust. However, at the same time I believe that WikiLeaks should only release confidential information on government misconduct and unjust actions. It should not release confidential information that threatens national security in any way. I believe they should filter the information they release.
Furthermore, the idea of the ethics behind censorship is also applicable in areas of knowing such as history. For example, in the 1970s US President Richard Nixon was accused of corruption, which was known as the Watergate Scandal. By releasing the information, the media has exposed inner corruption in the United States. However, this scandal further rouses the American people’s distrust towards the government. Thus, the releasing of this information might cause civil unrest in the United States and also threatens the US government security.
It's interesting how quick the US government is to blame Assange and his organization for disregarding privacy and security a country is entitled to, yet they themselves disregard the individual privacy a person is entitled to when they passed PATRIOT Act. A "for the greater good" argument can be made from both sides of the spectrum. Perhaps more could be expanded on the knowledge issue of Ethics if one were to narrow it down to the conflict between the government and the people concerning privacy (i.e. the limits set on privacy is perceived differently between the two parties in question).
ReplyDeleteAnother potential WoK that could be raised here is Emotion. Why is, and should, the government be scared of cable leaks released by Wikileaks? Unless they aren't representing the interests of the governed, then I don't see a logic in their fear of Wikileaks. [I think] what Wikileaks is doing is ensuring justice within and between democratic systems; furthermore, it is also ensuring that a particular government does not fall into the trap of upholding a higher moral standard and then easily disdaining it. E.g. one of the cables released was from Sec. of State Hilary Clinton who issued an order for UN ambassadors to be probed, something that has provoked outrage from both the UN and the rest of the world. You make a good point, however, when you suggest that Wikileaks curtail their exposure of governments a little bit for fear of triggering massive civil unrest. It follows the logic that if exposing the corruption of governments could trigger a revolution in Egypt, then it surely could trigger some sort of chaos in the United States, though, so far there hasn't been anything bigger than outcry (possibly because the US has a longer democratic tradition). I suppose Assange should judge the situation case-by-case.
There will always be people with access to information the government doesn't want the people to know, and there will always be a group of people who have this access and want to release it to the general public. The problem cannot be solved by preventing leaks. However, those who have obtained the confidential information either legally or illegally should have a conscience in determining what should and shouldn't be exposed, as opposed to releasing everything indiscriminately. The efforts of government to support the people could be hampered, as evidenced by the displeasure of the U.S. armed forces when the press announced the invasion of Grenada, which was supposed to be kept a surprise. I'm not saying that we should trust the government completely, but there are already safeguards in place (in the USG) that greatly decrease the necessity of releasing all confidential information. All areas of government office are ultimately chosen by the people, and if there is gross abuse in the system, there are means of prosecuting the abuser without compromising the decent efforts of the rest of the government. In an extreme situation, the Second Amendment ensures that the American people will be difficult to oppose an abusive government on. There is still a balance between the power of the government and the will of the people. I'm sure that there are well-meaning people in this organization of "leakers," but it doesn't help when their poster-boy is a suspicious-looking anarchist.
ReplyDeleteWikiLeak is a well known non-organization that updates itself with one of the most recent classified news happening around the world. This website is facing an argument opposed by governments around the world because it is releasing too many classified documents to the public causing a serious invasion of privacy. Basically, this is a debate of censorship (freedom of speech). In my opinion, WikiLeak should continue posting up-to-date international news. This is imperative because citizens have the right to know the events happening in their own government. Aside from media freedom, WikiLeak can act as a perfect communication between the government and the citizens. Through this website, the government can hear the voices of citizens and make amendments on the government based on citizen’s need. Also, I do not find it inappropriate if WikiLeak leaked information causes one nation’s dirty secrets to be exposed to another nation; this is because transparency prevents the government from doing unjust acts and helps communication between nations by exposing the truth.
ReplyDeleteOften associated with WikiLeaks, the hacker group Anonymous raises the same questions brought up in this article. The hack group Anonymous is a hidden online hacker community that represents the concept of online freedom of speech. One of their recent protect regards the Bay Area Rapid Transit's shutdown of cell phone service. The purpose of this shutdown was to disconnect the protesters to assemble a riot in response of a police shooting. To protest against BART, Anonymous sent out an email/fax bomb to the members of BART and organized multiple protests. Again, the question raised here is that is the actions of Anonymous ethical? Since hacking is a topic mostly frowned upon, many classify Anonymous as an online hacker group. On the other hand, Anonymous' motive is to promote freedom of speech, so it is ethically okay to promote freedom of speech by protesting in the form of hacking? Personally, I think that it's okay to hack to protest against cooperates as long as people's lives are not harmed in the process.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leo's point that there will always be information that the government consciously censors, and that there will be 'hackers' of all sorts who seek to expose this information, whether they have harmful intentions or not. As a citizen, I would say that it's fine for WikiLeaks to continue what they're doing, as long as they at least begin to develop a sort of framework to ensure that the information they have obtained are obtained through legal means, and that the sources are reliable.The emphasis here is on the word "legal", as there are times where secret documents are labeled as such for legitimate reasons. For example, if WikiLeaks had existed back when the Cuban Missile Crisis was happening, the Soviets would probably have gotten information about the United States' initial intention to go through with an air strike, and that would have definitely threatened international peace and security. Or if terrorist groups could somehow hack into US government documents and figure out that they're headed a bit too close to their bases, that would defeat the purpose of the US military attempting to hunt down terrorists in the first place. Those were obviously hypothetical situations, but I think it brings across the point that if every government had complete transparency in everything they did, that would make diplomacy even more complicated than it already is. I think the big problem here is that as the internet is akin to a constantly evolving animal, we have yet to grasp its full potential, and we have yet to determine a 'code of ethics' for what constitutes as violations of individual rights or national sovereignties in cyberspace, as it is a lot easier for us to post things anonymously than to take ownership of the information/ opinions published.
ReplyDeleteThe "Great Firewall of China" is another example where the boundaries of censorship are pushed to its limits. China is infamous for disguising government interference as technical problems (as described by this article: http://www.technologyreview.com/web/37074/)
This raises the similar question of how much filtering is too much filtering, and unfortunately, the governments of many countries where social unrest is an issue are attempting to follow in China’s footsteps, especially by interfering with social networking sites (i.e. Facebook), in light of the Arab Spring that occurred quite recently.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete