Wikileaks

I probably shouldn't apologize every time I write a post that ends up too long, so this is me trying not to apologize even though I am sorry.

What I find so interesting about all the recent activity surrounding wikileaks is how it combines many of the social concepts associated with the internet.

One of the big memes when the intertubes first popped up and still one of the semi-utopian ideals of the internet is anonymity, summed up by the phrase on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. This sense of privacy has quickly eroded, but the internet is still a great way to get to interact with the world without anyone knowing who you are (if that no longer seems true, go check out TOR).

Another big meme which started long before the series of pipes and tubes was made, but was truly able to take off because of the internet is information wants to be free.

These two concepts are often promoted by the same people and organizations (such as The EFF, Richard Stallman, and to a much lesser degree myself). While it may be possible to mesh the two concepts into a consistent framework by drawing some lines, there's clearly some conflict between wanting transparency and privacy.

To me these have coexisted as two of the pillars of the social movement around the internet and the wikileaks events so nicely brings them out and especially their conflicts. Such as a secret organization, where one of the key enabling factors is their ability to give information sources complete anonymity, whose stated goal is increased transparency. Then a group that actually calls itself anonymous supports the group dedicated to transparency by disabling websites while ignoring the fact that shutting down websites is the opposite of promoting free speech.

This whole post so far is essentially a long drawn out version of this xkcd comic.

In addition to those two long standing concepts, a more recent idea comes into the picture. While net neutrality is typically discussed in relation to making sure ISPs treat everyone equally, the concept can also apply to webhosts refusing to host certain content. And even more disturbing, credit cards and paypal saying who you can and cannot pay using their services based on disapproving of what the organization says.

Another concept which I think is related to the idea that no one knows you're a dog is the idea that information should be put forward and evaluated on its own merits. I've mentioned this idea and its relationship to wikileaks before. This is one of the few concepts I'm mentioning that I am very wary of since I think that information without context can be misleading which is where experts can help clarify what the information actually means.

When the leaked documents first came out there was some commentary about it prompting security improvements. It is reasonably likely that wikileaks improved national security, because if they got the info then it seems reasonably likely that other nations and enemies of the state were already able to get it. But when wikileaks got the info the government found out so it is able to address the security weakness. There are a lot of existing computer security concepts related to this situation that I unfortunately don't know well enough to talk about (I know that usually doesn't stop me).

One thing I wonder is how the debate would change if instead of partially scrubbing the data, wikileaks was more like wikipedia and allowed the raw posted data to go up on the site. On one hand it seems much worse since potentially life threatening info could get out, but on the other hand it would make the poster responsible rather than the data hosting organization. Much like youtube isn't responsible if someone posts daily show episodes since they don't do anything to screen the posted content. Well ok, in the case of youtube they take down the offending material when contacted which of course wikileaks wouldn't do. Although by removing some of the data wikileaks is choosing what information to host and what information not to host much like what amazon did when they stopped hosting wikileaks. Holly crap, I'm now arguing that Assange isn't sufficiently dedicated to transparency, time to move along.

Anyway, kinda cool to see all those major concepts interacting over the course of a single news story, although it does make it really hard to come up with an opinion. But, I really think the reason this has become such a big story is that unlike the previous leak, no one knows who leaked the info. So everyone, including the government, is trying to place the blame somewhere. When the source of the leak is known it is so straight forward that the person who stole the info is guilty and having found the person to blame we can all just move along. But without that clear answer we get stuck in this area where all these normally great principals don't quite fit together.