The Paradox of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks 266
schnell writes "The New Statesman is publishing a new in-depth article that examines in detail the seemingly paradoxical nature of WikiLeaks' brave mission of public transparency with the private opaqueness of Julian Assange's leadership. On one hand, WikiLeaks created 'a transparency mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account' when nobody else could or would. On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.' If WikiLeaks performs a public service exposing the secrets of others but censors its own secrets, does it really matter? Or are the ethics of the organization and its leader inseparable?"
A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Julian Assange may be a bit cocky, but keep in mind that a lot of this "Cult of Assange" shit and a lot of the infighting reports came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a person of VERY questionable motives and honesty--to say the least. His dubious book [amazon.com] is the source of many of these reports.
Now personally, I've always strongly suspected that Domscheit-Berg was an intelligence plant at Wikileaks (working for the CIA, BND, or take your pick). He started to physically sabotage the organization pretty much from day one, acted a lot like an agent provocateur when he was there, destroyed some 3,500 unpublished whistleblower communications as he was leaving, immediately went on a campaign to discredit Wikileaks and Assange after he left, and then unsuccessfully tried [slashdot.org] to set up a leaks site himself that sounded suspiciously like a honeypot to me (send us your leaked documents and trust us to maybe release them to the press--or maybe just send some FBI agents to kick down your door). And apparently Assange suspected this too.
Where is the balance? (Score:5, Insightful)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
Its rather too easy to just say that we are glad that they are sticking it to the man when they release stuff that causes governments serious embarrassment. But I dont see much discussion of the consequences to the behavior of Government in future as a result of un-redacted mass publishing of private information.
We wouldn't be too happy as individuals if the contents of our lives were copied and published online so why is Wikileaks so immune from criticism? Its high time there was more constructive criticism of Wiki-leaks and its role in the world.
Wow. Simply wow. (Score:1, Insightful)
keep in mind that a lot of this "Cult of Assange" shit and a lot of the infighting reports came from Daniel Domscheit-Berg
I think most of the "Cult of Assenge" thing comes from open-minded and observant people like me who barely even know who this Daniel Domscheit-Berg is.
And speaking of "Cult of Assange" paranoia ...
Now personally, I've always strongly suspected that Domscheit-Berg was an intelligence plant at Wikileaks (working for the CIA, BND, or take your pick...
How often do you need to have your tin-foil hat refitted?
propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
It's incredible how anti-Assange the US media is. They even try to create this pseudo-opinion of "I am really progressive and don't like war and all that, but Assange is just not right not to come clean about this."
This is nothing but an empire fighting using the media, and some "intellectuals" not quite realizing how serious the situation really is. Of course the US government wants him dead and we know the US government kills right and left with no considerations for anything.
The difference is power (Score:5, Insightful)
Exposing secrets of powerful institutions that can manipulate the fate of humanity isn't in the same league as the secrets that organization may hold. Isn't even the same galaxy.
You can't take revenge and prosecute the powers that be. If you could, they wouldn't be powers and they wouldn't require whistleblowing. Wikileaks, on the otherhand, is very destructible.
Re:Where is the balance? (Score:5, Insightful)
We the people do seem to have spent a lot of time blindly supporting Wiki-leaks without much critical analysis going on of whether the function was being done right or even being done well.
I'll worry more about that when they have more competition. I want done what they are doing. If they're the only hope of transparency, then I'm going to back them. If another, more credible hope appears, I'll back them instead.
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
How often do you need to have your tin-foil hat refitted?
You know, believe it or not, there are actual conspiracies in this world that are real. And there are actually real spies and real saboteurs whose job it is to infiltrate organizations deemed national security threats. They get paid to do it and everything.
After all, what do you think 130,000 CIA employees do all day, sit around and stare at the walls?
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wow. Simply wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think most of the "Cult of Assenge" thing comes from open-minded and observant people like me who barely even know who this Daniel Domscheit-Berg is.
What does that have to do with anything? Whether you know who someone is or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are the origin of a meme you swallowed and began regurgitating.
Also I don't pay taxes to Wikileaks (Score:0, Insightful)
So I don't expect them to be transparent to me. They don't claim to be a democracy.
This is but another attempt to slander Wikileaks and Assange. You'll have to do a lot better than that...
Wikileaks & Assange 124 - 0 US fascist corporatist cleptocrazy
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Incompetence or ego is significantly more likely than malice.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
States - in modern, representative democracies, are accountable to the people who fund the state for common welfare and interest.
The transparency and accountability of the state is different in imperative from that of the individual - who has an expectation of privacy to guarantee the conduct of free expression and personal liberty.
Equating Assange's alleged personal characteristics and style of management with the opaqueness and corruption committed by states acting in excess of their authority is false. Doing so reflects a very poor understanding of any of the core rights and issues that are at the heart of the WikiLeaks mission.
Government transparency..... (Score:5, Insightful)
is not incompatible with personal privacy.
Secrecy (Score:5, Insightful)
Livestrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Is Livestrong's anti-cancer mission any less worthy now that Lance Armstrong is de-famed?
Re:One can't be 100% transparent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One can't be 100% transparent (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments can't follow the same rationale?
They're doing it and Wikileaks acts against it. What's your point? Surely governments and wikileaks are two completely different kinds of entities with completely different aims and purposes, just because Wikileaks advocates government transparency doesn't mean or imply in any way that they ought to advocate wikileaks transparency. There is no "paradox" to start with.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of no transparency (Score:4, Insightful)
His organization has and gets very secret information. This information is often so powerful/secret/damning that could potentially bring down banks, companies, individuals, or maybe even countries or at least their regimes. There are a number of problems with a sole person with this much power.
How do we know if he's not 'cherry-picking' information and just releasing what he wants to cause the reaction he wants? Does he fact-check anything he releases at all? We know news organizations Fox/NPR/et al can do exactly this to sway public opinion. Just because he's releasing information doesn't mean he's releasing ALL the information that would paint a full picture. It doesn't tell us if he's at all modified or tampered with that information. Unless the person who's accused comes out with counter-proof (if there is even a way if the leaked info was purely made up anyway), there is no way to know without a LOT of fact checking of likely terribly secret stuff. But the damage would be done by then. At best it turns into a credibility war; and with no transparency on either side - who are we to believe?
With information so central and key to financial and government systems, what is to keep Assange and co from going rouge and extorting or holding companies, countries or people for blackmail? "Just leave me alone Obama or I'll dump all that stuff about those drone strike kills you ordered". "Ok Goldman, give me 5 million dollars/year and a Lear jet or I leak how you knew about the housing collapse and fed into it" He very well could have information right now that could upset major governments and/or financial institutions, bankrupt huge corporations, and plunge the world into chaos/worse recession. With as somewhat unstable as he seems at times - do you really trust one man bouncing from country to country - living in hotel rooms - to make decisions to 'do the right thing' at all times?
These are all the exact same problems that news organizations have. They must fact check, and release information in a way that promotes truth in our organizations without destroying the very things we need to survive in a modern world. He has none of these burdens.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:0, Insightful)
Except WikiLeaks leaks things from private organizations as well such as Barclays so that argument doesn't quite hold up.
Article is missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
The article misses the point of the premise for more government transparency. The main idea is that the more damage a particular entity can do, the more transparency there should be. If a government can decide whom to kill, there should be a full disclosure of the protocol and a way to correct any errors. If such entity is an organization (say that supplies drinking water), there should be an equal transparency for the same reason that any misstep can do a lot of harm.
This universal principle does not get limited to a case of government vs. citizens. For example, if we as people grant special powers to a policeman to detain anyone while on the job, there should be rigorous checks and disclosures in place at the time when that policeman has those special powers. On the other hand, when he goes home and has no such privileges, his privacy should be protected just as anyone’s else.
Wikileaks is not about disclosing “everything about everyone,” but rather about preventing the abuse of power, which is very much a basic requirement for a healthy and just society.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikileaks also lacks the ability to cause a global financial crisis.
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet Assange keeps his mouth shut about Russia- either because he doesn't care, or he knows the Russians won't hesitate to kill him if he tries this crap with them.
Not so sure about the Chinese- but criticizing and screwing with America is pretty safe these days, which kind of makes the 'great evil' point of view rather silly.
In other news, global power politics don't really mesh with some folks kum-by-ya campfire song mentality.
As President Obama has discovered, it's extraordinarily easy to criticize from the outside, but when you're the one with the responsibility, suddenly your predecessor's 'evil' ways start to make a lot more sense.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just glad that those of you who think that all conspiracies are just the product of paranoia weren't in charge of the Watergate invesitgation--or Iran/Contra, or the torture and extreme rendition allegations, etc. There is a big difference between thinking that black helicopters are circling your house monitoring your brainwaves and thinking that the CIA engages in operations against foreign individuals deemed a threat to U.S. interests.
Re:"to produce ... a more just society" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit.
Too many flaws in your analogy and reasoning to bother demolishing.
Assange has more in common with Hunter Thompson and Emile Zola, than he does Anthony Weiner or Betrayus.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia's great contribution is to be among the few outlets that give us raw unadulterated facts, not some journalist's idea of a good story. As long as they continue to do this, they deserve full support. Nothing else matters.
Re:A lot of this BS is just Daniel Berg's fiction (Score:4, Insightful)
" I'd like somebody else to take their place"
Well, go for it.
Get whistleblowers throughout society and the world to send you confidential information at risk of their employment if not liberty.
Make sure that as you collect and publicize this highly sensitive information, your execution is unquestionable, you publicize every word you and your staff ever hear or say, and that you don't come across as an asshole to fraudulent execs, overreaching governments, armchair patriots, or anonymous cowards.
If offended governments level criminal charges at you, trumped up or valid, you should turn yourself in immediately and just continue your work from Guantanamo or whatever enhanced interrogation facility you are delivered to.
Do all that, and a few of us will, in appreciation, donate 5 to 50 bucks to your organization. But most of us will just Godwin you from the comfort of our sofa.