Wikileaks: dangerous, embarrassing, or performing a public service?

[wendymr]

I'm curious. (Okay, I'm probably also bored; see the snowmageddon post for reasons!). Wikileaks has been in the news a lot lately - so much so that, if you weren't aware of that, I have a rock you can continue to hide under ;)  Opinions differ considerably on the merits of the material being posted on Wikileaks, and on Wikileaks' existence at all.

Comments

[plaid_slytherin]

I wish this was a ticky-box type of poll. I think what has currently been released is mostly not harmful, and as you say, minor embarrassments that could have come from anywhere at any time. But I think it has the potential to be very dangerous if things like this are allowed to happen. As for the guy himself, I totally think he's just tooting his own horn. :) I would hesitate to think he really has anything "huge" as he says, but... knock on wood.

[amberfocus]

Pretty much this.

[wendymr]

I deliberately didn't make it ticky-box, though I could have easily gone for any of the last three options myself. I wanted to see what people would choose when they had to go for just one.

I agree: so far it's just been mostly stupidity - I mean, is the stuff about Prince Andrew really in the public interest? - but there is potential there, including in the latest stuff about locations the US wants to protect. But what really bothers me is that on the evidence so far I don't trust Assange and anyone else who may be involved in the site to know the difference between genuine whistleblowing of something that needs to be made public and immature-schoolboy tale-telling.

[wendymr]

And that's part of the problem, really: is he able to distinguish between what really needs to be in the public domain and distractions? Or, more important still, stuff in which people might be interested, but might endanger lives and does not need to be public knowledge because there's no wrongdoing involved? On present evidence, I doubt it.

[azriona]

I wish this was a ticky box, because frankly, I think the last three choices all apply. I don't know the nature of what has been leaked - and the only reason I know about the leaks at all is because Bill's here and pays attention to the news, and has been railing about this for a week now - so I don't know how dangerous it is to have those out, but the fact that something has leaked and WikiLeaks shows no compunction about posting it says to me that they'd probably post anything else that comes their way - up to and including information that could lead to someone's death

[wendymr]

As I said above, I deliberately made it a forced choice, because I wanted to see what people would choose when they had to. I could easily go for any of the last three myself, though if I had to choose then at present I'd go for the 'no Carl Bernstein' option.

the fact that something has leaked and WikiLeaks shows no compunction about posting it says to me that they'd probably post anything else that comes their way.

This is precisely my problem with them. I believe in the importance of whistleblowing and good investigative journalism; however, I don't think that Wikileaks represents either. I seriously doubt that Assange, on current evidence, understands what investigative journalism is. If he hasn't so far endangered people's safety, then it's only a matter of time before he does. His threat to release even more sensitive stuff as a result of being arrested only reinforces my belief that he has no real interest in exposing corruption or wrongdoing; it's all about causing embarrassment and boosting his own profile.

[kensieg]

He's a damn traitor. He's giving aid and comfort to our enemies. By his leaks he's crippled our ability to conduct diplomacy. There's a reason why some things must remain secret.

[wendymr]

I agree that even in a democracy it's important for some information to remain secret - though so far I don't think he's done much more than cause embarrassment. However, I don't have any faith that he wouldn't go further if he could.

[papilio_luna]

I wish it was less pure infodump and more whistleblower. I just saw a headline of something that's been released by WikiLinks that, if true, is completely horrifying and should be known about and investigated. All the petty stuff that really just serves to get diplomats more pissed off at each other than they already are, however, is at best a damp squib and at worst downright dangerous.

[wendymr]

I wish it was less pure infodump and more whistleblower.

My sentiments exactly. Whistleblowing - and protection for genuine whistleblowers - and good investigative journalism are essential in a democracy. We need reporters like Woodward and Bernstein, and the Guardian team who exposed Jonathan Aitken in the UK in the 1990s, and those who investigated the Iraqi nuclear weapons in 45 seconds misinformation. What we don't need is someone going 'yah boo sucks' and putting stuff on a website just because he can. And, yes, genuinely important material gets lost among the dross about who called who a control freak or an embarrassment.

I want to see genuine examples of corruption and wrongdoing exposed - but in order to do that properly they have to be investigated, sources have to be checked, and someone has to make an informed and careful decision about whether the verified information should be put in the public domain. That person should certainly not be someone who has demonstrated that he has no qualifications at all for making that