On WikiLeakS, Information, Power and Responsibility
A recent controversial topic in the news is WikiLeakS.org. Well, from the very beginning, WikiLeakS has always been controversial. The very purpose and reason of its existence is by itself controversial. If you think about it, security-conscious entities, including the government, should have taken WikiLeakS seriously since it launched in 2006 -- as early as possible before it becomes anything close to uncontrollable.
Information today is readily available. Even secured information is not 100% safe. Nowadays, if there's anything that needs to be secured, there is a need to make sure that the security measure employed is itself being guarded and monitored. This is not saying that WikiLeakS absolutely broke in to secured documents. Regardless of whether the information was secured or not, the fact that they can be re-published somehow meant that the methods used to secure sensitive content was not good enough. In fact, there may have been no effort at all to secure them. Perhaps, because they were never originally classified as sensitive enough that's worth securing in the first place. It's only when they were pieced together in to something scandalous that the content owners realized they had to do something.
Of course, the first step is damage control -- do everything in capacity and power to eliminate further damage including discrediting strategies, making legal threats and, eventually, destroying the source. WikiLeakS is now off-line. Amazon published its statement on the matter. Legal actions are on-going to make sure that WikiLeakS could never go back up in any form, or at least for the "leaks" to never be available again on-line. In the eyes of these content owners, although WikiLeakS was just doing what they intended their organization to do, the issue is not just about copyrights, confidentiality or intellectual property blah-blahs. The issue has now become a matter of national security in addition to the fact that they can negatively affect many international diplomatic relationships.
All the news about WikiLeakS present the gravity of the situation, which is correctly taken seriously. Any actions that are being done now to prevent another WikiLeakS-drama to ever happen again should be put in place as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter if all other local, national and international issues are put aside for awhile. If laws, provisions and procedures are needed because they are not available, then let them be prioritized. In the end, it's no longer about WikiLeakS, it's all about the lessons that can be learned from this scandal.
WikiLeakS, as noble as they intended to make the world as transparent as how they wanted it to be, should have been more responsible to begin with. Information is power -- it is more powerful than can be imagined. They should have followed that popular advice from the Spider-man movie: "With great power comes great responsibility". Alas, different countries like the US, Germany and Australia for example have exerted efforts to look at criminal and/or espionage laws violated by WikiLeakS.
The demise of WikiLeakS should serve as a lesson. Democracy respects and supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but there are limits set so that there would be no reason to cross towards anarchy. There is no freedom to obeying the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I'm not anti-WikiLeakS, but there are mistakes that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, if it should take to this point that WikiLeakS must be put down in order to enforce the law, then so be it.
Information today is readily available. Even secured information is not 100% safe. Nowadays, if there's anything that needs to be secured, there is a need to make sure that the security measure employed is itself being guarded and monitored. This is not saying that WikiLeakS absolutely broke in to secured documents. Regardless of whether the information was secured or not, the fact that they can be re-published somehow meant that the methods used to secure sensitive content was not good enough. In fact, there may have been no effort at all to secure them. Perhaps, because they were never originally classified as sensitive enough that's worth securing in the first place. It's only when they were pieced together in to something scandalous that the content owners realized they had to do something.
Of course, the first step is damage control -- do everything in capacity and power to eliminate further damage including discrediting strategies, making legal threats and, eventually, destroying the source. WikiLeakS is now off-line. Amazon published its statement on the matter. Legal actions are on-going to make sure that WikiLeakS could never go back up in any form, or at least for the "leaks" to never be available again on-line. In the eyes of these content owners, although WikiLeakS was just doing what they intended their organization to do, the issue is not just about copyrights, confidentiality or intellectual property blah-blahs. The issue has now become a matter of national security in addition to the fact that they can negatively affect many international diplomatic relationships.
All the news about WikiLeakS present the gravity of the situation, which is correctly taken seriously. Any actions that are being done now to prevent another WikiLeakS-drama to ever happen again should be put in place as quickly as possible. It doesn't matter if all other local, national and international issues are put aside for awhile. If laws, provisions and procedures are needed because they are not available, then let them be prioritized. In the end, it's no longer about WikiLeakS, it's all about the lessons that can be learned from this scandal.
WikiLeakS, as noble as they intended to make the world as transparent as how they wanted it to be, should have been more responsible to begin with. Information is power -- it is more powerful than can be imagined. They should have followed that popular advice from the Spider-man movie: "With great power comes great responsibility". Alas, different countries like the US, Germany and Australia for example have exerted efforts to look at criminal and/or espionage laws violated by WikiLeakS.
The demise of WikiLeakS should serve as a lesson. Democracy respects and supports the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but there are limits set so that there would be no reason to cross towards anarchy. There is no freedom to obeying the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I'm not anti-WikiLeakS, but there are mistakes that need to be corrected. Unfortunately, if it should take to this point that WikiLeakS must be put down in order to enforce the law, then so be it.
Comments
Post a Comment