How The Response To Wikileaks Is Exactly What Assange Wants

from the action/reaction dept

Thu, Dec 2nd 2010 11:54am — Mike Masnick

In the wake of all the fuss over Wikileaks, there's been a lot of talk from critics of the site that its founder, Julian Assange, has some sort of anti-American focus. Not only does this seem unlikely given his previous activities, he's also made it clear that he soon plans to release secret documents from both China and Russia, which he feels are both in need of significant reform. As for his general motivations, some have also assumed that he's got some sort of general anti-government views, but that also does not appear to be the case. A few folks have sent over this absolutely fascinating and completely worthwhile read about Assange's general views on governments and secrecy, and it's a hell of a lot more nuanced than most people assume.

The basic point is not to necessarily expose any specifically damaging information (and many have argued that nothing all that surprising has been exposed in this latest dump), but to reduce the ability of governments to communicate secretly -- because when you allow widespread communication by governments in secret, "conspiracies" form. That word is quite loaded, so I'm not sure it's really the best word to use. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it is that if larger groups within the government feel that they can act without oversight, they are much more likely to do things they would never do with oversight. By regularly leaking information -- even banal information -- the response is to clamp down on information sharing within the government. And, in fact, that's exactly what the federal government is doing.

In many ways, this is similar to what we were just discussing concerning how the US response to terrorism was exactly what Al Qaeda planned, it appears the US's response to Wikileaks is also exactly what Assange planned. The goal isn't to expose all secrets or anything like that -- but to reduce the ability of cabals of secrecy to form within governments, within which questionable plans might result.

The leak, in other words, is only the catalyst for the desired counter-overreaction; Wikileaks wants to provoke the conspiracy into turning off its own brain in response to the threat. As it tries to plug its own holes and find the leakers, he reasons, its component elements will de-synchronize from and turn against each other, de-link from the central processing network, and come undone. Even if all the elements of the conspiracy still exist, in this sense, depriving themselves of a vigorous flow of information to connect them all together as a conspiracy prevents them from acting as a conspiracy.

In both of these stories, it shows how a system based on centralization responds to a (very, very different) distributed threat. And, in both cases, the expected (and almost inevitable) response seems to play directly into the plans of those behind the threat. In a way, it's quite fascinating. Of course, in the case of terrorism, it's frustrating, because the response only serves to further harm the country and its people. But with a situation like Wikileaks, it's potentially quite a good thing. As noted, these kinds of leaks can help us have a better, less corrupt government that is more responsive to the people it actually represents.

And this is why some are so reasonably frustrated by the overreaction by Wikileaks critics -- the folks who have thrived from a lack of oversight in the government, including many in the press. And part of this is the realization that much of what has been revealed shouldn't be confidential at all, and that's where the trouble comes in. Glenn Greenwald points out:

It is a "scandal" when the Government conceals things it is doing without any legitimate basis for that secrecy. Each and every document that is revealed by WikiLeaks which has been improperly classified -- whether because it's innocuous or because it is designed to hide wrongdoing -- is itself an improper act, a serious abuse of government secrecy powers. Because we're supposed to have an open government -- a democracy -- everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling "consent of the governed."

Greenwald is dead on, but Assange's point is to take that even a level deeper. It's not just about improper acts and defaulting to being secret when the information does not warrant it. It's about how within that secrecy, government actors are enabled to act without oversight. The very knowledge that they can get away with things without oversight creates temptations that are often too great to pass up. And that's where corruption comes from. I don't buy most crazy conspiracy theories, concerning government actors -- most of which are imaginative, but have little basis in fact. But there is no doubt that there is a tremendous level of straight corruption going on and that is massively enabled by such secrecy. And while it's probably true that the overall system of corruption is much more resilient than Assange believes, it may be too early to tell whether or not these efforts do move the ball in any meaningful way.

As for the idea that revealing these documents is somehow damaging to diplomacy, even that seems to be in question. Matthew Yglesias reasonably points out that such transparency can actually enable much greater diplomacy by making it clear when countries are actually living up to their stated promises. One of the lessons you learn in basic negotiations is that, while there may be value in holding back certain information, quite often the absolute best negotiated results for all parties comes out of negotiations where the parties accurately lay their cards on the table. This keeps hidden agendas out of the way and allows for more frank and open discussions. Of course, this is all centered on a belief that negotiations are a non-zero sum game. That might not always be the case. But the level of secrecy we have today seems to presume that all negotiations are a zero sum game, and that's absolutely not true.

Whether or not you agree with Assange or the entire concept of Wikileaks (and, like many others, I have some ambivalence about the operation itself), it is important to understand the deeper level of what's going on here. It's what happens when a centralized system, based on locking up information and creating artificial barriers, runs smack into a decentralized, open system, built around sharing. For those who are trying to understand why this whole story reminds me of what's happened in the entertainment industry over the past decade, note the similarities. It's why I've been saying for years that the reason I've spent so much time discussing the music industry is because it was an early warning sign of the types of challenges that were going to face almost every centralized industry or organization out there. That included all sorts of other industries, but it also includes governments.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: corruption, government, julian assange, response, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:03pm

Next to last paragraph:

"This keeps hidden agendas out of the way and allows for more frank and open is ."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:09pm

So exposing and shutting down a bunch of channels by which media is distributed works in this case? Why not use the same logic used for file sharers and realize that this will just force it further underground, likewise, greater penalties will be proposed for those attempting to gain unauthorized access to the new bunkers. They had no intention of operating in the open, and will probably maintain as such.

"but to reduce the ability of cabals of secrecy to form within governments"

So by exposing these flaws in the ways documents are disseminated, they have forced the state dept. to, for the interim, use disconnected means and self destructing messages.

Not anything near as grand as stopping secret government conspiracies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:11pm

Re:
Next to last paragraph:

Oops. Fixed. And I had four people read this over before posting. :) Sometimes you just miss the typos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yogi, 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:17pm

Freedom?
Julian Assange is making a mistake that you too, Mike, often make: assuming that people actually want to be free.
True, some people prefer freedom to being meek and obedient citizens/consumers/worker bees, but most don't and therefore the majority of people will support the government no matter what.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:19pm

Re: Freedom?
Julian Assange is making a mistake that you too, Mike, often make: assuming that people actually want to be free.
True, some people prefer freedom to being meek and obedient citizens/consumers/worker bees, but most don't and therefore the majority of people will support the government no matter what.

I'm not sure that actually matters... Whether or not the majority of people care or not may actually be irrelevant to what happens here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:22pm

Re:
So exposing and shutting down a bunch of channels by which media is distributed works in this case?

Not saying it works in shutting it down. Saying it works in how it gets the gov't to react.

Why not use the same logic used for file sharers and realize that this will just force it further underground

I agree that's the case for the public. But I'm not convinced the government reacts the same way. Perhaps you are right, though...

So by exposing these flaws in the ways documents are disseminated, they have forced the state dept. to, for the interim, use disconnected means and self destructing messages.

Not anything near as grand as stopping secret government conspiracies.

That's why I said the word "conspiracy" was the wrong word. Assange's argument is that using those disconnected means actually makes it much harder for the government to effectively do what it does in secret. That's the point. He's trying to weaken the bonds that make such moves possible, and the government seems to be doing exactly that.

And, even if it does, as you predict, go further underground, they actually still run into the same problem: at some point the content needs to be decrypted, and the security is only as good as the person who has the unencrypted versions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iamtheky (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:24pm

indeed, SIPRNET is only as secure as those who have access.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:37pm

So the govt. shuts down its information sharing? That is a good thing? Didn't the 911 commission fault lack of information sharing?

The sad thing is that Wikileaks will never get ahold of any real good stuff because the people that do those things know that you don't put anything you want to remain secret on paper, on email, on voice mail or any other place where it could be stored.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:38pm

Re: Freedom?
The phenomenon you're describing is "lead a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it." Better known as 'brain-washing' or indoctrination.

Citizens in most countries are indoctrinated into an unthinking type of patriotism which essentially boils down to "your country, and by extension your country's government, is always looking out for your best interests and therefore always correct. Anybody challenging this is wrong."

It is a failure of education, leading to a failure in one's ability to reason, which causes this.

So, yes, I agree. People who have been brain-washed into being thoughtless drones will panic at the prospect of having actual freedom.

In fact, your statement echoes some of the arguments made before the 'emancipation proclamation.' Things like: "they wouldn't know how to care for themselves" and "they're better off as slaves."

Do you believe some people are better off as slaves?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Real American, 2 Dec 2010 @ 12:59pm

The Turth Will Set You Free
"The truth will set you free."
Unless you are evil, then it will just terrorize you.

�Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops."

--Jesus, in Luke 12:1-3
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:00pm

Re:
So exposing and shutting down a bunch of channels by which media is distributed works in this case? Why not use the same logic used for file sharers and realize that this will just force it further underground, likewise, greater penalties will be proposed for those attempting to gain unauthorized access to the new bunkers. They had no intention of operating in the open, and will probably maintain as such.

Different situations here. With file sharing, finding the networks is never an issue. In fact, most of them will openly promote themselves (if you look in the right places.

What "file sharing going underground" usually means is that points of failure are removed, and the costs of examination and investigations are increased. The content of transfers is still ridiculously easy to get, but that's not what the "enemy" is interested in.

With government information channels, the issue isn't "people getting into new bunkers", it's that the people inside the bunkers choose to talk. That failure point will remain no matter how deep you go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:01pm

Evidence please :)
But there is no doubt that there is a tremendous level of straight corruption going on and that is massively enabled by such secrecy.

I love Techdirt and the intelligent commenting community it has built, so it would be nice to see someone cite some specific examples from within the WikiLeaks documents. I know Techdirt generally practices what it preaches, so I'm confident this will be addressed. I don't doubt there is corruption like this, but it'd be nice to have examples to point to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:04pm

Re: Re:
Not anything near as grand as stopping secret government conspiracies.

Perhaps the word here is "collusion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:09pm

Re: Evidence please :)
I'd argtue that the regulatory capture in IP law is a pretty good example. Another would be ACTA, being negotiated solely by those that would benefit the most.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:24pm

Re: Evidence please :)
How about the attempt to bury the killing of civilians by US soldiers using a helicopter mounted machine gun? That was released by Wikileaks....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
pringerX (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:36pm

Re: Re: Evidence please :)
@ The eejit:
General examples are a dime a dozen, what I'm looking for are examples from the Wikileak release. For example, an email from a senator or diplomat discussing ACTA that has a derisive tone toward file-sharers or the tech community, or a senator on the Judiciary Committee mentioning having a cushy job from the RIAA lined up. This is the sort of thing the article is referring to: secrecy that enables these individuals to boldly discuss things that would not have happened if such proceedings were public.

@Dark Helmet
Yup, exactly something like this. =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger, 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:42pm

When the US government "clamps down" on secret communications, that doesn't mean that the communications stop. Nor do they become any less secret. The access to the info becomes more difficult, and the channels of communication more secure. I don't think Assange's strategy was to get the US to "clamp down," but rather to further some distorted vision of "freedom of speech," "public access," or "accountability." Seems to me that he failed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 1:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Evidence please :)
General examples are a dime a dozen, what I'm looking for are examples from the Wikileak release.

The whole point of the article is that there doesn't need to be such examples in the Wikileaks releases. In fact, I said explicitly that there doesn't appear to be. But just the fact that such information is getting released leads the government to shut down lines of communication that enable such corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris M., 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:08pm

WikiThieves
PFC Manning stole material. It's that simple. He needs to be charged accordingly, and from the military end of things, let's try him for treason. Assange? The guy received that which was stolen , hence he's an accessory after the fact. Assange is every bit as guilty as Manning. Anyone else who uses/publishes the stolen material? They need to be dealt with for receiving that which Manning stole. This ain't exactly rocket science. The thieves need to be charged with theft as do the accessories.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Oversight, 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:13pm

Re: WikiThieves
Ok, those who took the secret information go to jail. Now that this no longer secret information is available to us, and if that information outlined criminal or unethical acts performed by agents our government, can We the People then act upon that information with whatever tools we have on hand?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:23pm

Re: WikiThieves
An accessory after the fact would be someone who receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment. Assange is not an accessory to the crime.

The crime is also not theft and so Assange cannot be charged with receiving stolen goods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:27pm

Re:
I think you over-estimate the people trying to keep things secret...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Derek Bredensteiner (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:31pm

Re: Re: Re:
Words Julian. Emphasis mine.

Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people�s will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or outweighed by the eﬃciencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to deﬁne their behavior as conspiratorial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:34pm

Re: WikiThieves
Great. Using your math, you need to charge all of CNN with treason.

Best of luck with that....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:46pm

CNN, The New York Times, the WSJ and every other media outlet in the world too.

So far I have not read anything that is unexpected, people thought the Russian leader was an "alpha dog?" Really? People near Iran are concerned with them getting a nuke? Wow, mind blowing. Even going back to the video of the death of the reporter via chopper machine guns, it doesn't take a genius to realize that if you hang out with terrorists with helicopters in the area, you might just want to move away from them.

The only real problem I have is when sources were named in the initial release. Leaving their names in the documents was an invitation to get a visit from your local Taliban funguy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 2:51pm

Re:
"The only real problem I have is when sources were named in the initial release. Leaving their names in the documents was an invitation to get a visit from your local Taliban funguy."

Fine. Then just as you'd have to charge CNN in the case before, in this last issue you'd better go back and charge Dick Cheney too....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 3:52pm

Obligatory TVTropes references
So, you mean Assange is The Chessmaster pulling a Xanatos Gambit? If his targets own up and start sharing information more freely, he wins; if his targets get paranoid and start clamping down on thris information flows, he also wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 3:52pm

Assange himself said that he would have deleted the names of informers if he had the manpower, he even asked our govt. to go through the documents prior to publican but our govt. refused.

As for charging Cheney, that isn't possible. The govt. decides what gets classified and what doesn't, if the people in charge decide that something shouldn't be classified, well then I guess it isn't classified. Cheney had the right to make that decision, some demoted private doesn't have that right.

You could try to say that Cheney should have been charged but that won't get you too far.

Wikileaks fate? I can't wait to read what they have on banks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chris in Utah (profile), 2 Dec 2010 @ 3:59pm

Re: Freedom?
And people still wonder why the term sheeple exist and get offended at it. If you want the politically correct before doublethink got a hold of these words its

Sheepish people.

And for the record I'm fully against 1984 doublethink.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Dec 2010 @ 4:09pm

typo
their not thris.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex Bowles, 2 Dec 2010 @ 7:48pm

Re:
That's Assange's goal in a nutshell. He thinks that it's impossible to remain effective if you're competing with organizations that - because they're essentially fearless and just - can also be quite open, allowing them full access to a range of useful and efficient communications channels.

Meanwhile, ShadyOrg - which has become increasingly paranoid, and focused on everyone's junk - can only communicate via Secret Decoder Rings and tame pigeons. Over time, asymmetry in access to communication platforms favors the just, while imposing a major tax on the unjust.

In his view, what you call "good stuff" is really bad stuff, and the weaker the communications are among the people who traffic in it, the better off the rest of humanity will be.

That's the theory, anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex Bowles, 2 Dec 2010 @ 7:52pm

Re: Re: Evidence please :)
+1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dopplerdog, 3 Dec 2010 @ 12:40am

Re: WikiThieves
Nonsense. There are legal protections for the press in case of leaks - the NYT was able in this way to publish the Pentagon Papers. Without the ability of the press to publish what the government doesn't want you to hear, the press would be reduced to reporting sport, entertainment and weather.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gilroy0 (profile), 3 Dec 2010 @ 4:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence please :)
But just the fact that such information is getting released leads the government to shut down lines of communication that enable such corruption.
Except that the net effect could very well be to drive the colluders to inventing "better" ways to hide what they're doing. The likelihood that secret colluders will suddenly stop colluding seems small -- all the incentives for their actions remain. In fact, you could argue that a massive and apparently indiscriminate data dump works against the alleged principles, as the important stuff is swamped and the cost of being revealed is minimized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
guess again, 3 Dec 2010 @ 6:25am

Re: WikiThieves
You are dead wrong, go read about the Pentagon Papers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 6:51am

Gilroy, you won't see the "important" stuff swamped because you won't ever see the important stuff in a place like Wikileaks.

What has been released so far? That we were torturing people? Yeah, we knew that. That other countries didn't want to take Gitmo Bay prisoners? Knew that. That a reporter was offed by US troops? Well, we had not seen the video prior to he leaks, but we knew that. That sometimes our state dept. has problems with other countries?

What important thing has been reported? What will be reported? That BoA (or some other bank) has been gaming the system? Knew that too.

Wikileaks may tell us about the stupid people that do stupid things, it won't tell us the things that the guys in the dark room in basements are planning or doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 9:39am

Jon Stewarts take on this was the best....Monday's show I believe?

(Mean Girls...lawl)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re: Freedom?
It is a failure of education, leading to a failure in one's ability to reason, which causes this.

No, that's what the gov't calls and educational "success".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 1:13pm

Re: WikiThieves
PFC Manning stole material. It's that simple.

Really? What did he steal? I thought he made copies and left the original material in place. What's your source that he did otherwise?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 1:15pm

Re:
The only real problem I have is when sources were named in the initial release. Leaving their names in the documents was an invitation to get a visit from your local Taliban funguy.

Wikileaks offered to let the gov't redact sensitive names before release. They refused to do so, so your "problem" is misdirected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 1:17pm

Re:
Cheney had the right to make that decision,

Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Dec 2010 @ 1:20pm

Re:
Yeah, we knew that... blah blah blah...

If everything is already know, then what is the gov't so upset about? Maybe *evidence* is different from *suspicion*?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Troll-bait, 3 Dec 2010 @ 2:36pm

Complaining about leaks
All this fooraw reminds me of the common comment from every jackass that pops up every time another Constituitional Right is raped by the government...
funny thing is, this time, IT WORKS:

"What are you afraid of... you don't have anything to hide, do you?"

Came up when illegal wiretap was the flavor of the day,
came up for Gestappo-tactics of "Papers-checking",
comes up for every complaint about TSA/"Motherland" Security, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 3 Dec 2010 @ 8:25pm

Secrecy in government
To the extent that the entertainment industry is used to illustrate bad conduct, GOOD on you!
To the extent that it encourages the impressionable to think they are important, BAD on you!
We are a society obsessed with trivia, and indifferent to important things, to some extent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
P.M.Lawrence, 6 Dec 2010 @ 4:30pm

Meta-secrets
One problematic area is the significance of meta-information, information about information. This can be used to get meaningful information just by looking at the gaps in information that it is safe to release in itself, the way you can see the outline of a dartboard on a wall after taking it down just from the pattern of where the darts did not hit the wall. For instance, if there had been an unimportant Brooklyn Project, Bronx Project, Queens Project, and so on, along with the Manhattan Project, then simply declassifying each of the unimportant ones because it was unimportant in itself would have highlighted the fact that the Manhattan Project was worth a closer look - quite serious information. In real life, that was why Britain censored a lot of apparently irrelevant material in letters from factory workers in the Second World War, which made the workers think the censors were being petty and ignorant; but if they had not done that, the pattern of gaps in the chatter - the higher levels of censorship of letters from munitions workers, and so on - would have highlighted regions with military targets worth the Germans' while prioritising for bombing, even though they still wouldn't have known just what was there.

So it is still important to conceal pieces of information that are each unimportant individually.
[ link to this | view in thread ]