If Wikileaks Is About Cyberwar, Was The Pentagon Papers About A Wood Pulp War? [Updated]

from the overhyping dept

The guy behind the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, recently tweeted a link to my blog post about how some believed the US government was trying to make the case that Wikileaks was a part of a "cyberwar" because it helped further the agenda of certain government officials and defense contractors to use FUD about "cyberwar" to give the government more technological snooping powers and make those contractors tons of money supplying the tools. Of course, this is ridiculous. Wikileaks is no "cyberwar."

But Ellsberg's quote on the matter sums it up so eloquently, that we thought it was worthwhile to repeat here:

If @wikileaks is a "cyberwar," then what were the Pentagon Papers, a wood pulp war?

Indeed. Wikileaks is no more a cyberwar issue than the Pentagon Papers was a wood pulp war. The infatuation with adding "cyber" to the front of things just to pretend it's somehow "different" is really misleading.

Update: As was pointed out in the comments, I am a moron with this particular story. Ellsberg was apparently quoting my own original statement asking if the Pentagon Papers were a wood pulp war. I honestly did not remember writing those words (as you my know, I write an awful lot...). But it explains why the words resonated. Though, of course, now that makes me look egotistical. Point taken: this post shows I'm an egotistical moron. I still like the quote though.

Filed Under: cyberwar, daniel ellsberg, pentagon papers

Where's The Line Between Whistleblowing And Criminal Leaking Of Classified Works?

from the is-there-a-line? dept

Nearly 40 years ago, Daniel Ellsberg leaked what's now known as The Pentagon Papers to the NY Times, exposing a "classified" study that showed how the Johnson Administration had regularly (and systematically) lied about the war in Vietnam. The Nixon administration claimed that Ellsberg violated the Espionage Act of 1917, since they had no authority to share those classified documents. The administration also sought injunctions against newspapers for publishing excerpts of the documents. Eventually, the Supreme Court allowed the newspapers to publish. As for Ellsberg, his case went to trial, but it was thrown out due to government bungling, including wiretapping him without a warrant and slapstick government attempts to spy on and/or discredit Ellsberg. These days many people consider Ellsberg quite a hero for whistleblowing on illegal activities by the US government.

This all has become very pertinent again, as it appears that the US Army has finally charged intelligence analyst Bradley Manning with violating the Espionage Act for his leaking of certain "classified" information to Wikileaks.

And that leaves us back to square one of a very difficult question: what's the difference between whistleblowing and criminally leaking classified works? It seems like the line is pretty clear. If the "leak" is designed to expose otherwise illegal activities, that should be protected in some manner. If the leak, on the other hand, has nothing to do with exposing illegal activities and, instead, is just to reveal secret (but legal) information, it probably falls on the other side of the line. Where Manning's actions fall on this spectrum are still not at all clear -- but it seems like folks are rushing to push him into one or the other camps already. Hopefully some more details will come out and it becomes clear where he really falls (no matter what a court may decide...).

Filed Under: bradley manning, daniel ellsberg, espionage, leaking, whistleblowing