Why One Newspaper Agreed To Publish Leaked Cables: The Incompetence Of Governments

from the too-many-secrets dept

While many are attacking Wikileaks and the release of State Department cables, Jay Rosen points us to the explanation by Spanish newspaper El Pais as to why it published the leaks. While the whole thing is worth reading, I think the point in the first two paragraphs is particularly salient. Governments insist that they need secrecy to protect the public, but it appears that neither point there is true. The government hasn't done a very good job protecting the public, and what's most telling and revealing about these documents is that the government doesn't need much of the "secrecy" it requests. So publishing these documents highlights the very basic lie of that bargain: "you allow us to act in secrecy, and we'll protect you." In reality, neither part appears to be true. Here's the full explanation:

Cynics will argue that none of what we have learned from WikiLeaks differs from the usual way in which high-level international politics is conducted, and that without diplomatic secrets, the world would be even less manageable and more dangerous for everyone. Political classes on both sides of the Atlantic convey a simple message that is tailored to their advantage: trust us, don't try to reveal our secrets; in exchange, we offer you security.

But just how much security do they really offer in exchange for this moral blackmail? Little or none, since we face the sad paradox that this is the same political elite that was incapable of properly supervising the international financial system, whose implosion triggered the biggest crisis since 1929, ruining entire countries and condemning millions of workers to unemployment and poverty. These are the same people responsible for the deteriorating quality of life of their populations, the uncertain future of the euro, the lack of a viable European project and the global governance crisis that has gripped the world in recent years, and which elites in Washington and Brussels are not oblivious to. I doubt that keeping embassy secrets under wraps is any kind of guarantee of better diplomacy or that such an approach offers us better answers to the problems we face.

The incompetence of Western governments, and their inability to deal with the economic crisis, climate change, corruption, or the illegal war in Iraq and other countries has been eloquently exposed in recent years. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, we also know that our leaders are all too aware of their shameful fallibility, and that it is only thanks to the inertia of the machinery of power that they have been able to fulfill their democratic responsibility and answer to the electorate.

The powerful machinery of state is designed to suppress the flow of truth and to keep secrets secret. We have seen in recent weeks how that machine has been put into action to try to limit the damage caused by the WikiLeaks revelations.

Given the damage they have suffered at the hands of WikiLeaks, it is not hard to see why the United States and other Western governments have been unable to resist the temptation of focusing attention on Julian Assange. He seems an easy enough target, and so they have sought to question his motivation and the way that WikiLeaks works. They have also sought to question why five major news organizations with prestigious international reputations agreed to collaborate with Assange and his organization. These are reasonable questions, and they have all been answered satisfactorily over the last four weeks, despite the pressure put on us by government, and worse still, by many of our colleagues in the media.

Filed Under: governments, secrecy, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

If Assange Were In China, US Politicians Would Be Cheering Him On

from the transparency-means-different-things-when-it's-about-you dept

We've pointed out the general hypocrisy of US politicians calling for an end to internet censorship, while threatening Wikileaks at the same time. If you want to see some real irony, check out the fact that Senator Joe Lieberman, who has been the loudest voice in pushing for censorship of Wikileaks and of others in the press, just so happens to be a member of the "Global Internet Freedom Caucus." Yeah, except here in the US.

Along those lines, Martin Varsavsky points out the obvious: if Julian Assange were a Chinese citizen, publishing Chinese government documents, the US would likely be cheering him on:

Lately I have a strong feeling that the Chinese must be rejoicing at all the "retroactive law invention" that is going on in the West to put one man in jail. Because if Assange had been a Chinese citizen promoting transparency in China we would be lining up to give him the Nobel Prize. We can't demand transparency from others and censorship for ourselves.

In fact, as Evgeny Morozov notes, Russia's Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin is already using the US's reaction to Wikileaks to say what a joke "freedom of the press" is in America. That tweet is in Russian, but the Google translation is:

In my opinion, the fate of Assange says the lack of media freedom in the West, the presence of political persecution and human rights violations.

What's really stunning, beyond just the sheer uselessness and impotence of the US government's response to Wikileaks, is the fact that it's inevitably destroying any moral high ground on claims of freedom and support of free speech we might have once had. In the end, I would expect that to have a much bigger impact than anything that's in the actual leaked cables.

Filed Under: china, free speech, governments, julian assange, russia, transparency, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Schools & Governments Blocking Google Because It Won't Let Them Spy On Users

from the which-is-it? dept

So various governments around the world remain furious with Google for its accidental Street View wifi data collection. However, at the same time, governments are also getting annoyed and using filters to block government employees from using Google products because Google is now increasingly running more and more of its apps (including search and Gmail) via SSL, making it harder for those gov't agencies to spy on what users are doing. So... which is it? Is Google bad for spying on data? Or is Google bad for not letting governments spy on data?

Filed Under: governments, security, spying, ssl
Companies: google

Google Releases Stats On Country Info & Takedown Requests; Leaves Us Wanting More

from the transparency-is-good dept

Google's getting some attention for its decision to launch a tool highlighting the information requests made by various governments to Google, either to gather information or to take down certain content. According to Google, this is a part of its efforts to try to keep the internet more open, as seen by its decision to leave China and its pushing back on Australia's attempts at censorship. Of course, many will claim that this is just self-serving on Google's part, since it's better off with a more open internet -- but that doesn't mean the initiative is a bad idea.

Still, it's not clear really how much there is to learn from this tool. Basically, we see that Brazil requests a lot of information and takedowns -- and the US requests an awful lot of info. And... well.. then we're left wondering. The tool does breakdown the nature of the removal requests, but not in very much detail. And it doesn't do that for the data requests. So, really, all this tool does is leave us wondering what exactly is being requested and/or taken down. Perhaps that's the point of the tool: to get people to ask more questions, but it seems like Google could have done a bit more to highlight that kind of information as well.

Separately, in its op-ed about the new program, Google also suggests that the best tool for encouraging a decrease in repressive governments is through better free trade agreements. If only that were the case. Real free trade agreements can increase openness tremendously, but lately the sorts of "free trade agreements" we've seen have been things like ACTA -- which is not at all about openness, and very much about using the same repressive tools used by China to try to block forms of communication.

It's good that Google is encouraging some discussion on this topic, and perhaps this is the point of the limited tool, but looking through it seems to simply open up a lot more questions than it answers.

Filed Under: data, governments, information requests, maps
Companies: google

SSL Certificates Compromised By Governments & Hackers: Time To Fix SSL

from the man-in-the-middle dept

The idea of using man-in-the-middle attacks to spy on encrypted conversations is hardly new, but there hasn't been a really thorough discussion of the likelihood of its use against SSL connections (the encrypted connections you see in your web browser on https sites, such as online banking sites, with the little lock shown in the corner of your browser). A new paper highlights not only how this works, but also how there's a company selling the technology to governments to use. Of course, to make it work and be an effective man in the middle, you need a certificate authority to grant you a fake certificate -- but there are some fears that gov'ts could do this by force or by trickery -- and hackers could certainly do it by trickery. The Wired article above quotes people at both GoDaddy and VeriSign insisting that they've never issued fake certificates to the gov't, but it is suspicious that a company is selling a device to gov'ts to do exactly this. The real problem is in the basic implementation of SSL, which right now involves too much blind trust. Apparently, the EFF is working with some security researchers to make some suggestions on ways that this could be fixed.

Filed Under: governments, security, ssl, surveillance

Government Employees Banned From Using The Social Networking Tools They're Told To Use

from the bureaucracy-at-work dept

Last year, we wrote about how it seemed like a mistake to us that the government in Montenegro had decided to block access to Facebook on government computers. While many disagreed in the comments, Facebook and other social networking sites are quickly becoming useful tools of communication (for some, it's their primary tool for communication). Blocking access is missing the point, and preventing a useful tool from being utilized, just because some might abuse it.

It turns out that the US government actually is doing the same thing... even as it's supposedly encouraging an era of social networking inspired "transparency" and an embrace of "Government 2.0." The NY Times notes the bureaucratic mess of government officials trying to make use of this enabling technology including this stunning quote:

"We have a Facebook page," said one official of the Department of Homeland Security. "But we don't allow people to look at Facebook in the office. So we have to go home to use it. I find this bizarre."

Meanwhile, Wired is highlighting a similar story. Apparently, the US military has been blocking access to YouTube, but set up a special alternative just for troops, called TroopTube. And, yet... it started blocking that site as well. It may just be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, but it seems so common in government that it's really rather ridiculous. These tools, while they may be prone to misuse and time-wasting, are also becoming key ways that people communicate. For a supposedly more open and transparent government, allowing access is a necessity. Deal with the abuses separately, rather than making an outright ban.

Filed Under: bureaucracy, governments, social networks