In most circumstances, as you say, "a better-informed public is not a bad thing." But that's not necessarily relevant to the WikiLeaks debate, as much of the information being made public (from what we've seen through popular media) is of a different category:
It's one thing for a journalist or organization to expose specific graft, conflicts of interest, or hypocrisy within government, be it in the purview of elected officials or the "permanent state" described in the Economist piece. It's a very different thing to publish personal information about aid workers in politically sensitive zones and uncensored diplomatic conversations, some of which amount to playground trash talk.
There is a need for national security, including the protection of both official and off-record information. There's no small amount of data regarding foreign and domestic affairs that the American public, including you and I, has no business accessing. From how The Economist presents his quote, this seemingly-obvious point appears lost on the Times' Scott Shane. It's hard for me to believe Mr. Shane, if pressed, would suggest complete (or in the case of WikiLeaks, broad) transparency as a useful strategy for international stability.
Also, the Economist's suggestion that unelected American bureaucrats and department workers are "perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth" is snicker-worthy. The writer might have a different take after visiting the Social Security Administration, one of our military bases, and an American DMV office (assuming his "state" isn't just federal.)
Finally, there's the question of potential harm to human life posed by these leaks. Wikileaks suggests the information it's dumping has been carefully reviewed by attorneys and personal, and sensitive information has been redacted. But we're talking about hundreds of thousands of documents. Realistically, how much individual examination/vetting could each of these cables and emails have received? While considering this, keep in mind that it's not just an issue of international embarrassment. Lives are on the line. In fact, this afternoon, our State Department offered protection to aid workers placed in jeopardy by the leaks.
I'll stop short of calling Wikileaks' actions terrorism. The situation is sufficiently challenging without the adding hyperbole. What these leaks ultimately amount to is good intentions refashioned into a campaign of intellectual theft and violence--one which thinking people should not condone, and certainly not as a result of one Economist columnist's fears of an impenetrable American state.
Ben Patrick Johnson Los Angeles, CA
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mr. Ben Patrick Johnson.
Close, but ...
It's one thing for a journalist or organization to expose specific graft, conflicts of interest, or hypocrisy within government, be it in the purview of elected officials or the "permanent state" described in the Economist piece. It's a very different thing to publish personal information about aid workers in politically sensitive zones and uncensored diplomatic conversations, some of which amount to playground trash talk.
There is a need for national security, including the protection of both official and off-record information. There's no small amount of data regarding foreign and domestic affairs that the American public, including you and I, has no business accessing. From how The Economist presents his quote, this seemingly-obvious point appears lost on the Times' Scott Shane. It's hard for me to believe Mr. Shane, if pressed, would suggest complete (or in the case of WikiLeaks, broad) transparency as a useful strategy for international stability.
Also, the Economist's suggestion that unelected American bureaucrats and department workers are "perhaps the most powerful class of people on Earth" is snicker-worthy. The writer might have a different take after visiting the Social Security Administration, one of our military bases, and an American DMV office (assuming his "state" isn't just federal.)
Finally, there's the question of potential harm to human life posed by these leaks. Wikileaks suggests the information it's dumping has been carefully reviewed by attorneys and personal, and sensitive information has been redacted. But we're talking about hundreds of thousands of documents. Realistically, how much individual examination/vetting could each of these cables and emails have received? While considering this, keep in mind that it's not just an issue of international embarrassment. Lives are on the line. In fact, this afternoon, our State Department offered protection to aid workers placed in jeopardy by the leaks.
I'll stop short of calling Wikileaks' actions terrorism. The situation is sufficiently challenging without the adding hyperbole. What these leaks ultimately amount to is good intentions refashioned into a campaign of intellectual theft and violence--one which thinking people should not condone, and certainly not as a result of one Economist columnist's fears of an impenetrable American state.
Ben Patrick Johnson
Los Angeles, CA
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mr. Ben Patrick Johnson.
Submit a story now.