Some Comments on Wikileaks

With the release of the latest Wikileaks documents we have seen a polarisation of views on the issue of distribution of information. While I am someone who believes in the free distribution of information, there should be limits to what and the way it is disseminated.

As an example: over the years I have pointed out a number of cases where systems have been implemented poorly and mistakes have been made. For all of these I have been careful to keep the name of my employer out of these examples. Julian Assange implies that no information should be kept secret. Let's examine this premise.

Does anyone have the right to give out information that would directly lead to someone's death? In some instances the answer to this would be "yes." The question then becomes who has the right to make this kind of decision?

In most societies murder is not sanctioned and there are laws and infrastructures in place to control and punish those who murder and who are accomplices. Ignoring the issue of has it happened, should somebody be able to give out a list of people's names knowing that doing so could lead them to being captured, tortured and killed for the crime of being an informant?

If this individual then cries foul when their personal life is examined does this make them a hypocrite? There are a number of questions here that I will leave to the reader to ponder for themselves.

When it comes to the issue of Wikileaks there appears to be an obvious bias in the way that the information has been released. While I understand that it is difficult in this kind of situation to be completely objective there are those that have observed for example a distinctly anti-American position from Mr. Assange. While this may not invalidate the validity of the information it does call into question the motives.

Ironically at the same time some of the information has been quite pro-American but only for those who have examined it and not highlighted by the world press in general.

Mr. Assange may argue that giving out the lists and addresses of people under witness protection is part of the free distribution of information. I'd suggest that those under protection might argue strongly against this premise. I also propose that those informants in Afghanistan that may have gone missing would agree, if they could.

Where then is the line between freedom of information and privacy? Mr Assange indicates that his personal life should be private but that others shouldn't. Where he draws the line appears to be clear, but who is he to make such a distinction?

I leave it to the readers to ponder this more deeply.