Wikileaks scandal: what does “radical transparency” mean?
Wikileaks is, like Sunshine Review, a wiki, which means that it is (generally) open to all to contribute to to make edits. It is an ideal platform for collecting information.
Wikileaks expressly exists “to publish original source material,” which has gotten it much negative attention.
The site had come under fire earlier this year, and has again stirred the pot. Wikileaks posted a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables.
The Huffington Post mentions that two concerns with transparency are security and privacy. It seems uncontroversial to note that controlling information and leaks provides vital advantages in a time of war.
But the question people are asking is: is this transparency? One change in transparency is the internet and social media:
Increasingly, citizens are turning to the Internet for data, policy and services. Alongside the efforts of government webmasters at .gov websites, citizens will find the rich stew of social media, media conglomerates or mashups that use government and private data.
But is transparency the motivation behind the leaks? Derrick Ashong, also at the HuffPo, wonders:
Exposing the cover-up of civilian murders in Iraq is clearly important work. Publishing private emails of diplomats strikes me as… sort of petty.
However, it is only private e-mails at the ground level. A bigger picture view of the information leaked reveals insight into North and South Korea’s potential future, funding of extremist groups by public officials in Eritrea, and several U.S. diplomatic failures. It’s not mere gossip or tidbits; it’s new chapters to the stories.
So the information is valuable. But that leaves us with questions still:
1) Is this government transparency?
2) Do the ends justify the means?
and, most importantly perhaps,
3) What are the implications for the future of the relationships between governments and citizens?
For more on the leaked cables and the insight they offer, see the Times article.
Typical idiotic question, is this ‘transparency?’?
Let me define it for you………. during the time of WAR, it’s called treason.
The person or persons responsible is/are guilty of treason.
I could go on but I think with this audience it would be futile.
Scada.Jim, I’m not sure what “type” of audience you have in mind, but the leak is a hot topic because it evokes discussion. Just because some people don’t see things starkly black and white, and aren’t quick to agree with you, doesn’t make them, or me, idiotic. I am inviting discussion on both sides of the issue.
-Diana
Is this transparency? Of course it is. Is transparency always good? Of course it isn’t. Since this docu-dump is so large, there’s a mixture of both (technically, maybe, I’m-really-just-covering-my-bases-here) good and (clearly, with-out-a-doubt) bad transparency – though, as you can tell, I think it’s in poor taste and would love to see this guy have a change of heart and stop doing this. As everyone’s noted – the “collateral murder” video is one thing (depending on context and perspective), exposing secret notes and candid conversations between government officials is another. Also, let’s face it: democracy being what it is, diplomats and politicians – who are all, generally speaking, smart, competent people – can almost never be frank. Not in public at least. This is the kind of thing that disqualifies all the cool people and leaves elections and high level positions to those who can get through vetting processes, i.e., psychopath careerist teacher’s pets like John Kerry.
And, for the record, Scada.Jim, it’s actually not treason because this butthole is, like, Swedish or something.