h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's time to talk like a , folks.

No, not that silly holiday that annoys Hypatia so much. We're talking about the free-speech pirates.

The Swedish Pirate Party stands for copyright reform, free speech, and privacy for individuals - but not governments. Hear, hear. They are also hosting servers (in underground nuke-proof bunkers) for WikiLeak, the international information marauders who function as a sort of Gutenberg Project for political secrets. The Swiss are planning to help out, possibly offering the founder asylum if the Aussies try to stop him, and the Icelanders are in there pitching with a bid to be the free speech capital of the world.

You can read about WikiLeak here (quoting the hated enemy, please forgive):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

Everybody's going to be mad at WikiLeak this weekend. They're threatening to release a ton of documents that will allegedly ambarass a bunch of governments.

As an old friend of mine says, 'The best way is to tell everybody everything.' I agree. Their logo is attractive, too.

In the interest of neutral reporting here, I am linking to a very conservative, official source on the goings-on, the redoubtable Voice of America. (Note what they say about Julian Assange.)

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Clinton-Reaches-Out-to-Several-Countries-about-Wikileaks-110903729.html

Transparency is a good thing, in my opinion. While openness may lead to controversy, it's better to clear the air. After all, do you really trust the people in power to have your best interests at heart? Or do you agree with the alleged Marx quote, 'Trust is good, oversight is better'?@ Would world leaders behave better if they knew somebody was watching and listening?

I don't know yet who said what, to whom, about what, in these upcoming documents. Or whether the guys who said it were wearing secret decoder rings and giving the Illuminati handshake. I do know that I would be unfaithful to my tinfoil hat if I weren't interested.

This post probably can't be read in China, because the Great Firewall filters out the word WikiLeaks. Some other countries are thinking about doing the same thing. You might be surprised at who they are. One democracy uses a slightly different technique to discourage this kind of activity, according to a journalist named Asher Wolf:

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=625307

I'm not fond of the word 'blacklist', as it always makes me think of the HUAC.

This should be a fun weekend for those interested in getting at the facts - though not for the people on Damage Control duty, who will have to work overtime.

So. If they start a party where you are, will you say 'aye, matey', or merely 'aargh'?



@In German: 'Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser.'

I don't want to throw a wet blanket on your enthusiasm, but does any of it really matter? When - or if - whatever is going to be leaked, leaks - what will change?

I imagine it depends on the content of the information, but here are a few guesses:

The massive leak and its accompanying publicity will put WikiLeaks more solidly on the map, leading to greater support.

Greater visibility for organisations devoted to openness in government will lead to a more public discussion of the responsibility of governments to be transparent in their dealings.

Embarassment about leaks will lead to more circumspect behaviour on the part of diplomats - yes, I know that means they'll spend lots more time trying to cover things up. This is at least good exercise, and keeps them off the streets at night.

Discussion of whatever it was they were doing might lead to changes in policy, if enough people in the right places get mad about the right things.

Finally, it is basically just a cheering proposition to see governments that assume they have the right to read everybody's text messages and subpoena your library records have to tell the paying public what they've been doing with the tax money.

I guess that's the reason I don't expect to see anything big happening. I don't believe that enough people in the right places will get mad. We'll have a round of finger-pointing, denunciations, and shock. Then we'll get back to business as usual. Diplomats, as you say, will be more guarded, politicians will pass the blame, and in the length of time it takes to ascertain who's telling lies and who's not, attention spans will expire and we'll move on to the next big thing.

Maybe we'll get some nice legislation to protect us from teh evil internets, though. Free speech is so valuable that it must be rationed, dontcha know.

I'm sorry, Dmitri. I'm feeling very cynical about such things.

I can tell.

I don't know what, if anything, will come of it. But I was fascinated by the effort. These people are making a lot of bigwigs nervous. There has been legislation, there are allegations of harassment, there is the question of whether there was influence involved in their not getting certain grants and awards, etc. (I'm being circumspect here, but if you read the Wikipedia article, you'll see what I mean, check out what happened to the domain host in Germany.) So I thought I'd pass along what I'd read, because WikiLeaks seems worth watching.

I was also interested in seeing whether this journal post would remain on the site. I even prepared a link in case it disappeared, which I will now share:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyMLgOoUWpw

governments and various leaders might worry, but I as a commoner - couldn't give a monkey's uncle

The sad thing is that I have that Terry Jones old woman voice off to a T and frequently use it.

But this is neither here nor there. Let's keep this journal on the rails.

Or try, anyway.

That's the point, Prof - we *want* those governments to worry.

Here's my proposition: I think that in a republic, the government should have no privacy at all, but everybody else should.

I think that a country in which the government has privacy, but the citizenry doesn't, is called something else which might not get through the filter.

Tyrah-knee and fas-schism are not permitted through the filters?

Oh too gosh darned bad I never learned to spell. Sorry about that.

Well, you never can tell in a world that worries about striped cats and cleaning methods.

Perhaps oversight and zealousness will drive us to creative spelling.

Up the rev-o-looshun!

That quote makes me a tad nervous (Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser) because it's usually the wrong people doing all the Kontrolle-ing.

I do agree (very strongly) that "we the people" should keep our government 'under the thumb', and that we should think and read responsibly when it comes to holding them to account. I think that's a duty we have, and a prerequisite for a healthy society.

Absolutely. Any tool that helps do that furthers democracy.

I'm not sure what Marx meant - or if he even said it, the Germans are big on that quote. I think what was meant was that a way to check on authority was needed.

In other words, accountability.

Who watches the watchmen?

Yep.

Hopefully, WikiLeaks. You might check out the Spiegel tomorrow, they said they were on the list for leaks.

Democracy cannot work ... cannot even exist ... if 'ordinary folks' don't really know exactly what their supposed 'leaders' are doing. Ordinary people need to know *and* they need to care. If ordinary people don't know and also don't care, then all of us are in big trouble.

The problem is still sorting out fact from fiction. The 'leaks' may also easily contain misinformation. But at least it's a start ...

The thing is, *we* (all of us, all people on earth) need to have some sort of a clue about what is going on in the world ... and we also need to know what is really important.

The leaks therefore at least amount to the *potential* for people to learn important things. *If* we find out how our governments are lying, cheating, and killing ... we can do something about it, or not. If we know all these things and we don't care and we don't do anything about it ... well, then, we deserve what's coming to us.

That was why I appreciated the methodology of WikiLeaks, Willem (check them out on the web).

They have a peer review system for the leaks. Those leaks have to be vetted for accuracy.

Like I said, it's the Gutenberg Project (or h2g2) approach to tearing away the veil from secrecy.

As an aside - since you posted this, I haven't been able to access WikiLeaks at all...

Are they including military secrets in the right to know column?

I have a bearded cousin who spent a lot of years in Army Intelligence. And, no, he has never passed on any classified information to me or anyone else. But he has hinted that there are things the public should be told. The standard line is that we're better off being kept in the dark about certain matters. My question has always been that if actions proposed or taken are so controversial that they are afraid for the public to know about them, then doesn't that tell us those decisions shouldn't have been made?

I suspect a lot of things are classified as national security risks that are really driven by greed and the lust for power.

From what I've been reading, this upcoming download will consist of diplomatic cables.

Most of them are labelled Confidential, not Secret. They will embarass everybody because they express opinions on the character and stability of other government leaders.

Here is the BBC's own news item from today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11856122

From what I understand, KB, the leaks are made through major media outlets first - the list includes the NY Times, Der Spiegel, and a few others. Then, I think, they'll be online - the quantity of material is said to be massive, so they're probably working on it. If you have an IRC client, you can chat with them, according to their online message:

http://www.collateralmurder.com/

Hypatia, every once in a while, somebody tells me that they know things that were never made public. (I stress that I do not solicit these confidences, not being a reporter, but there's something about my face, people tell me stories...) One gentleman, a veteran, told me that during the Cold War, it was numerous unnamed Russian heroes in missile silos who refused to fire their missiles during crises created by computer errors who saved the Earth from annihilation. I am sure that somewhere, the veracity of this information could be confirmed - if we had access to the facts. I would like this to be known, if it is true - it would be instructive. According to my informant, these men died rather than fire those missiles. Would the men at the Nike site near where I grew up have done the same? We will never know.

Will we ever know the truth about the Lincoln assassination? Or Kennedy's? Would it be good for us to know this?

Heck, yeah. Because the purpose of studying history is to learn from it. Study a lie, you 'learn from' a lie. Why else do I do research on this stuff?

I know it's a 500-year custom to write your boss memos like, 'Cardinal Wolsey eats seven-course meals and fancies himself an expert on angels. Bring him a bottle of Chateau Whatsit, and talk theology, and he'll sign your petition. Don't mention Thomas More.'

I'm thinking that publishing these gems of political analysis is a salubrious exercise in literary criticism, and might inspire future 'Yes, Minister' types to be more circumspect in their advice.

The Freedom of Information Act had something of the same result here.

There is less committed to writing now. Mumbles in alcoves are considered much more secure.