[LINK] Transparency [Was: Wikileaks, Assange, etc.]

[Roger Clarke]

>Roger Clarke wrote:
>>  What my analysis above is trying to do is to provide a framework for
>>  sensible discussions about the leaking of content that the originator
>>  had hoped would be accessible by very few people.

At 10:56 +1100 8/12/10, Rick Welykochy wrote:
>Is there evidence that the originator of the leaks (in this case, the
>diplomatic cables, I presume) had such hopes? If so, what would be the
>purpose of the leaks?

By 'originator', I meant 'originator of the message', not of the leak.

If that's the only ambiguity I left in there, I'll be delighted  (:-)}


>WikiLeaks is not publishing all leaked documents. ...

Sorry, I'd missed that.

It doesn't affect the broad argument, but it does of course affect 
the application of the broad argument to the current matter.

The APF has published proposed criteria for judging 'the public interest':
http://www.privacy.org.au/Papers/Media-0903.html#Gdls

That document focuses on conflict between the public interest in 
publication and the privacy interest, rather than the interest in 
having confidential conversations;  but they may be of some relevance:

Can each item disclosed to date be justified in terms of any of:
-   Relevance to the Performance of a Public Office
-   Relevance to the Performance of a Corporate or Civil Society 
Function of Significance
-   Relevance to the Credibility of Public Statements
-   Relevance to Arguably Illegal, Immoral or Anti-Social Behaviour


-- 
Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                    Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University