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

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:30:13AM +1100, Roger Clarke wrote:
> (b)  mass leaks can only be supported, and the leaker and publisher 
> protected, if each and every item can be argued to be justifiably 
> disclosed, or can be argued to be necessary as part of a body of 
> material

that's an enormous gaping loophole - define "justifiable".

> (b)  mass, indiscriminate leaks can't be supported

what if it's the only way?

part of the reason for the existence of wikileaks is that mainstream
media often suppresses information (e.g. that is embarrasing to
themselves, their major shareholders, political benefactors etc) or
are in active collusion with those who want it suppressed ("embedded"
reporters and the like).

craig

PS: the one really major point that you missed is that the public have
a right to know what their "leaders" are doing. this is a moral (or
ethical, if you prefer) right, a human right, not just a legal right.
it applies equally to citizens of a democracy (who generally do have
at least some legal right to know what their elected representatives
are doing on their behalf) and to the populations living under a
dictatorship or other oppressive regime.

a democratic government's sole claim to legitimacy is that they were
elected by and thus represent "the people" and are accountable to them.
with very few exceptions(*), keeping secrets from the people not only
contradicts that legitimacy, it actively damages and undermines it.

furthermore, citizens have a moral right to circumvent government and
corporate attempts to interfere with their right to know. i would say
"using any legal means at their disposal" but it's far to easy for
governments to pass laws that make perfectly reasonable and justifiable
actions illegal so instead i'll say "using any non-violent means at
their disposal".


(*) maybe we need an office of Secrecy Ombudsman whose sole purpose is
to examine every classified document and determine whether it really
ought to be secret for legitimate reasons or if it's just secret for
political or economic or personal purposes. i.e. incorporate systematic
leaking within the structure of government itself (well, parallel to
government - like any ombudsman, it should be independant of the govt of
the day).

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>