[LINK] How wikileaks was an inevitable result of the internet

[David Boxall]

On 18/12/2010 11:49 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
>> At 08:46 AM 17/12/2010, Kim Holburn wrote:
>>>> But what really matters is that the disruptive power of the
>>> internet has been conclusively demonstrated ...
>
> I don't see that Wikileaks has much to do with the Internet.
>
The Internet made Wikileaks easier to organise and, more importantly, 
publicise.

> What seems to have happened is that someone, most likely a US government
> employee, copied a large number of low classification US government
> documents. They most likely used a writeable media, such as a CD-ROM to
> do this, not the Internet. They then apparently gave that information to
> someone who has been distributing it to newspaper journalists. The
> newspaper journalists have been quoting the material in newspapers.
>
As I understand it, information was copied to CD-ROMs. It was then sent 
to Wikileaks, whether electronically or physically isn't clear. Once the 
information was outside a supposedly secure environment, uploading it is 
as feasible as delivering the disks.

> Copies of the source documents are placed on the web, after the details
> have been reported in the newspaper. But most people are not reading the
> documents on the Internet, they are reading newspaper reports of them.
> None of this depends on the use of the Internet.
>
Wikileaks distributes files to five news organisations. Those 
organisations decide what to publish, when, and what to redact. The US 
Department of State was given the opportunity to redact the files, but 
declined. Wikileaks publishes what the five publish, after they do.

> In the pre-Internet days to leak government documents, usually with
> government approval, the procedure was to pass photocopies in an
> envelope. Manuka shops was a typical location for this activity in
> Canberra:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuka,_Canberra#Shops>.
> Using CD-ROMs, flash drives, or even the Internet, does not change this
> much.
>
It has a substantial impact on the volume and ease of copying and 
distribution.

> The currently leaked documents do not contain much we did not know
> before. That some politicians have character flaws is hardly a state
> secret. These appear to be low classification documents, which perhaps
> should not have been available to so many people in government, but do
> little more than cause some embarrassment.
>
According to one US security source, the leak has done more good than 
harm. To my mind, the way Wikileaks has handled the information is a 
model of responsibility.

That begs the question: what happens if Wikileaks goes? If the US 
succeeds in killing the messenger, my feeling is that they will regret 
it deeply.

-- 
David Boxall                         | "Cheer up" they said.
                                     | "Things could be worse."
http://david.boxall.id.au            | So I cheered up and,
                                     | Sure enough, things got worse.
                                     |              --Murphy's musing