The Truth About WikiLeaks
The age of easy leaks is here to stay, no matter what happens to Julian Assange.
I wrote an article for The National Post on WikiLeaks, pegged to the release later this month of the movie The Fifth Estate. Along the way I touch on PRISM, Napster, and the Industrial Workers of the World, among other topics. Here's the lede:
Of course they made a movie about Julian Assange. He's a complicated character being pursued by some of the most powerful people on the planet. It's a scenario that just screams to be filmed.
But while The Fifth Estate—which opens in theatres Oct. 18—may turn out to be a compelling picture, it probably won't shed much light on the revolution represented by WikiLeaks, Assange's website that specializes in publishing secret information. It's not likely to shed that light for the same reason the story is such an attractive idea for a film in the first place: It's about Julian Assange, a man whose adventures and personality threaten to obscure the conditions that thrust him into the news. Assange may have taken advantage of the circumstances that made the world ripe for WikiLeaks, but those circumstances were here before Assange came along, and they aren't going to disappear when he departs.
Read the rest here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Box. Office. Flop.
Who cares about the movie? That looks like a kickass magazine. And as soon as I saw the graphic, I thought, “Jesse Walker”; who here didn’t?
Two years ago this month, the U.S. government created the Insider Threat Program, describing the effort as an attempt “to ensure the responsible sharing and safeguarding of classified national security information.” Among other things, this entails asking federal employees to watch one another for signs that someone might want to spill some secrets.
That one is pretty basic and pretty old. All they did was have some bureaucrat dust off a basic countermeasure and give it a new title.
New title, along with presumably a new and redundant budget.
“Assange may have taken advantage of the circumstances that made the world ripe for WikiLeaks, but those circumstances were here before Assange came along, and they aren’t going to disappear when he departs.”
The circumstances go something like this:
The world has been governed by noble lies since antiquity. The digitization of information suddenly made it easier to bring those lies out into the open like never before.
Is this the end of the noble lie?
What we’re seeing by the NSA, et. al (in other countries), is a reactionary attempt to tilt the playing field back into the governments’ favor and make the world safe for noble lies again.
Write that screenplay with fictional characters, and it’s way better than anything centered completely on Assange. In fact, the powers that be would rather we focus on Assange precisely because he’s a repulsive personality and a wedge that distracts us from the bigger issues.
By focusing on Assange, they’re playing right into the governments’ hands. They’d love to transform our freedom to know what our governments are doing into a referendum on the likability of Julian Assange, personally.
I think that’s a serious reach, Ken.
What’s a serious reach?
I just think your post ascribes more intelligence and forethought to the government than is warranted.
A lot of it is damage control rather than forethought.
I think the attention we saw them give to Snowden, for instance, was an attempt to scare any would-be Snowdens away from coming forward in the future.
I also think it’s a pretty standard practice to try to discredit whistle blowers personally after the fact.
Bradley Manning, oh, yeah, he wants to become a woman. Julian Assange, the rapist, you mean? Yeah, he’s suddenly wanted in Sweden.
Unions as you describe them are just another ‘muscle’ of civil society that has atrophied. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon where centralized, bureaucratic rules crowd out the better incentivized, bottom-up solutions that existed prior.
But then you’re also talking about unions, so you have the issues of 1) unions turning to cronyism, and 2) they’re self-interested organizations, so they’ll always talk about how necessary they are for workers’ rights and safety.