Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Some information need not be public

I spent most of my adult life arguing in favor of the "public's right to know," so it might seem contradictory to find myself appalled and deeply troubled by the release of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. But there is a fundamental difference between, for example, a city council hiding from constituents its plans to offer a tax incentive to a company to open a toxic waste dump and international diplomats expecting to have their analyses and assessments of actions and individuals kept confidential.

The federal government's transparency of information is governed by the Freedom of Information Act, which makes most government documents public. North Carolina has the Public Records Law, which makes all documents of whatever type, with a few explicit exceptions, available to the public. But neither state nor federal law makes all information held by the government available to the public. Certain information, including diplomatic cables, legal advice, grand jury testimony and emergency contingency plans, remain confidential for the simple reason that release of these details would undermine the government's ability to act, would endanger innocent people or would not serve the public's interest.

The WikiLeaks trove of secret cables reveals some details about the thinking of world leaders and the advice provided by diplomats to Washington, but there seems to be little information that is truly shocking. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says lives could be endangered by these leaks, and that's probably not hyperbole. It is almost certain that diplomats' activities will be curtailed by this release. Foreign Service officers and foreign diplomats are likely to be less candid in their assessments of international situations, and that could make U.S. foreign policy less cogent and successful.

Although WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gets most of the blame for the damage done by the WikiLeaks release, U.S. security policy is also to blame. News reports indicate a low-level military intelligence official (a private!) was able to download the hundreds of thousands of confidential messages and pass them on to Assange. That should never, ever happen. The United States must fix its leaky security system and reassure governments around the world that what they say in confidence will remain confidential. Otherwise, diplomatic negotiations might grind to a halt.

2 comments:

  1. A well-thought argument. Curious if you think the government has the right to shut Wilileaks down? That appears to me to be a VERY slippery slope. jcp

    ReplyDelete
  2. ....interesting post, now it will be some craziness to see what the banks have to say behind closed doors ...uh, pc ports.
    Wikileaks resides in several server locations all over the world - the US government can't really do anything about WikiLeaks. If the US can shut down a site like this or somehow destroy all the servers, then the internet and maybe civilized society, as a whole, is in trouble. The internet system was initially designed to circumvent any possibility of total shutdown by rerouting information, sources and code. The US can only curtail the original information that is being "leaked" (good luck with that) However, the international slander/ad campaign against Julian Assange has started, defamation of character is the first step in building a negative public image scenario for illusive persons or so called fugitives on the Most Wanted list.

    WikiLeaks may change the classic saying' "If the news doesnt tell us, then who will?"
    Will we see leaked info from the Gulf oil disaster?

    > http://twitter.com/wikileaks

    ReplyDelete