The document discusses WikiLeaks and the ethics of whistleblowing. It provides background on WikiLeaks and its role in protecting whistleblowers. Issues around the legality and ethics of whistleblowing are examined, such as whether whistleblowers should resolve issues internally first or if exposing wrongdoing is justified even without attempting internal resolution.

1. PGP-1, PGDM 2010-12, Goa institute of Management
Whistle
blowing and The
WIKILEAKS Case
Analysis, Ethics, Legality & Impact
Abhimanyu sukhwal
Meghna Bhattacharya
Ahefaz Khan
David Vaz
Ashwin Ramaswamy
2011
Ethics and Corporate governance ( ENCG )

2. WIKILEAKS &
WHISTLEBLOWING
Analysis, Ethics, Legality & Impact
Since 2007, the website Wikileaks has aimed to provide an anonymous way for
individuals to reveal incriminating, irresponsible, immoral and/or unethical
information about their employer or governement. More specifically, Wikileaks
says that it accepts “classified, censored or otherwise restricted material of
political, diplomatic or ethical significance.” As such, the whistleblowing
intermediary website has been called the future of investigative journalism by
some and an agent of international treason by others.
One of the founders and directors of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been the
poster-child for the organisation and for its legal obstacles (over 100 legal
challenges defeated). Many of his supporters (and himself) see the man as a hero
exposing unethical governments and corporations. On the other hand, Assange
hides in very liberal countries (Sweden for the moment) to escape nations that
would have his head for treason.
At its very core, Wikileaks protects whistleblowers, people that have the
unenviable job of following their conscience and exposing higher-ups while facing
the consequences. Often intimidated, routinely fired and made to look like
libellous attention-seekers, very few countries have laws protecting these people.
In fact, many more have laws protecting companies from whistleblowers. To take
two examples, the United States has yet to make sweeping legislation protecting
them so for the moment, each case is dependant on local precedent, individual
state regulations and the mindset of single judges. Not far but on the contrary,
Canada is the very worst Western country in this aspect. Having always refused
to officially protect whistleblowers, Canada has had to wait for official inquiries to
expose corruption, especially from its own government (Liberal subsidy scandal,
the Conrad Black affair…). This means that the alleged wrongdoings go on for
decades and even more as certain altruistic people try to expose them but are
summarily fired and even prosecuted for slander in the meantime.
Wikileaks has revealed much from our past and present but it is its future in
jeopardy that must preoccupy us. Wikileaks provides an international protection
for whistleblowers and as a result is forcing honesty and transparency in countries
that were never willing to do so with legislation. A group of illustrious Australian
media professionals said it best: “In essence, Wikileaks, an organization that aims
to expose official secrets, is doing what the media have always done: bringing to
light material that governments would prefer to keep secret.”
NEW YORK (JANUARY 28, 2011)
Sherron Watkins, the former vice president at Enron who tried to blow the whistle
on the accounting violations at the scandal-plagued Houston energy-trading giant,
told an audience at a seminar Friday on the new whistleblower provisions in the
Dodd-Frank Act that she and other whistleblower employees would probably take
their concerns to WikiLeaks rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission
now.

3. Introduction:
Whistle blowing is a process wherein a person exposes a wrongdoing in his organisation in front of public. The term has been coined from the practice of
police officers in Britain who used to blow whistle whenever there was some wrongdoing taking place. The objective of blowing the whistle was to
inform and alert everyone in the vicinity of the crime or wrongdoing that has taken place so that they can take necessary measures to protect them and if
possible catch the culprit. Whistleblowing has been existence since decades. Off late however, the phenomenon has acquired new significance because of
the increased media penetration among the masses. Consequently, whistle blowing as a phenomenon results into greater and far reaching significance than
what it was around decade and a half years back.
The person who exposes the wrongdoing is called as the whistle blower. A whistle blower can either be an external or an internal whistle blower. An
external whistle blower exposes a situation from within his organisation. There are numerous examples available wherein an internal whistle blower has
exposed a wrongdoing in his organisation. The information is either directly released in the public domain by using print or electronic media or it is
reported to higher officials in the organisations. An external whistle blower exposes an outside situation of which he is not a member. For example, most
of the revenue scams that keep cropping up are examples of external whistle blowing.
The common perception towards a whistle blower varies widely. Some people perceive a whistle blower as someone who wants to do good for the society
by exposing the wrong doings in front of public. There are other set of individuals who consider whistle blower as selfish breed of individuals who want
to take advantage of the situation for personal rewards. When we look into the history, both these contrasting perceptions appear to have reasonable
justifications. In the past, people have used whistle blowing for exposing a scam involving government officials or prominent public figures so as to
prevent the society from getting into big troubles. But at the same time, some people have also blown whistle for individual benefits and calmed down
when their personal expectations were met.
Another important to look into is the risk associated with whistle blowing. There are numerous instances wherein whistle blowers have been subjected to
all sort of pressure for preventing them from expressing their stand in public. Some of the whistle blowers have also received death threats and some have
also been allegedly murdered. This is the reason that a sense of fear and apprehension exist whenever a person decides to blow a whistle over a particular
wrong doing. Some countries like the United States of America has put forth laws for providing the security to the whistle blower in case of an threat. In
India, there is no such law in place. However irrespective of law being there or not, whistle blowing is most of the time considered to be a risky affair and
people try to keep quite rather than reveal the thing in public and face resultant consequences.
Ethics in Whistle blowing:
The other discussion point with respect to whistle blowing concerns ethics, with various opinions available on the topic. Understanding its significance
and potential dangers, companies have put in place various mechanisms including helplines and ethical training for employees to report any wrong doing
going on in the organisation. Even this move is not beyond the ethical consideration.
Is whistle blowing ethical? Is it ethical for a whistle blower to reveal the information in public before consulting the matter behind closed doors in an
organisation? Is it ethical to ask a whistle blower to resolve the matter internally even when the information is of public interest and could do considerable
harm to the society? How do you identify private and public interest? Is it possible that what might appear to have a selfless motive, might have some sort
of private ingredient attached to it? These are some of the question that needs to be answered when one looks at whistle blowing from an ethical
standpoint.
For example, consider a situation wherein a whistle blower is threatening an organization of going out in public with some serious wrongdoing. The
organization in turn strikes a deal with the whistle blower to keep the information out of public domain in return of financial favour. The whistle blower

4. agrees and the information fails to appear before the public domain. Now thought the whistle blower’s action is unethical, what should we say about the
organization’s action of resolving the matter by indirectly bribing the whistle blower? Or even an altogether different scenario when an individual turn a
blind eye to any wrong doing happening around him for fear of repercussion or because of mere apathy towards his responsible towards the society. In this
case, can we label this particular individual as unethical as the person who blows a whistle for personal gain. Or is there a difference between the two and
if yes, can we justify and quantify that difference. Thus talking about the ethics leaves us with a lot of questions that can be debated and discussed at
length..
Is WikiLeaks a Blessing or Curse for Democracy?
The whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, which posted the Afghanistan war logs this week, has made publishing government secrets its mission.
Many see founder Julian Assange as a hero, but others, including the Pentagon, consider him a threat to national security. He walks in quickly, a spring in
his step. Even before greeting anyone in the room, he searches for a power outlet for his small, black computer. It's a simple, inexpensive notebook, but
the world's intelligence agencies would pay a lot of money for the chance to see what's on it. The man's name is Julian Assange. He has just come from
Stockholm, following a brief stay in Brussels. Before that, he was off the radar for a couple of weeks. Assange is practically a wanted man these days. It's
almost as if he were on the run.
Five agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security tried to pay him a visit two weeks ago, just before he was scheduled to speak at a
conference in New York. But their efforts were in vain. Assange decided to stay in England after his attorney had told him that various other US
government agencies were also very interested in speaking with him. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently characterized Assange and his work as
"irresponsible."
A Forum for Anonymous Leaks
Assange is the founder of the Internet platform wikileaks.org. Together with a handful of full-time employees and many volunteers, he has operated the
site since 2007. WikiLeaks gathers and publishes material that companies and government agencies have designated as secret. The site acts as a forum for
whistleblowers and only publishes original documents -- in other words, no rumors or material written by the WikiLeaks staff.
In the past, WikiLeaks has published e-mails written by former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, exposés the corrupt activities of former
Kenyan leader Daniel Arap Moi and secret documents from the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. At that time, the site was mainly visited by
insiders, but it gained international attention in April, when Assange invited a group of journalists to the National Press Club in Washington to watch a
video.
The film showed the deadly 2007 attack by an American Apache helicopter on a group of about a dozen civilians in Baghdad, two of them employees of
the Reuters news agency. The voices of the helicopter crew were also audible, their cynical comments only adding to the horror of the images on the
video. Since the incident, Reuters had tried in vain to obtain a copy of the video. Assange, however, managed to get one. It was his biggest scoop to date.
A Threat to National Security
For some people, Assange and his collaborators are heroes fighting for total freedom of information and against any form of censorship. But for others
they are traitors.
From the standpoint of the American authorities, the Australian is a serious threat to national security -- something the Pentagon has even put in writing.
As early as 2008, the US military classified WikiLeaks as a serious security problem and discussed how best to combat the site. That document was also
leaked to Assange -- and then published on wikileaks.org.
Since then, some have voiced concerns about his safety, and even his life. But it isn't quite clear whether the man who is now firing up his computer in
London is dangerous or in danger. He is certainly conspicuous: a tall, thin man with snow-white hair and skin that seems unnaturally pale for the summer -
- partly because he has spent the last few weeks preparing his next project and hardly ever going outdoors during the day.
In a room on the fifth floor of the building that houses the offices of the Guardian, he is giving the British daily newspaper, the New York Times and
SPIEGEL an early look at a group of more than 90,000 individual reports from the war in Afghanistan, most of which are marked "secret."

5. 'Everyday Brutality'
The publication of this archive, says Assange, will not only change the way the public sees the war, it will also "change the opinion of people in positions
of political and diplomatic influence." According to Assange, the documents "shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war" and will "change
our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars."
The archive contains intelligence information, assessments and many names, both of military officials and sources. The publication of secret military
documentation of a war, which was never intended for the public, raises new questions. Is this journalism, covered by the public's right to information? Is
it a legitimate look behind the propaganda machinery of the war? Or is it an act of espionage, and are Assange and his collaborators making themselves
guilty of revealing government secrets? And are they ultimately jeopardizing the international troops and the Afghan informants helping them?
Part 2: A Database on a Flash Drive
WikiLeaks and sites like it have already changed the way governments and corporations handle sensitive information.
There have always been whistleblowers, employees of companies or government agencies who leak confidential information to the press to draw attention
to undesirable developments and corruption, or to expose abuses of power. But such an extensive database of war, which fits on a single USB flash drive
and can thus be easily published on the Internet, is a new phenomenon.
Is WikiLeaks a new beacon of enlightenment? Or does the website pose a threat to democratic nations, because it allows a former hacker and a few close
collaborators to decide which piece of explosive information to unveil next -- without giving the other side a chance to tell its side of the story or take
legal steps to stop the leaks? "These people can put out whatever they want and are never held accountable for it," US Defense Secretary Gates said, in
response to the publication of the video of the 2007 helicopter incident. Rarely has a member of a US administration seemed so helpless.
The problem starts with the fact that WikiLeaks, to this day, remains more of a brilliant idea than an organization in the conventional sense. It has no
headquarters or even a street address, just an anonymous mailbox at the University of Melbourne. So far Assange and a German colleague, who calls
himself Daniel Schmitt, are the only two people involved in WikiLeaks to have shown their faces in public. Otherwise, the operation consists of little
more than the website itself, a few email addresses and a Twitter account the organizers use for PR purposes. The servers, which are distributed around the
world in places with laws that provide extensive protections for informants, are the core of the operation. Donations cover the annual overhead of about
€200,000 ($258,000), and Assange and Schmitt don't even pay themselves salaries.
Highly Intelligent
At the meeting in London, it quickly becomes clear how dependent WikiLeaks is on individual activists -- and, to a large extent, on Assange and his little
black laptop. It's also clear that Assange's adversaries have an opponent to be taken seriously in this highly intelligent, self-confident 39-year-old.
Assange is working obsessively on a database with which WikiLeaks intends to make the war in Afghanistan more tangible. He is wearing an odd
combination of a wrinkled jacket, a T-shirt, cargo pants and worn-out tennis shoes. He is unshaven and looks as if he hasn't slept for two nights. Well-
meaning people close to him say that he urgently needs a couple of weeks of vacation.
Assange disagrees. His fingers fly across the keyboard, and he occasionally pauses to say something. "We need a function that arranges the incidents by
their relative importance," he says in his deep, sonorous voice. Before long, he has installed a filter that allows the site's users to search through the
thousands of individual incidents according to their "significance." Assange has chosen the number of civilian casualties as one of the primary criteria.
The database can also be searched by date and region, and each individual incident is linked to a map view showing exactly where in Afghanistan it
occurred. It's war as a multimedia presentation.
"Ha," he says suddenly. "Unbelievable." He has discovered yet another grotesque example of the jargon the military uses to describe reality on the
battlefield. The term is: "Vital Signs Absent" -- in other words, dead. The language of war fascinates him, which explains why WikiLeaks titled the
Baghdad video "Collateral Murder." His purpose in choosing the title, says Assange, was to expose the cynical term "collateral damage" and make it
impossible to use.
'Our Criteria Are Crystal-Clear'
When Assange talks about this project -- over dinner, for example, during which the Australian orders nothing but two scoops of cardamom ice cream --
he is intent on sending the message that WikiLeaks is a radical, carefully conceived project. Assange takes a long time to reflect before answering
questions, and he insists on delivering his full response. He doesn't like to be interrupted.
Assange says that he came up with the basic idea in the 1990s, and in 1999 he reserved the domain name leaks.org. For Assange, the fundamental rule in
open societies must be that everyone should be able to communicate freely about everything. Experience, he says, shows that wherever there are secrets
there is often wrongdoing, because people in positions of power tend to use secrets to their advantage.
If his view is correct, there are probably quite a few powerful people in the world who should be very concerned, because WikiLeaks supposedly has a
wealth of still-unpublished material. Who decides what is published, and when?
The source, says Assange. Whenever it receives an anonymous submission, WikiLeaks asks the informant why he or she believes that the material is of
political or moral relevance. "Our criteria are crystal clear, and if they are met, we publish," says Assange.
Who is "we?' "In the end, someone has to be in charge, and that's me," says Assange. "And when in doubt, I'll always publish."
Living a Nomad's Life

6. It's a remarkable position for an organization that doesn't even publish the names of the five paid staff it allegedly employs -- and for a man who tries to
dodge questions about his own life. A few basic facts, at any rate, seem clear.
Assange was born in 1971 to a family of artists in Queensland, Australia. His parents eventually separated, but when his mother remarried, the relationship
also failed. It was so disastrous, in fact, that his mother took Julian and fled from her second husband, even living under a false name for a while.
Even then, he was living a nomad's life, and he reportedly attended almost 40 different schools.
As long ago as the 1980s, the Stone Age of the Internet, when a personal computer was a Commodore 64 and modems were referred to as "acoustic
couplers," Assange developed a passion for computers and networks. He later made a name for himself in the Melbourne hacker community, after
successfully hacking into corporate and government networks, including American military computers.
"It was God Almighty walking around doing what you like," a prosecuting attorney said a few years later. The group of hackers to which Assange
belonged even monitored the Australian federal police investigation of them online. Assange was eventually fined and sentenced to a form of probation. A
television report on the case shows Assange in a trenchcoat and sunglasses, his long, brown hair tied into a ponytail. The group of hackers called itself the
"International Subversives."
Assange already had a young son when he was sentenced. He was young himself when he became a father, but he soon became embroiled in a bitter
custody battle with the child's mother that lasted for several years -- and led to renewed run-ins with government agencies.
Part 3: An Attempt to Get Revenge?
Is WikiLeaks merely a way for a hurt hacker and unrecognized computer genius to get revenge? Because of his personal history, is Assange really talking
about the government when he talks about the "enemy?"
These are the kinds of questions that journalists typically ask Assange. He hates them with the same passion with which he despises the "secret" stamp on
official documents. For him, WikiLeaks is also a project that is about transforming traditional media. He wants users to form their own opinions on the
basis of original documents, without any journalistic spin. But with the "Collateral Murder" video, WikiLeaks violated its own principles by adding an
editorialized title, for which Assange came in for some criticism.
The problem, says the Australian, arises in the head of the reporter. He prefers scientific journals, with their footnotes and lists of references. Although he
describes himself as an investigative journalist, his work is in fact more like that of an archivist and librarian. It isn't an accident that he has registered
WikiLeaks as a library in Australia.
Assange and his colleagues can be very pleased with the development of WikiLeaks at the moment. A few days ago, the Australian gave a talk to
investigative journalists in London, while his German collaborator Daniel Schmitt spoke in Hamburg -- both to enthusiastic applause. They were awarded
Amnesty International's media prize last year.
Under a Shadow
But the project has been under a shadow since May 29. On that day, Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old US soldier, was arrested at the Forward Operating
Base Hammer in Iraq and taken to a military prison at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.
The US military has since made public its charges against Manning, a former military analyst. It claims that between Nov. 19, 2009 and the spring of this
year, he downloaded the Baghdad video published by WikiLeaks, as well as 150,000 secret diplomatic cables by the US State Department and a secret
PowerPoint presentation.
The US military accuses Manning of having passed on the video and 50 of the wire reports to a "person not entitled to receive them." According to a US
Army spokesman, Manning could face up to 52 years in prison if convicted.
It appears that Manning blew his own cover. On May 21, he apparently began a series of Internet chats with an American hacker named Adrian Lamo.
The US magazine Wired has published excerpts of the chats.
Lip-Syncing to Lady Gaga
One of the parties to the correspondence, who US authorities believe is Manning, poured his heart out to Lamo, a complete stranger to him until then. He
described how he was able to access the SIPRNET and JWICS secret networks through two work computers, and that he also found unprotected material
on a US Central Command (CENTCOM) computer. "I can't believe what I'm confessing to you," he added.
In the chats, he even revealed how he supposedly smuggled the material out of his workplace. He said that he inserted blank CDs into his work computers
in Iraq, which he had previously labeled "Lady Gaga," so as to create the impression that he was taking home music CDs. According to the chat logs,
Manning said that he "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's 'Telephone' while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."
The chatter made several references to WikiLeaks and Assange, with whom he claimed he was in contact. He also suggested that he was motivated by a
deep dissatisfaction with the local situation and the US military.
Lamo informed the FBI and turned over his chat logs. In interviews with the US media, he sought to justify his actions by saying he was concerned that
national security was at threat. Manning was arrested a short time later.
Outing the Whistleblowers
The Manning case turned into delicate situation for WikiLeaks and Assange. It bears an uncanny resemblance to a scenario aimed at harming WikiLeaks
that the US military concocted in a secret document in 2008. According to the scenario, successful identification, prosecution and outing of individuals
who pass on information to WikiLeaks would damage and possibly even destroy the site, and deter others from taking similar steps.
How does the WikiLeaks founder feel about the US soldier's supposed self-incrimination?
"If we are to believe the allegation, Manning was betrayed by a US journalist-computer hacker who had nothing to do with WikiLeaks," Assange says.
"We can't save people from themselves, unfortunately."

7. Part 4: 'We Have No Idea if Manning Was Our Source'
Could Manning also have been the source of the Afghanistan material, as some observers are now speculating? "We have no idea if he was our source,"
Assange claims. "We structure our system so that we do not know the identity of our sources."
And why does WikiLeaks want to provide Manning with legal assistance, if WikiLeaks has indeed installed technical safeguards to make it impossible for
it to know who submitted the material?
"We have to assist all our alleged sources," says Assange. "We should remember that regardless of whether Mr. Manning was the source for the 'Collateral
Murder' video or whether he was directly or incidentally involved in any of the materials we have published, he is a young man who is detained in Kuwait
as a result of an allegation that he is our source."
Staying with Supporters Around the World.
After Manning's arrest, Assange also disappeared for a few weeks, and his attorneys advised him to avoid traveling to the United States. "One of our
contacts informed me that there was consideration being given as to whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to commit espionage," he says.
That's the reason he checked into a London hotel under a false name and then made a quick disappearance to stay with one of his supporters, as has so
often been the case in the past few years. He has stayed in places all around the world, from Kenya to Iceland, where he and a team of volunteers prepared
to publish the Baghdad video.
The precautions apply to everyone in his group. When Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known programmer in the Internet community, stood in for Assange at a
hackers' convention in New York two weekends ago, he even hired a double to pose as him after he had given his talk. Appelbaum himself went directly
to the airport, carrying only his passport, some cash and a copy of the US Bill of Rights, and took a flight overseas.
Increasingly Cautious
Daniel Schmitt, the German representative of WikiLeaks who is, next to Assange, the second most important voice of WikiLeaks, has also become more
cautious.
During a meeting with SPIEGEL in a Berlin café, Schmitt looks around to see if anyone is listening to the conversation. He also says that he doesn't want
photographs taken in his presence.
Germany is one of the most important sites for WikiLeaks, acting as one of the pillars of the relatively loose-knit organization. WikiLeaks receives many
submissions in German, it gets technical assistance from people associated with the Chaos Computer Club, an influential German hacker organization, and
German supporters are responsible for a large share of its donations.
Schmitt, a slim, bearded 32-year-old with horn-rimmed glasses, studied computer science and worked in IT security before devoting himself completely to
WikiLeaks. He looks almost pedestrian next to the somewhat eccentric Assange, who has been known to walk around in London in his socks and
suddenly do a cartwheel.
Just the Beginning
A foundation called "Friends of WikiLeaks" is expected to be launched in Germany this year. Schmitt is working on a brochure designed to encourage
people to leak information, which he wants volunteers to hand out in front of the Reichstag, the seat of the German parliament, and the Defense Ministry.
He has also considered placing ads in the subway.
The two men, Assange and Schmitt, say that WikiLeaks has a mountain of unpublished documents at its disposal -- and that this is just the beginning.
"If we want to use a mountain-climbing metaphor, we're only at the base camp," says Assange.
Then he snaps his little black laptop shut, packs it into his charcoal-gray nylon backpack, and walks out of the room.
Although Wikileaks hasn't quite delivered in terms of a major shock to a sector of society which believes itself to be immune from criticism, it has made
one point – whistleblowing has a big future.The overreaction to Wikileaks release of information and the transparently obvious targeting of Assange
proves that Wikileaks has in fact found a very responsive area in politics and government , which is apparently hypersensitive.
Most interestingly, the systematic attacks on Wikileaks through a network of sites apparently based in Europe also indicates tantrums at the highest level.
Fortunately for these sites, Wikileaks seems unable to retaliate in kind, but it is interesting to speculate what would happen if a less "nice" organization
than Wikileaks was under attack. Global cyber Vietnam, anyone?
The world should be paying close attention to what happens to Wikileaks, because this is "Power in action", however infantile. This response is the
product of the mentalities currently running the world. "Banal" would be a flattering description, but this obviously self-serving malice under the pretense
of law deserves attention.For example, classified information may or may not have a degree of legal protection under Official Secrets Acts or their
equivalents. The actual specific breaches of law have been only vaguely defined. Calling something a security risk after the event is also a highly
debatable line of argument. Yet, this is what's happening, and the law is now being used to protect those responsible for massive failures of security, not
punishing the clear incompetence which allowed the leaks. "Democracy", eh?
Given that politicians and governments around the world barely react at all to the endless disasters of their administrations, like poverty, homelessness,
education, the destruction of the oceans, massive levels of pollution, saturation levels of global corruption, rampant crime, flagrant abuse of financial laws
and the rest of the dictionary, this obvious high sensitivity might be well worth exploring.
It's not like Assange and Wikileaks released a series of embarrassing photos. The pity of it is that the damage to these incredibly smug, well insulated
elements of society has been so minimal. As a matter of fact, if you read a bit further into some of the information released, there would be grounds for
investigation of some of the departments and individuals named.Interestingly, the reaction to the Wikileaks materials was as incompetent, bitchy and
ineffectual as might have been expected. The denial of service attack on Wikileaks, the Swedish on-again, off-again charges against Assange, and the
matronly-virtuous outrage directed not against facts but against people revealing the facts was utterly predictable.

8. Even the mathematics, referring to PFC Manning as the poster boy for the reaction against Wikileaks, is lousy. PFC Manning was charged regarding
150,000 downloads, not the many millions of downloads and documents possessed by Wikileaks. So who's checking out the other few million leaks, and
why aren't we hearing ongoing fury about them? Brief, selective attention spans presumably make better press releases.
This is "national security"? interesting bit of official non – apologia from a US senator regarding the leaked diplomatic information equated basically to
"That's the way it is, and the world has to do business with America". So if American National Security is unreliable, and the American government has
no means of dealing with security problems, everything’s fine, business as usual.
That's not quite the case. The extensive non-denial of the Wikileaks materials is also interesting. In fact, it's downright suspicious. In fact, Washington has
been trumpeting its ineffectuality strangely. Expecting the world to put up with yet another American disaster the way America tolerates its hopelessly
inept, antiquated, corrupt and usually lunatic levels of government is naive to the point of imbecility. The American public doesn't seem to benefit very
much from “business as usual”, and the world is now apparently getting the same treatment.This is the culture running the world. No responsibility, no
accountability, and the world can pay for it. That’s not good enough. Never has been, never will be. The fact is that governments and related scum are
very unlikely to change their ways. Historically, corruption is the basis of power and privilege. It was endemic in ancient Egypt, China, and Rome, and
things haven’t changed much. The fact that those societies also fell to bits in much the same way is also worthy of note.
So the future of whistleblowing will have to be based on something a little bit more lethal to the global and American gravy trains than Wikileaks. How do
people feel about not just one Wikileaks, but thousands of them, concentrating on the very sore points in government, finance, and the rest of the festering
sores, preferably as specialists in their fields?As most people who have worked in business, government or politics are well aware, information which can
force change does exist. It's a matter of getting it out of the public eye. Wikileaks recently stated that it had a lot of information regarding a major bank,
definitely the sort of material that needs to be on view.
For example, if the endless mismanagement of the health sector generally was open to scrutiny, there would be howls around the world. The strangely
reticent and incredibly slow moving prosecution of clergy for sexual molestation of children might also reveals some interesting administrative facts.
It's a pretty sick world. When this is the only way to get proper levels of attention to the total failure of world governments and people in positions of
privilege and trust, it makes democracy look totally dysfunctional. If these anointed insects in positions of power are ever to be brought to accountability,
it usually takes a war. Wikileaks should be just the beginning of enforcing accountability. The net result of the recent leaks will be to convince these elite
enemas that they've survived the worst case scenario. They need to be disabused of that notion, and quickly. There should be no safe place on Earth for
corrupt politicians, or the usually criminal/insane vested interest vermin that they serve.
Failure is not an option. Wikileaks has exposed some nerves, if nothing else. There is no way that a global whistleblowing network could never be shut
down. If this is the way to take out the trash, then let the trash be taken out that way.
Expected changes in the highly internet media driven society in light of Wiki leaks type of exposures
In his published statement about why he posted a portion of the bail for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore said:
"We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a
WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a
guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again."
The sentiment in Moore’s statement is accurate in the present, but looking forward, I think the long-term effect of WikiLeaks may be more detrimental to
the idea of transparency. Government officials, diplomats and clandestine figures working on behalf of governments around the world do not want their
personal communications published for the world to see. Even against the backdrop of a global conflict in which thousands and perhaps millions are
needlessly dying, those in power are not going to view the WikiLeaks situation as an opportunity to become "more" transparent in the way that they
operate.
Moving forward, protective measures ensuring secrecy are only going to increase dramatically. Fewer and fewer people will have access to critical
information and decisions are going to be made unilaterally, at higher levels, by even fewer individuals. That is the only logical outcome of the entire
WikiLeaks scandal.
In this particular moment in time, WikiLeaks has struck a meaningful blow for transparency and for accountability from government officials, even if
many people will point to the questionable aspects of national security that the documents might endanger indirectly. But already it seems that the people
who are applauding WikiLeaks are in the minority. If Michael Moore’s spearheading the support, then the cause is probably not one entirely popular with
mainstream America. That said, Moore’s onto something with the idea that greater transparency in government is something that would be beneficial for
all levels of humanity.
Again, however, my thought is that the reactionary move on the part of the U.S. government and other world powers is going to be to clamp down even
further on information management and allow fewer people access to the behind-the-scenes decisions that affect the world. Yet within that pessimistic
view of the long-term impact of this situation, there is still a chance that some people are awakened by the acts of Assange and his website and people are
able to mobilize to demand more information from their governments.
At the end of the day, the wars being fought around the world are well-orchestrated acts of manipulation by a select few. And whether you choose to point
to al Qaeda, the Taliban, the U.S. government, or the U.S. military-industrial complex, the formula is the same. The actions and decisions of a select few
result in the killing and death of millions and the end result leaves nothing resolved, nothing clearly better or worse than it was before the start of conflict.
That is the morsel of understanding that everyone needs to take away from the WikiLeaks incident.

9. What changes will take place in the highly internet media driven society in light of Wiki leaks type of exposures?
Wiki leaks claims to bring “important news and information to the public”, by claiming access to/ ability to acquire and release articles with confidential
and/ or controversial information. In the highly media driven society today, the type of “exposures” that Wiki leaks encourages and indulges in, has
repercussions/ consequences in the form of a domino effect.
Responsible Journalism- Information should be used with discretion, caution and responsibly. While Wiki leaks is being hailed as the New Media, the
release of confidential pieces of information pertaining to government policies and strategic diplomacy, would harm national security and international
diplomacy.
Also, since a lot of the news/ information are controversial in nature, their release and consequent spread sparks off immediate reaction from multiple
sections at multiple levels, for equally varied reasons. The accused/ primary party criticises the release citing privacy issues, others react to the actions the
primary party has been accused of and still others take advantage of the situation. For e.g. - The controversy following the release of the 250,000 U.S
Embassy Diplomatic Cables.
Lack of Verification - Given that the authorship/ sources of those articles are not revealed to the public, there is minimal possibility of verifying the
authenticity of the stated information. Wiki leaks responds to criticism by stating-
"The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss
leaked documents."
Once a controversial topic comes to the forefront, not everyone stops to/ is capable of verifying/ analysing it. Irresponsible handling of information will
lead to widespread chaos, particularly in politically volatile situations.
Motive- Media acts as the society’s conscience as a check on the governance in a society by focussing on the actions of the government and bringing
controversial and debatable issues to the forefront. While the intention of bringing information to the people is laudable, the power that the holder of the
information wields is dangerous and corruptive. Media may abuse its power and spread fraudulent information for publicity.
Right to Access- Currently, Wiki leaks has over 20,000 articles in its online archives. While right to information is important, who decides how much and
which information should people have the access to?
Given that we live in the age of communication, any information, however trivial, once put on the World Wide Web is not only stored for posterity but
also circulated among the millions of users all across the world. The said users together form a nameless mass that can include anyone from a child,
teenager, householder/ office-goer to a terrorist. In such cases, discretion is of utmost importance, especially when dealing with controversial information,
because once released, it is impossible to control the spread of the information and its consequences.