Elsewhere (27)

Andy,
Well, what he wants is the question, I think. I suspect attention is high on the list. As others have pointed out (at length), the recent “revelations” have ranged from the innocuous and obvious (Sarkozy, Palin, Berlusconi, etc) to the potentially destabilising. Not that Mr Assange seems particularly concerned with the possible fallout for other parties. Still, I’m sure it’s all very thrilling.
What’s interesting to me is how, beneath all the activist posturing and pretentious theorising, the most popular motive seems to be an urge to do harm to America and the West in general – a two-finger salute – as if the US were some surrogate parent being spat at by sulky teenagers. Assange wants to “end two wars,” he says, presumably by undermining Western efforts to seed democracy and exposing our military and informants to mortal risk. One blogger, linked to approvingly by the lofty lefties at Crooked Timber, made his own feelings clear: “The leaking of these WikiLeaks cables was a brave act and if it damages US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, which I think it will, I’m all for it.”
As Megan McArdle notes, if bravery’s the thing, it would be much braver to target governments less inclined to tolerate embarrassment and exposure and whose methods are, shall we say, unequivocal. To date, Mr Assange and his associates have shied from such tempting targets – targets that might actually justify their elaborate rationale.

“It cannot be long before he is hoist by his own petard.”
There is a sort of ‘moth-to-a-flame’ aspect, as so often with narcissist psychodrama. Assange claims he wants to “hold governments accountable.” But to whom is *he* accountable? The more material is leaked, the less benign his motives seem to be. What “social justice” motive lies behind the most recent WikiLeaks publication – an extensive list of America and Britain’s security-sensitive infrastructure, including fuel pipelines, communication hubs and insulin factories? What noble motivation is in play here? Is the public in some way better off for knowing the approximate whereabouts of these things – and for knowing that terrorists and other potential enemies will know their whereabouts too?
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/06/a-leak-too-far/
If Mr Assange were a little more concerned with more obvious – and much more odious – targets, where his own theorising might hold water, his motives wouldn’t seem so dubious. But he isn’t, so they do. “Unjust systems” are, we’re told, “exquisitely vulnerable” to the methods employed by WikiLeaks; yet the most unjust systems on Earth remain all but untouched.

Looking at his blog, I don’t think Geoffrey is well either…

Geoffrey,
In any given instance, I could only guess at the motives of the newspapers and agencies taking part. I’m sure any number of motives are in play. The New York Times, for instance, took a “public interest” line regarding leaks and confidentiality when the US embassy reports appeared last month, but took a very different stance the previous year regarding Climategate, when it refused to publish “private information” that was “acquired illegally” and which was “never intended for the public eye.” (NYT, November 20th, 2009.)
WikiLeaks once defined its purpose as being to “expose oppressive regimes,” ostensibly those in “Asia, the former Soviet bloc, sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.” Added to that was a broader invitation to help reveal “unethical behaviour” in “governments and corporations” elsewhere. But a number of “revelations” seem to have reached way beyond that original (and, for many, unobjectionable) remit.
Given Mr Assange’s character, his statements, his self-flattering blog (now deleted) and his elaborate manifesto, and given his apparent disregard for the fallout faced by third parties (see above), it doesn’t seem outlandish to question the coherence and sincerity of his stated motives. Some might argue that the particulars of any given leak are immaterial and that what matters is the on-going threat to government of exposure; but again, the disregard for consequences is striking. And if the bulk of material is, as it seems to be, aimed at damaging the West, successfully or otherwise, then entertaining other, less edifying motives is perfectly reasonable. To not do so would be ludicrously trusting.
Incidentally, Geoffrey, having scanned your ill-tempered and rather paranoid website, with its colourful references to “niggers” and “fags,” I’d rather you didn’t grace us with your presence.

“The Taliban has issued a chilling warning to Afghans, alleged in secret US military files leaked on the internet to have worked as informers for the Nato-led coalition, telling Channel 4 News “US spies” will be hunted down and punished.”
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html
“[Assange] insisted that any risk to informants’ lives was outweighed by the overall importance of publishing the information.”
http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/
Just in case anyone forgets what kind of guy Assange is.

SG,
“Just in case anyone forgets what kind of guy Assange is.”
Quite. The “social justice activist” who says, “Our goal is justice to innocents, not to harm them” and who then reveals informants’ details to (among others) the Taliban, and who subsequently claims he was “forced” into doing so because the White House allegedly refused to assist him in editing the material. He had no choice apparently, nor, it seems, any patience. It had to be all or nothing, and it had to be right now.
It’s a moral calculus that not everyone would be comfortable with.

I repeat my earlier query: Who pays for this?

“I find Assange’s arrogance astonishing.”
This is arguably the nub of it. (Last year, Assange described himself as “the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest.” Modesty has never troubled Mr Assange, as anyone who’s read his hilariously self-flattering blog will know.) Even setting aside leaks that endanger informants and other personnel and leaks that may make terrorism easier and more serious, there’s the issue of process. As I asked earlier, to whom is WikiLeaks accountable? Assange and his associates continue to circumvent the law and democratic proprieties, including mechanisms independent of government. Whatever one’s views on any particular leak, no-one gave Assange a mandate to compromise security, to disrupt diplomatic relationships, or to endanger lives. The arrogance implicit in the project – made explicit by Assange and his personality cult (“V for Vendetta! A for Assange!”) – is hard to avoid. There may have been instances when the organisation’s actions were defensible, even admirable, but to expect an ongoing license to disclose at will – and Good Guy status by default – is an expectation too far.
If anyone still isn’t clear “what kind of guy” Mr Assange is, here’s an extract from his personal blog, in which Saint Julian admires himself breathlessly:
“At some point in my unintended wooing of her, she looked up, fluttered her eyelids and said’’Oh, you know so much! I hardly know anything!’. ‘That is why you believe in God,’ I explained. This conversational brutality took her breath away and she swooned. I was exactly what she secretly longed for; a man willing to openly disagree with her father. All along she had needed a man to devote herself to. All along she had failed to find a man worthy of being called a man, failed to find a man who would not bow to gods, so she had chosen a god unworthy of being called a god, but who would not bow to a man.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#Canberra

Sackcloth,
Wikileaks co-founder John Young:
“I don’t want to limit this to Wikileaks, but yes, they’re acting like a cult. They’re acting like a religion. They’re acting like a government. They’re acting like a bunch of spies. They’re hiding their identity. They don’t account for the money. They promise all sorts of good things. They seldom let you know what they’re really up to. They have rituals and all sorts of wonderful stuff. So I admire them for their showmanship and their entertainment value. But I certainly would not trust them with information if it had any value, or if it put me at risk or anyone that I cared about at risk.”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

Sackcloth,
“I don’t know how his actions fit in with WikiLeaks’ initial mission statement.”
Here’s the thing. WikiLeaks is no longer a wiki project that, as its own publicity once put it, “publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct.” It’s become something else, something much less savoury. The objection here – obviously – is not to leaks per se or the exposure of wrongdoing. What’s objectionable is the belief that ongoing exposure is more important than its particulars and consequences – that exactly what is being exposed and who may get hurt simply doesn’t matter. Or doesn’t matter enough.
For instance, where’s the public interest argument for revealing Lebanese informants hoping to undermine Hizballah? Will such disclosures encourage others to risk their safety to combat clerical fascism, or the reverse? Where’s the public interest argument for publishing a list of America and Britain’s security-sensitive infrastructure, including fuel pipelines, communication hubs and insulin factories? Where’s the “government misconduct”? Is it wrong for elected governments to identify their own key infrastructure with a view to protecting it from terrorism? Or is it misconduct to triumphantly share that list with terrorists and other potential enemies? Who elected Mr Assange to make judgments of this kind? Who gave him a mandate to, as one supporter put it, “disrupt the system”?
And whose “system” is he trying to disrupt? As noted above, WikiLeaks’ focus remains almost exclusively on certain, relatively easy targets – i.e. Western targets – with other submissions declined and publication timed to maximise political leverage. And they are targets, chosen above other, more obvious lines of enquiry. Almost four years ago, Assange announced that WikiLeaks had “representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities,” links with dissidents from Communist regimes and “over 1.1 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.” The promised rush of information, though, has been somewhat less than one might have hoped. Instead, Assange tells us that America is “an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy.”
Priorities, see?
So here we have a man whose most telling feature is a blithe disregard for the fallout of his actions and who regards America as a threat to democracy. (His reactions to his critics, even once-close associates – “these are not consequential people” – are perhaps his second most telling feature.) Assange disdains nation states and their legal and democratic proprieties, including their necessarily imperfect checks and balances, in favour of some kind of information anarchism, with himself as its gatekeeper. I don’t think that makes him the hero he seems to think he is. It’s no longer credible to imagine that WikiLeaks is a “neutral” global player, concerned only with airing “misconduct” wherever it may be. It’s now The Assange Show – starring “the James Bond of journalism” – and when it’s not about him it’s about how awful America and the West is.

“Almost four years ago, Assange announced that WikiLeaks had “representatives from expatriate Russian and Tibetan refugee communities”…
And perhaps that’s the problem. Not much of a stretch to imagine that our left-winged gadfly may have found out just a little too much about a “you know too much, and now you must die” government and he got a visit from one of their “diplomats”. Maybe this drama being played out is all that is keeping him from entering the fertilizer business, permanently.

Wikileaks are for-hire mercenaries – Cryptome
From the earliest discussions, Young alleges, Wikileaks intended to pimp out the information for funds.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/

Here’s a turn-up with reference to Mr Assange’s arrest, and refusal of bail. Naomi Wolf has just written an article stating that we mustn’t jump to conclusions, and that the Swedish judicial process must be aloud to continue without presumptions or prejudices concerning Mr Assange’s guilt or innocence.
She also reminds us that while the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is an important principle of Western law, it is important to consider the position of the two women at the centre of this case. The crime of rape is a serious one, and in all too many cases in the past female victims had their experiences trivialised and disregarded, and that in a perverse act of male chauvinism they were often treated by the law and the public of being responsible for the crime committed against them. It is therefore important to consider Mr Assange’s rights as the accused, but also to avoid the temptation to denigrate or smear the accusers …
Actually. I lie. Guess what that hypocritical harridan has written?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=120710&utm_medium=email&utm_content=BlogEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief

“Not really helping their case, is it?”
No, not really. Though conceivably it may help those who would like to see much tighter control of internet activity.
What’s interesting is the juxtaposition of this:
“An organization of online ‘hacktivists’ linked to the 4Chan network ‘partially paralyzed’ MasterCard.com on Wednesday after the credit card company stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks… ‘While we don’t have much of an affiliation with WikiLeaks, we fight for the same reasons,’ the statement explains. ‘We want transparency and we counter censorship. The attempts to silence WikiLeaks are long strides closer to a world where we cannot say what we think and are unable to express our opinions and ideas.’”
And, in the same article, this:
“While some media commentators have spoken positively of WikiLeaks… there’s certainly no shortage of online coverage that’s been critical of the group. Because of that, Anonymous says the websites of Fox News, CNN, The Washington Times and the BBC are on its radar.”
http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/defending-wikileaks-anonymous-hacktivists-attack-mastercard-is/19751869
So the people who claim they wish to counter “censorship” are merrily planning to attack those who dare to disagree with them. While revealing customers’ card details online and disrupting the financial transactions of entirely innocent third parties.
Again, not a watertight moral calculus. But a revealing one, I think.

“us, the people, are displeased”
They’re ‘the people’ now. How convenient.

This Assange character spoke in front of the Brotherhood Movement here in Sweden not too long ago (a speech followed by a cosy Q&A session). You can read more about the Brotherhood Movement (aka the Swedish Association of Christian Social Democrats) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Association_of_Christian_Social_Democrats#Controversy
Then, of course, he was hired as columnist at Aftonbladet a few months ago. Read more about Aftonbladet here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#See_also
(I know, it’s Wikipedia, but read the links or, if the the links are in Swedish, use google)
If I were to guess Assange’s political orientation (not exactly a wild guess): a typical “the United States is the root of all evil”-anarchist/leftist/left-libertarian – take your pick.

‘Right now, as you read this, there is a random group of about 5,000 people talking and plotting on how to exact revenge on various corporations that have been less than helpful with the operations of WikiLeaks… Now, they are getting angry people all over the world to join in on their cause and start attacking whatever they choose. It’s hacktivism at its best’.
I presume that Mr Hundal’s support for ‘hacktivism’ would end if someone started fucking with his website.

Sackcloth,
“I presume that Mr Hundal’s support for ‘hacktivism’ would end if someone started fucking with his website.”
Mr Hundal is keen to tell us that he approves of “direct action,” provided it’s being inflicted on someone else, and provided someone else has to pick up the tab. When those being inconvenienced complain, this apparently gives him “even more pleasure.”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/02/behold-my-virtue-3-.html
As I said, it’s worth noting the psychology of these things.
The next few weeks will be revealing. No doubt other companies (and of course their customers) will soon be targeted for their heresy, all in the name of “freedom.” Innocent third parties will find their user accounts unusable, their email contacts publicised and their personal details unsafe, creating countless opportunities for frauds, spammers and thieves. So the question is, do you want to be threatened in perpetuity by resentful misfits and borderline sociopaths?