[governance] Wikileaks release and its implications for cybersecurity.

[Paul Lehto]

On 9/4/11, devonrb at gmail.com <devonrb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wikileaks has released over 251,000 US State Department Cables [...]
[...]
> Is anyone endangered by the public's knowledge of these cables.
> Where does the public's right to know ends and the individuals right to
> security begins?

Wherever the public's right to know ends", is the same place where
unlimited, unaccountable power begins.  Where would everyone here like
unlimited unacountable power to exist?

If anyone would, how do you know that whatever purpose or
justification you might support it for by allowing this purpose to
enjoy unaccountable power is a purpose that it will remain loyal to?
Do we indulge in fantasies that secretive governmental wings are
self-policing, self-limiting and will blow the whistle on themselves
when they enjoy unaccountable power?  Or that some secret court will
render secret but real justice?

This original post is either based is based on, or encourages, a false
assumption: Wikileaks has meticulously avoided publishing names ever
since some Afghan related documents many months ago. See
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/02/wikileaks/index.html
In fact, it was a writer for the Guardian in conjunction with some
other non wikileaks' actions that resulted in disclosure of names of
individuals.   Id. (see salon link)

There is no doubt whatsoever that many of the governmental actions
disclosed in the cables not only "endangered" individuals but severely
*damaged* or killed them - and these governmental actions have been
kept secret to date.

To the extent the discussion of the acts or crimes disclosed by the
cables is instead replaced by this kind of discussion about the
potential "security implications" of "sensitive" information being
brought to light, these crimes remain unaccountable.  And why would
anyone want the following things to remain unaccountable?

Example One:  First reported by John Glaser of Antiwar.com -- this
example details a "heinous war crime [by U.S forces] during a house
raid in Iraq in 2006, wherein one man, four women, two children, and
three infants were summarily executed" and their house thereafter
blown up by a U.S. airstrike in order to destroy the evidence.  Back
in 2006, the incident was discussed in American papers as a mere
unproven "allegation" ("Regardless of which account is correct . . "),
and the U.S. military (as usual) cleared itself of any and all
wrongdoing.

Defenders, anyone?

Example Two: Wikileaks cable: UN peacekeepers in Ivory Coast traded
food for sex with underage girls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/wikileaks-cable-un-peacekeepers-in-ivory-coast-traded-food-for-sex-with-underage-girls/2011/09/01/gIQA885PuJ_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

Examples Three through Thirty-three:  Here is a list of 30 significant
cables compiled by wikileaks itself on August 29.
http://wikileaks.org/30-new-revelations-from-wlfind.html




-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t