The following is one of several short essays I wrote on Wikileaks between March and April of this year, both before and after the organization released the Afghanistan tape. This one appeared on April 10 at True/Slant and other outlets.
I’d also like to once again note that recently-released Wikileaks cables show that Shell has infiltrated every level of the Nigerian government in order to better ensure that the state continues to cater to its own interests. The fact that this has not caused anything close to the degree of condemnation that Anonymous has received for attacking the websites of corporations that contribute millions to political candidates who are themselves responsible for regulating those corporations, coupled with the fact that this revelation has received almost no coverage in the United States, further demonstrates the degree to which the status quo must be altered by any means necessary – even if those means involve something as cruel and terrible as a DDOS attack on Visa’s website. Cyberwar seems noble and beautiful from afar, but up close, when the smell of the 404 fills one’s nostrils, you come to realize that cyberwar is as ugly as it is necessary. Let us all pray for Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, and perhaps the Nigerians if we have time.
***
The world’s sudden and unprecedented interconnectedness – as well as the great amount of novelty produced as a consequence of such a dynamic as this – puts new strain on the public’s ability to identify that information which most demands consideration. The possibilities inherent to a radically altered global environment in which most anyone may talk to anyone, and is increasingly likely to do so, in turn amplify the potential forms that human activity may take. In an age in which more is happening than ever and all of it has implications for everyone else, the citizenry requires similarly amplified access to the most relevant information. What it gets instead is a haphazard media infrastructure that has developed through a blind mess of profitability, career maneuvering, chance, and inertia, rather than such circumstances as could lead to a more optimal end result.
Of course, no one is demanding that the mainstream outlets achieve some sort of Platonic ideal with regards to its end product. Rather, the deficit in quality between such outlets on the one hand and others of more recent origins on the other- user-driven aggregation sites like reddit, the better blogs – provides us with a sense of what can be accomplished even without the exponentially greater resources possessed by such entities as CNN. Similarly, we can look at a copy of Time from the mid-20th century and see how far our newsweeklies have fallen since, or look at a copy of The Economist now and wonder why no American newsweekly can seem to pack an average of more than seventeen words into a single fucking page. We are not demanding the impossible, the improbable, or even anything that has not been done in the distant past and every week since – which is to say that we are indeed asking for the impossible, like when a kid asks Santa not to give him any toys but rather a sober daddy. Incidentally, the mainstream media has yet to hit rock bottom, blessed as it is with a hundred million enablers.
Still, those who are in a position to do anything about the broken media did not do it yesterday and are unlikely to come up with any good reason to do it tomorrow. More to the point, we do not need them to. The new institutions have begun to arrive; they have barely begun to approach their full potential, which we will not be prepared to even guess at for perhaps a decade. Among the most significant of these institutions, unprecedented in function and effect, is Wikileaks, the syndicate of free information activists who have established their own institution as the world’s most effective outlet for the dissemination of secrets, particularly the stolen sort. And insomuch as that a large contingent of our fellow humans live under governments possessed of no transparency whatsoever and operating largely in secret – and insomuch as that our own government has failed to earn any sort of easygoing trust on the part of its citizenry – such an entity as this serves a wholly necessary function. Leakers know that any documentation provided to Wikileaks will reach a wide and sympathetic audience by way of a group of individuals who wholly support their decision to leak. And rather than just passively convey the information it receives, the administrators are actively involved in the struggle to ensure that there exists a viable refuge for whatever knowledge may require a legal haven in the future or is already outlawed in the present; several have been involved in writing the Modern Media Initiative, proposed legislation which would establish Iceland as the first such a haven. Like a number of other phenomena that have arisen over the past decade or so, Wikileaks brings implications that are not yet fully understood, even by its founders.
Broader issues aside, though, Wikileaks risks narrowing both its audience and its potential pool of informants if it makes a habit of coloring its releases as it did the Department of Defense video released on April 5th. Entitling the Apache gunner cam footage “Collateral Murder,” for instance, was a foolish move, not least because “murder” is quite arguably not the best characterization here, to put it mildly. Worse was the editors’ failure to point out that one of the men whose killings constituted the “murder” in question could briefly be seen holding an RPG early in the video; if they did not come across this in the course of identifying photography equipment in the hands of the two Reuters employees over the course of however many dozens of views they must have undertaken before releasing the video, they might want to recruit the folks at the Jawa Report to go over their work next time. If they did spot the RPG but neglected to point it out, they have gotten into the business of deception themselves. An institution that derives its position in part from its trustworthiness cannot afford to engage in that sort of behavior, particularly when so clearly fueled by some ideological bent – in this case, anti-Americanism of the sort that highlights cameras and ignores heavy weaponry. I assumed that Wikileaks would note any such potentially important factor as a rocket-propelled grenade launcher in the hands of one fellow among those whose killings near a battlefield are to be characterized as “murders;” and because additionally no one else had spotted such a weapon over the next day or so, I asserted that no RPGs appeared on the video at all. Although any error that I make is ultimately my responsibility no matter how it is made and no matter how many others made the same error, I will simply note that I and quite a few other commentators will never again give Wikileaks the benefit of the doubt when evaluating future releases, particularly when such things deal with the U.S. in general and military matters in particular.
As I predicted in last month’s radio interview with Scott Horton, the video itself is not particularly earth-shattering in terms of what it depicts. Still, it has provided the public with a glimpse of guerrilla warfare as is practiced on urban battlefields – the sort in which a civilian who attempts to take a wounded man to a hospital can be shot to death and his daughter wounded in accordance with the rules of engagement, only to have some soldier remark that it was the civilian’s fault for bringing his kids to a fight (which he didn’t, of course). The importance of this clip is not that it depicts some rare and straightforward war crime, but rather that it depicts an unfortunately common and accepted aspect of such a war as we have gotten ourselves into at the behest of people who assured us that our goals would be accomplished in less than a year and with less than $60 billion.
Most such people, incidentally, are still pretending to be competent, honest commentators and statesmen, rather than abject failures. To varying degrees, the media has assisted in this ploy – due not to ideology, this time, but rather inertia. The “statesmen” in question are still around, giving advice to the current administration as it pursues a military course largely indistinguishable from the one that came before it. The commentators in question still retain their positions. Some of those whose predictions are now so laughable that no one bothers laughing at them anymore have actually been rewarded for their failures. Time gave William Kristol a column. The New York Times gave William Kristol a column.
The traditional outlets have largely failed, and the online institutions that have come about as a response to that failure already face an uphill battle in establishing themselves as credible alternatives to the large and established entities that lay claim to so much public attention by virtue of being large and established. It does not help when one of the most promising of these new, internet-driven institutions seeks to advance some ideology through incompetence, dishonesty, or both. William Kristol has enough competition as it is.
I know you like to promote your projects, but for stuff like this I think you should just make a sidebar post with a list of links behind the jump.Report
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand you. To which project are you referring, and what sort of stuff should I be relegating to the sidebar?Report
I mean that if you want to call attention to your old essays, you should just link. In the sidebar. Or at least use the “read more” feature.Report
Sorry, I didn’t realize that that was the policy here. I saw that John Rowe had recently posted one of his old blog posts on the main page, so I assumed that it would be okay if I did so as well, particularly since it relates to something timely. I certainly didn’t mean to ruffle any feathers.Report
I don’t think we have an explicit policy.Report
I, for one, think the main page was the right place for this, because of the additional commentary at the top being a bit too long to appreciate in the sidebar. But I do agree with the general aesthetic that long pieces should use the “read more” feature.Report
Not meaning that I want you to change this post, right now, or anything. Just for future reference.Report
Certainly, I’ll be sure to remember to use the “read more” function in the future.Report
Always good to read you, but definitely in agreement with Brafford.Report
Why do you have such high hopes for digital technology?Report
How could I not, in light of what’s been happening? I think that the more time one spends observing the emergent structures that have come about to fill roles that ought to have been filled earlier, the less choice one has but to expect that the fifteen or twenty years of internet evolution we’ve seen thus far is only the beginning of what is possible. Obviously, one’s views on all of this will be colored to some extent by how one feels about the status quo. I think I see the world as it is, including our own government and institutions, in a bleaker manner than does 80 or 90 percent of the population, and as such I’m far more excited about the ongoing period of tumult, not being at all wedded to anything that might be broken as a result.Report
I remember hearing the Shell story and thinking:
1) Duh, of course something like that has happened.
2)Nothing will come of this being made public.
3)Lets see what is on reddit/starcraft.
I am a part of the problem aren’t I?Report
We all are, to some extent. The question everyone has to answer right now is whether or not they want to be part of the solution. You have the option; you simply have to take it.Report
Barrett, just a guess–did your friend with the sailboat named, “So it goes….” get that Vonnegut’s, “Breakfast of Champions”. Just curious. Good name, in any case. Brings back memories of Kilgore Trout.Report
Sorry, can you give me a link? I don’t think I know to whom you’re referring.Report
Oh, are you thinking of Tony Comstock? I believe you are. And are you referring to Kilgore Trout of Little Green Footballs? I was just arguing with him and Charles Johnson about the virtues of Wikileaks and Anonymous.Report
Sorry– must have gotten you and Tony mixed up. But, don’t know anything about Little Green Footballs site. Good book–love Vonnegut’s merciless black humor. And Kilgore Trout was the central character in the Kurt Vonnegut book, “Breakfast of Champions.” I seem to remember just about every page ending with the phrase, “so it goes…”
If I may, a question for you. Forget my previous Manhattan Project scenario–let’s bring it up to date. Extremely sensitive classified intelligence is hacked into and dumped in NYTimes’ lap. Intelligence that reveals scores of our undercover contacts and informants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Irag. Besides putting the contacts/informants lives in serious danger, the intelligence would almost surely put our soldiers lives in grave danger. The harm, on so many levels, would be utterly catastrophic and likely set back our efforts to capture and kill al Qaeda significantly–not to mention making it very difficult to recruit future contacts and informants. Publish or nor publish? Let’s say the info is dumped in your lap–same question, publish or not publish? If your decision is to publish, why? Of what possible benefit could come from such an action? Why would this not be treason?Report
Egads. Just heard they want to have a rally and ceremony to “honor” Assange in…take a guess…this is tough…..okay….SAN FRANCISCO!!!
Not that this at all relevant, but he is one of the oddest looking people I’ve ever seen. That milky, waxen skin gives him a disturbingly cadaverous look. Has anyone ever checked to see if he has a pulse? It might be worth it.Report
Apparently two Swedish girls checked.Report
Heh heh! Would love to hear your thoughts about my scenario if you have a few free moments.
Thanks.Report
I wouldn’t do it, as it serves no purpose in informing the populace of anything helpful regarding the state of affairs in which they live and would get people killed who most likely have done nothing for which they ought to get killed. All information for which these and other ethical considerations are not true I am in favor of stealing and making public to the citizenry. And I hope you will take some time to read through the actual stories that are coming out so that you will better understand why this is my opinion and why it grows more firm as I get older rather than less.Report
Of what is possible for whom?
To whit, my Winchester model 70 is a lovely rifle, far deadly than anything the Green Mountain Boys ever carried. But it’s also at the upper limit of what I’m legally allowed to possess. When I look at the tools the State has to imposed its will, I don’t feel especially empowered.
I might be better armed if I lived in Grozny, circa 1995, but in all honesty, I don’t know that I have the stones for that, and even if I did, I don’t see how that worked out especially well for the Chechens, RPGs on their shoulders or no.
So again, why such high hopes for digital technology? What does digital technology bring to the powerful/powerless equation that weapons technology does not?
Also, and only barely related, what’s up with the word “emergent” and all it’s variants? I thought that was for insects?Report
Of what’s possible for people who are interested in taking responsibility for the world around them. I’ll be posting further essays soon that should answer your question.Report
I look back on the days before I had my idealism beaten out of me quite fondly, and if nothing else, they’ve given me some amusing (if somewhat self-deprecating) stories to tell.
I look forward to your future posts!Report
> So again, why such high hopes for digital technology?
One difference between weapons hardware and technology is that the barrier for change is really low.
Compare:
I can outlaw machine guns. I can make the manufacture and distribution of machine gun parts illegal in a country. In order for someone to own a weapon capable of automatic fire, they either need to import it through clandestine channels (which presumably I’m trying to interdict anyway) or manufacture it themselves, which requires a decent amount of know-how and some specialized equipment. Moreover, if they manufacture it themselves, they can’t easily distribute them; if they develop a mod kit that enables you to convert a weapon to full auto, they have to distribute it through the same clandestine channels you’d have to use to buy the weapon that’s already automatic.
I can outlaw strong cryptography. I can make the exporting of strong cryptography illegal in a country. In order for someone to own cryptographic software, they need to be able to write it themselves, or procure it from… oh, yeah, 2 seconds and the Internet. Not only that, but redistribution of the software is critically trivial, even for an utter neophyte. Trying to interdict the behavior by embedding electronics in the hardware (clipper chip, CSS) doesn’t work, because there’s a class break: once someone engineers a bypass, everybody can get it easily (as opposed to the mod kit to convert an existing firearm to full auto).
There’s a reason why strong cryptography is no longer on the ITAR list. It’s not only pointless to keep it on there, it’s counterproductive as there is a benefit for everyone to have access to strong cryptography anyway.
You can’t stop digital technology advancement the same way you can stop physical engineering artifacts.Report
Points taken about the distributive obstacles of conversion kits vs software, but I was thinking more along the lines of scale. If you put a Ka-bar knife on one end of the scale and a strategic nuke on the other, whether or not I have a ten shot mag or a 30 shot mag seem pretty trivial. Same for auto vs. fully auto. (Anyone else remember the now sundowned “assault weapons ban”?) So far I don’t see any reason that states, or state-sized, state-like actors won’t (don’t?) have digital guerillas similarly out-gunned. But time will tell….
Meanwhile:
The Voyage of the Wharram Catamaran Tayoclassic, Parts 1-10
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D05756E9F30C81F9Report