It's groundhog day. Once again the media is drenched in Wikileaks. And beyond Julian Assange's court drama, and the ever flowing torrents of US State Department diplomatic cables, there's a lot of talk about what this means for the way governments share, and withhold, information. So is the world better off without secrets?
The Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has waded into the debate, blaming, in part, US security for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables. He says
Rule No.1 for our friends in the United States is - how do you tighten things up a bit? Maybe 2 million or so people having access to this stuff is a bit of a problem But is more security the right response? Anthony Lowenstein says Mr Rudd is missing the point
Kevin Rudd doesn't seem to understand the paradigm shift of the Wikileaks release. His answer is more secrecy, less transparency and less democracy. He may find himself more shocked in the months and years ahead.
Whether or not there has been a seismic change in the landscape of information, many say Wikileaks want us to live in a world without secrets. Here's Anthony Brady's analysis of the Wikileaks mission
Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks' activities will "carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity," a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary But what does exposing secrets achieve? For Jeff Jarvis the cables have shown us
there is much we should know -- actions taken in our name -- that government holds from us. He adds that the leaks haven't been that devastating, and says that maybe
the open air is less fearsome than we'd thought. That should lead to less secrecy. After all, the only sure defense against leaks is transparency. (...) Today, in the internet age, power shifts from those who hold secrets to those who create openness. But not everyone wants to live in an open world. The privacy arguments around Google's Street View in Germany and elsewhere show that some people are scared of the kind of transparency the internet has unleashed.
So why do we need to keep some things private? American author Peter Schweizer argues that governments need some secrets to maintain the trust of other countries:
Without the confidence that what they tell us will stay under lock and key, most leaders in vulnerable countries simply won't cooperate with us. Like personal friendships, alliance partners need to know you can keep a secret. Musician Derrick Ashong agrees and says the leaks compromise the diplomatic work which ultimately
Prevents us from blowing each other up. The "diplomatic set" is arguably a big part of why we don't have more conflict in our world. Has Wikileaks blown a hole in the establishment's ability to keep secrets? Is a world without secrets a better one? Or do you trust governments to protect you by keeping sensitive information secret?
Your comments
Comment sent via SMS
18:43
115823181
Richard Bruchner/ Mwanza Tanzania;Govts are servants of the people& acountable 2 the people they serve as such there鈥檚 nothing like keeping secrets!
Comment sent via SMS
18:42
109131021
Anguzu Best Robert in Mbale Uganda. Government must communicate and account to its citezenship. Mr. Julius is right to expose US Goverment. Goverment owe its citizens every information. Protect Whistle Blowers rather prosecute them.
Comment sent via SMS
18:37
108513545
It鈥檚 well over time that someone throws a light on what鈥檚 going on behind the scenes. Keep it up, Wikileaks ! Banks, amsterdam
Comment sent via SMS
18:36
113994022
Privcey is a fundamental right both for an individual or a group whereas transpency is a supreme princible that shoud everybody works for materialisg,so it is a
Comment sent via SMS
18:36
112960324
There is a major difference between leaking information about the normal healthy way in which diplomacy functions, which by nature requires some confidentiality, and rightly leaking secrets about wrongdoings of some governments, as in the case of Wartergate or Abhu Graib
Matthieu, Kathmandu,nepal@
Comment sent via Twitter
18:28
115750645
@主播大秀_WHYS For governments, transparency is essential as it engenders trust.
Comment sent via Twitter
18:25
115797983
#IfAssangewaskenyan this Kenya would be a corrupt free country in the world
Comment sent via SMS
18:24
113081185
.I am so disgusted by VISA, MASTERCARD dat I am distroying my cards thanks I am in Nigeria I don鈥檛 so much need such. iHAS iDRIESS, Yola
Comment sent via SMS
18:23
115822887
individual secrecy and government secrecy are two different animals. do not put them in the same basquet.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:16
113631290
Babu says......I agree that I want to live in a world without secrets. Afterall, we have the right to know what the leaders are actually wanting to do, and no lies and fake sides. Doing something under carpet and exposing something else outside among public is keeping people in dark and undermining them.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:13
113631290
Awwal on facebook says A world without secrets? The society will be cautionary orientated thereby paving the way for peace and tolerance. I'll be so nice!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:11
113631290
Scott...
By cutting off Wikileaks ability to get paid by Mastercatd, Visa and Paypal, the US State department could be sued for not following its own laws.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:09
113631290
Simon in Florence Italy
Yes a transparent world would be ideal but & its a huge but, is responsibility for your actions are you personally prepared to be responsible for your actions prepared to hold your government responsible & prepared to accept the consequences of your & your elected governments actions. My worry is that the 'cyber warriors' think their actions are ok until they are under threat by say terrorist groups then suddenly where's the government & its protection..
Comment sent via SMS
18:07
114548678
There are things you should and shouldn鈥檛 know. Wikileaks has simply put that into question as to what we need to know. Alex in Chicago USA
Comment sent via Facebook
18:05
113631290
Ugwunna says
Governments are entitled to keep strategic secrets, and to say otherwise is neither practical nor realistic.
Do you want to live in a world without secrets?
| Wednesday, 12 Dec. 2010 | 18:00 - 19:00 GMT
It's groundhog day. Once again the media is drenched in Wikileaks. And beyond Julian Assange's court drama, and the ever flowing torrents of US State Department diplomatic cables, there's a lot of talk about what this means for the way governments share, and withhold, information. So is the world better off without secrets?
The Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd has waded into the debate, blaming, in part, US security for the release of thousands of diplomatic cables. He says
Rule No.1 for our friends in the United States is - how do you tighten things up a bit? Maybe 2 million or so people having access to this stuff is a bit of a problem
But is more security the right response? Anthony Lowenstein says Mr Rudd is missing the point
Kevin Rudd doesn't seem to understand the paradigm shift of the Wikileaks release. His answer is more secrecy, less transparency and less democracy. He may find himself more shocked in the months and years ahead.
Whether or not there has been a seismic change in the landscape of information, many say Wikileaks want us to live in a world without secrets. Here's Anthony Brady's analysis of the Wikileaks mission
Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks' activities will "carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity," a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary
But what does exposing secrets achieve? For Jeff Jarvis the cables have shown us
there is much we should know -- actions taken in our name -- that government holds from us.
He adds that the leaks haven't been that devastating, and says that maybe
the open air is less fearsome than we'd thought. That should lead to less secrecy. After all, the only sure defense against leaks is transparency. (...) Today, in the internet age, power shifts from those who hold secrets to those who create openness.
But not everyone wants to live in an open world. The privacy arguments around Google's Street View in Germany and elsewhere show that some people are scared of the kind of transparency the internet has unleashed.
So why do we need to keep some things private? American author Peter Schweizer argues that governments need some secrets to maintain the trust of other countries:
Without the confidence that what they tell us will stay under lock and key, most leaders in vulnerable countries simply won't cooperate with us. Like personal friendships, alliance partners need to know you can keep a secret.
Musician Derrick Ashong agrees and says the leaks compromise the diplomatic work which ultimately
Prevents us from blowing each other up. The "diplomatic set" is arguably a big part of why we don't have more conflict in our world.
Has Wikileaks blown a hole in the establishment's ability to keep secrets? Is a world without secrets a better one? Or do you trust governments to protect you by keeping sensitive information secret?
Your comments
Comment sent via SMS
Richard Bruchner/ Mwanza Tanzania;Govts are servants of the people& acountable 2 the people they serve as such there鈥檚 nothing like keeping secrets!
Comment sent via SMS
Anguzu Best Robert in Mbale Uganda. Government must communicate and account to its citezenship. Mr. Julius is right to expose US Goverment. Goverment owe its citizens every information. Protect Whistle Blowers rather prosecute them.
Comment sent via SMS
It鈥檚 well over time that someone throws a light on what鈥檚 going on behind the scenes. Keep it up, Wikileaks ! Banks, amsterdam
Comment sent via SMS
Privcey is a fundamental right both for an individual or a group whereas transpency is a supreme princible that shoud everybody works for materialisg,so it is a
Comment sent via SMS
There is a major difference between leaking information about the normal healthy way in which diplomacy functions, which by nature requires some confidentiality, and rightly leaking secrets about wrongdoings of some governments, as in the case of Wartergate or Abhu Graib Matthieu, Kathmandu,nepal@
Comment sent via Twitter
@主播大秀_WHYS For governments, transparency is essential as it engenders trust.
Comment sent via Twitter
#IfAssangewaskenyan this Kenya would be a corrupt free country in the world
Comment sent via SMS
.I am so disgusted by VISA, MASTERCARD dat I am distroying my cards thanks I am in Nigeria I don鈥檛 so much need such. iHAS iDRIESS, Yola
Comment sent via SMS
individual secrecy and government secrecy are two different animals. do not put them in the same basquet.
Comment sent via Facebook
Babu says......I agree that I want to live in a world without secrets. Afterall, we have the right to know what the leaders are actually wanting to do, and no lies and fake sides. Doing something under carpet and exposing something else outside among public is keeping people in dark and undermining them.
Comment sent via Facebook
Awwal on facebook says A world without secrets? The society will be cautionary orientated thereby paving the way for peace and tolerance. I'll be so nice!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Scott... By cutting off Wikileaks ability to get paid by Mastercatd, Visa and Paypal, the US State department could be sued for not following its own laws.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Simon in Florence Italy Yes a transparent world would be ideal but & its a huge but, is responsibility for your actions are you personally prepared to be responsible for your actions prepared to hold your government responsible & prepared to accept the consequences of your & your elected governments actions. My worry is that the 'cyber warriors' think their actions are ok until they are under threat by say terrorist groups then suddenly where's the government & its protection..
Comment sent via SMS
There are things you should and shouldn鈥檛 know. Wikileaks has simply put that into question as to what we need to know. Alex in Chicago USA
Comment sent via Facebook
Ugwunna says Governments are entitled to keep strategic secrets, and to say otherwise is neither practical nor realistic.