information that were released. Here is an article from The Economist that sums up some of the major ones.
I had also seen a really good interview of the founder on YouTube a few weeks ago but I failed to find it again, but I will search for it and post it if I do.
I guess this post is not really related to economics (or I guess on the other hand what isn't?) but The Economist does mention at the end of the article that that Mr. Julian Assange's next project is about a major bank.
Or perhaps this whole incident could be analyzed from the perspective of the economics of information and if higher classified information equates to some higher quantifiable values and if a person in a position of power is defined by her "information assets," how this works to redistribute "power" or maybe influence of such people?
Posts
Information is the currency of democracy.
ReplyDelete-Thomas Jefferson
personally, I think he is an arrogant schmuck imposing the same type of restriction on information he is supposed to be against, albeit at another level by restricting what cables he releases i mean im not too informed on the topics, but he gives me the creeps.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that he's alleged for two rapes in sweden and brushed it away in an interview going "how can you bring such a futile thing up in the face of this catastrophe" doesnt exactly make it any better, regardless of whether he is guilty or not isnt it exactly this type of relativistic morals that put the world at this point to begin with?
GAH
You probably mean the TED talk?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html
Wikileaks is a great idea, except that the project itself is incredibly intransparent. Two years ago, I met an IT technician from Wikileaks at the CCC but he has quit now. There is no information about who is actually behind all this, no way to participate (except donate money), and it is all too focused on Mr. Assange. Unfortunately, the current model does not look that sustainable.
That's interesting that you've met an IT from Wikileaks. I was wondering the same thing about how it all works..
ReplyDeleteAnd I've also read about the charges against him and seems that the molestation charges are true however, the rape charges seems to have been dropped. Ultimately, I agree that if Julian Assange was really committed to the philosophy of wikileaks, as the founder he really should of stayed anonymous. I think a big part of wikileaks' success thus far has been that in the earlier stages, no one knew of Assange and he could acquire sources easier.
I agree with Guo that the nature of this whole thing just doesn't sustainable but nevertheless, it has to a degree revealed some interesting information and I'm eager to see what more may happen with it.
If you want to quote the economist, try this article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/wikileaks
ReplyDeleteThe new publications do not give any power to "the people" (whoever that might be), but they merely cater to our voyeurism. Diplomats have to be able to communicate with each other in confidentiality. Just imagine working in an office where, some day, everybody can read about what the colleagues said about them in their absence. Would be a boon to office climate, wouldn't it?
The fact alone that the wikileaks people engage in ridiculous conspiracy theories ("The rape allegations are all just a dirty trick!") and seem to be driven mostly by the wish to create as much uproar as they possibly can makes me very uncomfortable with them. The pathos that they bring (on Twitter: "The truth will surface even in the face of total annihilation.", everybody else engages in "Digital McCarthyism") appals me all the more.
Since everybody is pulling out their internet allegories when we talk about Wikileaks, here's mine: They are just a bunch of trolls. Trolls, who happen to have received a USB-Stick full of confidential data.
Hi and sorry Ole, your comment(ironically) got stuck in some spam-filter and i had to release it in order for it to be published :)
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your points, however I still do support the notion that way to many documents are classified as "secrete" - some lucid guy in this debate said that the best protection against wikileaks would be for governments to be as transparent as possible I think anyone (except maybe extreme anarchist) would agree that some information needs to be kept secret however the current level of intrasnparency leads the way for the trolls :)
Also on the note of internet democracy infomration and such, just read this article,
http://m.techeye.net/internet/web-age-certificates-law-forces-german-blogs-offline
this seems horrendous and quite inefficient!
Best, Siri
Not sure if you are right about "trolls". I think Wikileaks is fantastic and I'd be happy to offer technical support. Apparently, my sustainability concerns were not justified: Despite the arrest of Assange, Wikileaks appears to run quite smoothly.
ReplyDeleteIn light of the good governance/pro-democracy debates among policy makers of the West, however, I find the recent events rather amusing. Guardian has a fantastic comment on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks
The Chinese politbureau will find this particularly funny - kinda reveals the hypocritical nature of democratic countries, no? At least the Chinese are frank about censorship.
If you are still not convinced: http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/
BTW, the US is hosting the World Press Freedom Day next year.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm
the guardian article left me wondering whether or not you even can "shut down the internet" i mean is it possible who would do it and wouldn't people just restore it?
ReplyDeleteIt's quite easy to shut down the internet. Just shut down all 13 root nameservers and the internet backbones - even if people could resort to a giant LAN, the "internet" as we know it would be down.
ReplyDelete""DNS has nothing to do with shutting down the internet. the internet is copper wire ((among other media)). getting rid of the DNS merely delimits the ease of access to servers. instead, you would need to know an IP, vs a domain name. which is what the DNS does, it translates a domain name into a IP against a database.
ReplyDeletethink arpanet. the first internet, working below a distributed system, and together in a protocol stack. furthermore, the same distributed system we use world wide today, and call the world wide web.
aside from that, the internet is an invertebrate. it does not have a backbone. however, there are backbones to networks ((and backbone here is used ambiguously)), but the internet is a network of networks, an internetwork, which does not have a backbone. think of it as a rhizome. a group of entities whose connection to each other is conceptually indeterministic merely because there's always another way.
Read more: Is it possible to shut down the Internet world wide? | Answerbag http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/16426#ixzz17WWQFoWs""
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/16426
Siri, you don't need to tell me about DNS and TCP/IP, I have done quite a lot of P2P coding in the past.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, you will have chaos if you turn off all nameservers and backbones.
Ok but still assuming that the nameservers and 13 backbones (this sounds like straight out of the fifth element ... :)) are enough to turn the darn thing off, then still who has the right to do that and still could you do it concerning the damage it would cause? i still think it's impossible!
ReplyDeleteNot sure who has the right to do that - I guess that's a legal issue. Iran has cut off internet before, so has China for some regions - it's fairly simple if you can enforce it. I don't think it's impossible, perhaps infeasible. :)
ReplyDeleteBut if you're really interested, there are also some really decentralized networks being set up by nerds which solely rely on peer-to-peer wifi connections: http://wiki.freifunk.net/Hauptseite
ReplyDeletei guess you can't shut that down as long as people have working wifi and hardware.
Hey guys :)
ReplyDeleteI find the discussion very interesting and I would like to share my point of view on it.
I have followed the media craze in the last week and it all just seems another CNN/BBC nonsense. I mean all sources repeat one and the same thing and little light actually goes to the information that is actually leaking.
I personally find this quite interesting:
http://guidebg-sofiabg.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-another-scandal-nato-against.html
Not that it says something new, not that it isnt expected - its shocking anyways.
The articles released by wikileaks confirm one thing - that despite the "high" technological state of the developed countries things actually havent changed much since the medieval times. Society hasnt changed a notch in terms of way of thinking and knowledge. The individual continiues to be uninvolved in the destiny of his kin, blindfolded and lead through the darkness by a bunch of blind people(Media, PhD top experts, VIPsss) calling for transparency, humanity, peace and all kinds of sweet stuff.
Mr. Assange is just a pioneer in the field of social change. If nothing else, he at least brought up the issue on the table, and like the story told by an old greek philosopher, the one that opened his eyes is fiercly attacked by the blind.
I'm not suggesting extremes, but it all kinda looks extreme. Assange is not important for me and I have little interest in what has happened in Sweden - it is up to the court to decide. What I find amusing is the rare opportunity to look behind the curtains and see the world as it is - in the "editted" wikileaks.