3 ms·

Court jester? Is this guy serious? The value of Wikileaks is that it makes secrecy more difficult for governments. Period. What Wikileaks publishes is depen

Court jester? Is this guy serious? The value of Wikileaks is that it makes secrecy more difficult for governments. Period. What Wikileaks publishes is dependent on what is leaked, and so far (in my opinion) Wikileaks has done much to gain credibility as an institution. Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary. Ironically, Wikileaks will enhance the credibility of government in a good way b/c it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd, all of which help rein in the scope of government action so that what is actually undertaken stands a chance of being accomplished honestly. Sadly, much of what has been leaked shows simply that the government is putting on a show for the American people and that much of what is kept secret is done so for propaganda reasons, not security reasons.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
It's a bit hard to take wikileaks as an unbiased outlet considering it's heavy editorializing on the July 2007 Baghdad airstrikes.
- chc 16y ago
  I think that would be the point of the "moved away from journalistic interpretation" part of the parent's comment.
adamsmith 16y ago
Do you trust these newspapers to have access to the raw information? Even if the public doesn't see the names of informants/etc, that doesn't mean that foreign governments aren't intercepting the information being handled by the press. I guarantee you the NYT INFOSEC budget is lower than you think. : ) More importantly, lots of the information is compromising in a way that is not in the best interests of the public. For example, it embarrases the Yemeni president, along with many other countries. Will that make these people more or less likely to work with the US (or anyone else for that matter) in the future?
- grandalf 16y ago
  I don't think there is much threat of fallout from this other than embarrassment. The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. The main consequence will be (in my opinion) the diminished ability of the US to take security so lightly... Which is exactly the goal of wikileaks, to make it harder for governments to use secrecy. Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies.
  - adamsmith 16y ago
    > Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies. I agree. That's definitely a plus of these releases. (Though I think on the whole they are still net negative.) Now to some of the things I personally disagree with.. > The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. I can disagree with this, in at least one instance, using the data from wikileaks. From the NYT article: "[The cables] reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia." It's kind of a funny example, but I think the implications are more broad than embarrassment or showing government failures. As daniel_levine said, "The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue." To use a metaphor, imagine trying to run a big company wherein everything the CEO hears (!) or says is published to the world. Sure, it'd be harder to keep secrets, but it would also be harder to get anything done.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      Those are good points. I'd probably respond by saying: Government secrecy has always been weakened by potential leakers, etc., so I think the main difference here is that Wikileaks' technology has provided a buffer to allow journalists to write about things they had previously been afraid to write about. As a corollary, an organization of a particular size can only obtain a finite amount of secrecy. When the organization's size is > 5 people, the amount of secrecy is quite low and has always been so.
eli 16y ago
"Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary." Wikileaks certainly has an agenda. There's a good New Yorker piece [1] from back before a lot of this stuff broke about how Assange edited the 'Collateral Murder' video to maximize emotional impact. I personally do not view Wikileaks as a trusted intermediary. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...
- Qz 16y ago
  The question is: is it more trustworthy than your particular government? How will we know without Wikileaks to tell us when they're lying?
  - Volscio 16y ago
    I don't think that's the question. No one is always trustworthy. You hope to approximate the truth from multiple sources, and the diversity of agendas and perspectives provides the best prism to look through. Corroboration, in other words.
    - Qz 16y ago
      From that perspective I simply see Wikileaks as just another diverse agenda and perspective. We still have to approximate the truth.
- grandalf 16y ago
  The Collateral Murder video was from before Wikileaks transitioned away from its own journalistic interpretations. So I think my point is still valid. The impact of the footage was powerful, but was diminished by criticisms that the title was biased, etc.
- ScottBurson 16y ago
  When bringing up the "Collateral Murder" video, it's always worth remembering that WikiLeaks released the unedited original alongside their version.
GHFigs 16y ago
it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd This is in agreement with the author's assertion that "WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester, to mock and ridicule the contradictions of a state." What the author is saying in the post is that this is not what his motives were for doing analysis on prior leaks.
- grandalf 16y ago
  If your interpretation is correct, I don't think the jester analogy holds, since it is the jester who acts/looks absurd.
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    No I think you just don't understand what a jester is. In the literate tradition (mostly Shakespearean), the fool is a character of uncommon wit that illuminates the ridiculousness of the system around him. While the joke may sometimes appear to be on the fool, the real joke is on his subject. In this way, Jon Stewart is probably the closest we have to a modern jester. The character that simply looks and acts ridiculous for the amusement of others (your definition) is properly called a buffoon.
    - grandalf 16y ago
      I doubt that was the author's intended definition. His article does not seem to be an attempt to distance himself from the sort of behavior your definition of a jester would commit.
      - GHFigs 16y ago
        Now you're just being obtuse. The author's intent is abundantly clear even if you didn't understand the allusion.
        grandalf 16y ago
        I'm not intending to be obtuse. Even after a second reading, I still don't think the description you give quite matches Drew's use of the term. In his description, wikileaks is being brash and causing trouble, not just shining a light on absurdity through wit. Further, wikileaks is not using any wit, simply publishing everything verbatim. If Drew hopes to be taken seriously by the US Government and keeping his security clearance (probably highly valuable in his career path) he can't exactly cheer about Wikileaks. This sort of measured, slightly negative review is essentially a bow to power (and there seems like little reason for him to write such an article other than to bow conspicuously before authority). Drew is also a Homeland Security Fellow, whatever that is.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

It's a bit hard to take wikileaks as an unbiased outlet considering it's heavy editorializing on the July 2007 Baghdad airstrikes.

chc 16y ago
I think that would be the point of the "moved away from journalistic interpretation" part of the parent's comment.

adamsmith 16y ago

Do you trust these newspapers to have access to the raw information? Even if the public doesn't see the names of informants/etc, that doesn't mean that foreign governments aren't intercepting the information being handled by the press. I guarantee you the NYT INFOSEC budget is lower than you think. : ) More importantly, lots of the information is compromising in a way that is not in the best interests of the public. For example, it embarrases the Yemeni president, along with many other countries. Will that make these people more or less likely to work with the US (or anyone else for that matter) in the future?

grandalf 16y ago
I don't think there is much threat of fallout from this other than embarrassment. The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. The main consequence will be (in my opinion) the diminished ability of the US to take security so lightly... Which is exactly the goal of wikileaks, to make it harder for governments to use secrecy. Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies.
- adamsmith 16y ago
  > Sure there will still be some secrets, but ideally they'll be used for important things rather than political propaganda or manipulating allies. I agree. That's definitely a plus of these releases. (Though I think on the whole they are still net negative.) Now to some of the things I personally disagree with.. > The forces that lead to large scale geopolitical action are not impacted by the small gravitational pull of these leaks. I can disagree with this, in at least one instance, using the data from wikileaks. From the NYT article: "[The cables] reveal that Colonel Qaddafi was so upset by his reception in New York that he balked at carrying out a promise to return dangerous enriched uranium to Russia." It's kind of a funny example, but I think the implications are more broad than embarrassment or showing government failures. As daniel_levine said, "The expectation of privacy in diplomacy can be an extremely powerful tool in creating honest and helpful dialogue." To use a metaphor, imagine trying to run a big company wherein everything the CEO hears (!) or says is published to the world. Sure, it'd be harder to keep secrets, but it would also be harder to get anything done.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    Those are good points. I'd probably respond by saying: Government secrecy has always been weakened by potential leakers, etc., so I think the main difference here is that Wikileaks' technology has provided a buffer to allow journalists to write about things they had previously been afraid to write about. As a corollary, an organization of a particular size can only obtain a finite amount of secrecy. When the organization's size is > 5 people, the amount of secrecy is quite low and has always been so.

eli 16y ago

"Notably, it has moved away from journalistic interpretation of the leaked info and has left that to established papers. Instead, it has focused on its role as conduit and trusted intermediary." Wikileaks certainly has an agenda. There's a good New Yorker piece [1] from back before a lot of this stuff broke about how Assange edited the 'Collateral Murder' video to maximize emotional impact. I personally do not view Wikileaks as a trusted intermediary. [1] http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_...

Qz 16y ago
The question is: is it more trustworthy than your particular government? How will we know without Wikileaks to tell us when they're lying?
- Volscio 16y ago
  I don't think that's the question. No one is always trustworthy. You hope to approximate the truth from multiple sources, and the diversity of agendas and perspectives provides the best prism to look through. Corroboration, in other words.
  - Qz 16y ago
    From that perspective I simply see Wikileaks as just another diverse agenda and perspective. We still have to approximate the truth.
grandalf 16y ago
The Collateral Murder video was from before Wikileaks transitioned away from its own journalistic interpretations. So I think my point is still valid. The impact of the footage was powerful, but was diminished by criticisms that the title was biased, etc.
ScottBurson 16y ago
When bringing up the "Collateral Murder" video, it's always worth remembering that WikiLeaks released the unedited original alongside their version.

GHFigs 16y ago

it helps the public view its government as fallible, corrupt, and absurd This is in agreement with the author's assertion that "WikiLeaks’ motivation is that of a court jester, to mock and ridicule the contradictions of a state." What the author is saying in the post is that this is not what his motives were for doing analysis on prior leaks.

grandalf 16y ago
If your interpretation is correct, I don't think the jester analogy holds, since it is the jester who acts/looks absurd.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  No I think you just don't understand what a jester is. In the literate tradition (mostly Shakespearean), the fool is a character of uncommon wit that illuminates the ridiculousness of the system around him. While the joke may sometimes appear to be on the fool, the real joke is on his subject. In this way, Jon Stewart is probably the closest we have to a modern jester. The character that simply looks and acts ridiculous for the amusement of others (your definition) is properly called a buffoon.
  - grandalf 16y ago
    I doubt that was the author's intended definition. His article does not seem to be an attempt to distance himself from the sort of behavior your definition of a jester would commit.
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      Now you're just being obtuse. The author's intent is abundantly clear even if you didn't understand the allusion.
      - grandalf 16y ago
        I'm not intending to be obtuse. Even after a second reading, I still don't think the description you give quite matches Drew's use of the term. In his description, wikileaks is being brash and causing trouble, not just shining a light on absurdity through wit. Further, wikileaks is not using any wit, simply publishing everything verbatim. If Drew hopes to be taken seriously by the US Government and keeping his security clearance (probably highly valuable in his career path) he can't exactly cheer about Wikileaks. This sort of measured, slightly negative review is essentially a bow to power (and there seems like little reason for him to write such an article other than to bow conspicuously before authority). Drew is also a Homeland Security Fellow, whatever that is.