4 ms·

But as he points out, the objective of WikiLeaks is not to foster popular opposition, as Assange believes that occurs naturally. If public outcry was his intent

But as he points out, the objective of WikiLeaks is not to foster popular opposition, as Assange believes that occurs naturally. If public outcry was his intention, he probably wouldn't have bothered with banal diplomatic cables. He is of the opinion that consistent leaks heightens intra-government paranoia. As each conspirator becomes more fearful of information being leaked, s/he shares it less, thus depriving the conspiratorial machine of the information it needs to survive. I'm not sure I agree with him (this will require some thought), but I think your analysis might be off.

dkarl 16y ago
Why would people be paranoid about unsurprising information being revealed? The leaks are embarrassing because privacy is expected. He wants to make people paranoid by destroying their expectation of privacy, but if the expectation of privacy is destroyed, then there is no reason for people to become paranoid, because the expectation of privacy was the basis of the embarrassment in the first place. If he thinks he is accomplishing something by this large-scale indiscriminate leaking of banalities, I fear he will not focus on acquiring and revealing information whose publication could have a real impact.
- anthuswilliams 16y ago
  Yes, exactly. And if the expectation of secrecy is nonexistent, Assange claims, those in power will act with de facto integrity because the probability of being caught committing a crime (even a boring one) is so palpable. Hence the claim that the purpose of WikiLeaks is to make WikiLeaks obsolete.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    Crime? This is international politics. If Steve Ballmer says to Steve Jobs, "It's time to cut off the head of the snake," and Steve Jobs goes and kills Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer can be charged with a crime. If the Saudis say the same thing to the U.S. and the U.S. invades Iran, who is going to get charged with a crime? The word and the deed would be popular in the United States and in Saudi Arabia. If he was revealing truly sensitive information, it might force people to be a little more honest. For example, it has been claimed that Saddam Hussein was concerned that his invasion of Kuwait might upset the United States, so he went through the British and got assurances -- or perhaps merely thought he got assurances -- that the United States and Britain might respond with harsh rhetoric but would ultimately look the other way. He thought he had de facto permission to invade Kuwait, in other words. Something like that would be worth revealing. But hundreds of thousands of documents and nothing scandalous? C'mon. There is no way he could have published hundreds of thousands of cables and not a single scandal unless he is revealing information that by its nature never contains anything scandalous. Keep in mind that this information was already available to many people inside the United States government, and so there was already good reason for it not to include information that would threaten anybody's career. Even government bureaucracies have Boy Scouts, and of course they have internal rivalries galore.
  - nl 16y ago
    He's not claiming anything about the probability of being caught committing a crime. He claims that the probability of leaks will force government to lock down information sharing increasingly tightly, and this lock-down will make secret policies impossible (because other arms of the government will not know those policies exist).

dkarl 16y ago

Why would people be paranoid about unsurprising information being revealed? The leaks are embarrassing because privacy is expected. He wants to make people paranoid by destroying their expectation of privacy, but if the expectation of privacy is destroyed, then there is no reason for people to become paranoid, because the expectation of privacy was the basis of the embarrassment in the first place. If he thinks he is accomplishing something by this large-scale indiscriminate leaking of banalities, I fear he will not focus on acquiring and revealing information whose publication could have a real impact.

anthuswilliams 16y ago
Yes, exactly. And if the expectation of secrecy is nonexistent, Assange claims, those in power will act with de facto integrity because the probability of being caught committing a crime (even a boring one) is so palpable. Hence the claim that the purpose of WikiLeaks is to make WikiLeaks obsolete.
- dkarl 16y ago
  Crime? This is international politics. If Steve Ballmer says to Steve Jobs, "It's time to cut off the head of the snake," and Steve Jobs goes and kills Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer can be charged with a crime. If the Saudis say the same thing to the U.S. and the U.S. invades Iran, who is going to get charged with a crime? The word and the deed would be popular in the United States and in Saudi Arabia. If he was revealing truly sensitive information, it might force people to be a little more honest. For example, it has been claimed that Saddam Hussein was concerned that his invasion of Kuwait might upset the United States, so he went through the British and got assurances -- or perhaps merely thought he got assurances -- that the United States and Britain might respond with harsh rhetoric but would ultimately look the other way. He thought he had de facto permission to invade Kuwait, in other words. Something like that would be worth revealing. But hundreds of thousands of documents and nothing scandalous? C'mon. There is no way he could have published hundreds of thousands of cables and not a single scandal unless he is revealing information that by its nature never contains anything scandalous. Keep in mind that this information was already available to many people inside the United States government, and so there was already good reason for it not to include information that would threaten anybody's career. Even government bureaucracies have Boy Scouts, and of course they have internal rivalries galore.
- nl 16y ago
  He's not claiming anything about the probability of being caught committing a crime. He claims that the probability of leaks will force government to lock down information sharing increasingly tightly, and this lock-down will make secret policies impossible (because other arms of the government will not know those policies exist).