It’s a new year with the same old fear. We remain inundated with rainbow designations (Department of Homeland Security threat warnings), aggressive and invasive security, and predatory corporations ready to devour our tax dollars like starving wolves over their concocted financial schemes and plummeted investments. But thanks to the international emergence of Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, fear appears to be a double-edged sword.
It’s a treat to now see those most traditionally shrewd at instilling fear into the general populace — military, giant corporations, other governmental appendages — becoming fearful themselves. Perhaps it’s karma, their comeuppance.
Are they truly scared? Based upon their hysterical reaction, prohibiting access to WikiLeaks and similar websites, the answer’s a resounding yes. A recent profile in Forbes Magazine quivers when anticipating the potential damage coming soon to a business near you: “The data dump will lay bare the finance firm’s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every regulator to examine and pass judgment on.”
Mark one down for the good guys.
One example of U.S. government squeamishness is the (ironically) leaked e-mail - later formally denounced - sent to Columbia University from an alumnus warning students against posting public comments about WikiLeaks. The e-mail asserted voicing an opinion could potentially jeopardize one’s future chances of employment with the federal government. This intimidating scare tactic is revolting. It implies the government is hoping international service students are groomed to be robotic droids.
Instead of apologizing for the tasteless unprofessionalism on behalf of her two-faced colleagues (diplomats slandering counterparts behind their backs), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on offense and immediately played the national security card. Something utterly outrageous becomes immediately permissible as long as it’s prefaced on behalf of national security. The trembling public nods its head in subordination.
Those employed with the federal government are working for us. We pay their salaries and we deserve scrupulous access into their interactions. It’s further maddening that a Democratic administration, one that championed the “Open Government Directive,” has mirrored the fear-based Republican reaction toward WikiLeaks. According to the White House website, “Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.”
Talk is cheap, Mr. President.
Some claim material is too sensitive to be plastered over the Internet. They believe the government is correct in censoring and vetting information. Besides the patronizing slight, we can’t entrust the government with this responsibility. If we give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. It’s like asking students to grade their own papers. Organizations like WikiLeaks constitute one of the only venues where the public can fight back. Integrity is something sorely missing in business and politics. Increased transparency will help fill this void.
Additionally, censorship isn’t particularly democratic. Atrocities like Abu Ghraib will be remedied more quickly and potentially prevented if there’s expectation of full disclosure. If information is blockaded as too sensitive to go viral, then whatever the information entails shouldn’t be actuated anyway. Ultimately, a reduction of America’s violence should result when plans of bombing and murdering are detailed for all eyes to see. The vicious cycle of violence surely isn’t slowing under current concealment.
Finally, the leaks aren’t an attack on anyone in particular. In the Forbes spread, Assange says, “In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed companies, we’re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical companies.” Companies, and also the government, have exploited ignorant consumers for years because they controlled the message. With a nod to the military, the technology they’ve developed will now be used to keep them honest. In the 21st century, privacy has become anachronistic. There are innumerable methods of recording; anyone expecting uninhibited privacy is naïve.
Big Brother has proven inept and can’t be trusted. It’s about time we stick up for ourselves and start advocating transparency.
Conor Shapiro is a graduate student in the School of International Service and a liberal columnist.
edpage@theeagleonline.com
