Reading a recent lengthy and detailed Sydney Morning Herald article detailing the latest charges against Wikileaks frontman Julian Assange, I can only nod my head knowingly.
This was always going to be the way things worked out. From the time last year when we all became aware of Assange, I felt a twinge of fear, an inner voice saying Something isn't right here. It took me a few weeks to articulate that feeling into a real, grounded rationale for my dread.
Long ago, before I moved to Australia, before I'd done any of the work that I'm known for within the technology community, I had some peripheral contact with the 'hacker' world (In this usage, 'hacker' means folks who break into computers, not the folks who stay up all night programming them in weird and wonderful ways).
One of the things I learned very early on was a simple rule of thumb to separate the accomplished from the n00bs and fools: only a n00b would brag about their exploits. Only a n00b would tell others that he'd broken the law. Those who do crimes keep silent about their darker doings. Those who wannabe, they're loud about it.
When Assange suddenly became the public face for the increasingly fascinating Wikileaks, it confused me on several levels.
First, why does Wikileaks need a public face? It's a dropbox service that promises anonymity to whistleblowers across the world. That kind of service is best kept low-profile, very nearly invisible except to those who might want to avail themselves of the service. If you need it, you'll know where to find it.
Second, why would Assange - or anyone, for that matter - consent to being the public face of Wikileaks? Wikileaks has worked hard to anger some of the most powerful institutions on the planet. In no particular order: the US Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the US Department of State, MI5 and ASIO. These are organisations with institutional memory and global reach. If you vex them, they have it within their capacity to make things very difficult for you. Possibly terminally so.
If this all sounds very much like a John LaCarre novel, that's because we're dealing with the stuff of Cold War thrillers: spies, secrets, dropboxes, whistleblowers and the great mass of ignorance which is the body politic. Information is power, and Wikileaks pricks a big hole in the plans of the powerful. So again, why would anyone willingly associate themselves with Wikileaks? Isn't that the equivalent of painting a great big target yourself?
Finally, what does this public exposure say about the long-term security and stability of Wikileaks?
An invisible organisation presents no surface that can be attacked, or compromised, or tortured into submission. An organisation that has resolved itself into the body of a single individual has placed an enormous burden on that individual - and placed them into substantial danger. Assange knows this, and all of his recent troubles in Sweden are, to his account, disinformation campaigns conducted by organisations seeking to thwart him and Wikileaks. This should have been expected. This is how that particular game is played. Everyone knows the rules. You can't scream and shout when your opponent makes a counter-move on the game board. You wouldn't need to scream and shout if your opponent has no idea who you are.
I don't mean to sound naive; these organisations are well-resourced and probably would have gotten to Assange eventually (Then again, given how long it's taken to find Osama Bin Laden, maybe not). Being visible gives Assange the protection of visibility. If he's taken down publicly, it could look bad. But whether or not Assange remains a free man, Wikileaks has been substantially weakened by his representation.
Faceless, pervasive and powerful, Wikileaks might have grown into the mirror image of al-Qaeda, a force which could terrify the rulers while simultaneously becoming folk heroes for the ruled. Instead, all the power of the State is landing on Wikileaks and Assange. Whatever remains of Wikileaks in a year's time will only be those components deemed to be unthreatening. Wikileaks will be compromised; that became inevitable as soon as we all got a look at Assange. Hence my dread.
As much as we might regret this, it will not bring an end to this new era of whistleblowing, any more than the court-mandated dismantling of Napster was the end of peer-to-peer file sharing. Indeed, just a few days after Napster disappeared, a new network, Gnutella, opened for business, and having learned from Napster's mistakes. Where Napster was centralised, Gnutella was distributed. Where Napster was noisy, Gnutella was quiet. Where Napster had a surface that could be sued into oblivion, Gnutella was slippery, and very hard to grasp. Gnutella is still around. Napster has been gone for a decade.
Any organisation that follows Wikileaks will learn from the mistakes made by Assange & Co. It will be invisible unless sought for, as pervasive as necessity requires, and much more impervious to attacks that attempt to corrupt its essential functions and integrity. Will it be perfect? No. This is a cat-and-mouse game, a process where both the forces of State control and the forces which seek to thwart the control of the State are both evolving, both learning from one another.
Within a few years, we'll be drowning in information from 'whistleblowers'. The State will try to swamp these new channels with meaningless or useless information in order to render them unusable. With so much, how can any of us know the truth, or know what truths are significant?
This presents the most interesting opening for 21st century journalism: investigative reporters will be those who have dedicated themselves to winnowing the wheat of truth from the chaff of noise, in order to share it with the rest of us. At the end, we're precisely where we started; the State tries to keep things hidden, while a few brave souls work hard to shine a little light into the dark places. The means will have changed, but the aims remain the same.
Mark Pesce is one of the pioneers in Virtual Reality and works as a writer, researcher and teacher.
Mark Pesce @The Drum'
No comments:
Post a Comment