

WikiLeaks Wants To Spill Your Corporate Secrets - smcnally
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/

======
dtf
Whatever you feel about Assange as a personality, it's pretty clear that this
is the way things will be from now on - even if Wikileaks were somehow to be
taken out of the picture. And it's much to our benefit, I think. The old
school has for too long used secrecy as a cloak for mediocrity.

~~~
_delirium
The connection the article draws with Zuckerberg's views on privacy
(basically, "get used to not having it") is interesting. Though the article
doesn't mention it, it also seems to be a similar mentality to Eric Schmidt's
comment that "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe
you shouldn't be doing it in the first place".

Not sure what I think about that trend overall, but _if_ the future is going
to be one of "involuntary transparency", it does seem like it should apply to
corporations and governments too, not just individuals.

~~~
electromagnetic
If involuntary transparency applies to individuals, it will inevitably become
applies to corporations and governments whether they want it to or not.

If the individuals that make up companies and governments can no longer hide
their secrets, it becomes a defacto reality that those agencies will no longer
be able to hide their secrets in individuals. There's a whole sci-fi AI theme
here, but I'm sure an object made of data will have worse security than a
human that can voluntarily withdraw all its data into its head.

Humans have unlimited privacy, so long as they keep it inside their head. My
peers today that blurt every cogitation out on Facebook and Twitter have no
ability to comprehend the use of privacy until they feel they desperately need
it. How is a government or corporation going to maintain its privacy when it
employs people who can barely keep a thought to themselves?

~~~
jbooth
Eh, only sort of.

There's two parts to transparency - a feasible way to get information, and the
resources/motivation to do so.

This could all very easily play out in a way that individuals have no
expectation of privacy in the face of corporate/government scans of all
available data, but the reverse doesn't hold, unless people like wikileaks
step up to the plate.

------
alecco
"Wikileaks Wants To Spill _Your_ Corporate Secrets"

"Like informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at
will."

"What do large companies think of the threat? If they’re terrified, they’re
not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."

Pure junk journalism. Strange, I'm used to see very good pieces on Forbes.
Perhaps its blogs are a bit more permissive.

~~~
alecco
If Wikileak posts are deleted by moderators on HN because of bias, this piece
should be deleted too.

------
michaelchisari
There's probably some really good information from BP or various banking
institutions that could really shed some much needed light on recent
disasters.

Wikileaks is simply doing the job that journalists have lately forgotten or
refused to do.

~~~
InclinedPlane
We already have more than enough information to know that BP is guilty of
gross negligence (in regards to the Deepwater Horizons disaster) up to and
including negligent homicide.

~~~
hugh3
Whether or not that's the case, this is something that's being investigated by
government agencies who have the power to order the handing over of whatever
documents they need, so leaks aren't really a big issue here. (no pun
intended)

------
ryan-allen
I think the title is misleading, he's not looking to spill 'my' companies
corporate secrets, he's looking to spill big business' secrets (and by secrets
I do believe the intention is to reveal unethical behaviour).

I don't work for an oil company or an investment bank, two of which are
targets of his next round. Change the title!

~~~
jrockway
_I don't work for an oil company or an investment bank, two of which are
targets of his next round. Change the title!_

I do, but honestly, we aren't doing anything particularly evil. The subprime
meltdown was not caused by one person's evil dealings, it was caused by many
parties each doing something not-particularly-evil individually. It's like
littering -- if you do it, it doesn't matter, but if everyone does it, then
there's a major problem. Liar loans and CDOs were like littering, not really a
problem when one person or bank "does" them. But when the whole industry does
little things like this and people bet a lot of money under the assumption
that this isn't happening (because the credit rating agencies mislead them),
then things unravel. But it's just a colossal fuckup, not some super secret
backroom deal designed to fuck over retirement funds. (The big issue was that
the credit rating agencies were lazy, and told institutional investors that
CDOs were a good credit risk. They obviously were not, and people lost a lot
of money either buying the CDOs, or selling insurance on the CDOs.)

The bailout was similarly non-evil. The banks said, "we're fucked unless you
give us a lot of money, and if we are fucked, so is everyone else", and the
government said, "you're right, take the taxpayers' money". The banks did,
they continued to operate, and eventually paid it back.

Hardly the crime of the century.

~~~
weavejester
_I do, but honestly, we aren't doing anything particularly evil._

You may not be. In fact, it's probable that the vast majority of people
working for the banking industry are honest, law-abiding citizens.

But just because _most_ people are honest, doesn't mean all of them are. I
find it somewhat hard to believe Madoff was the only one lining his pockets at
other people's expense.

~~~
jrockway
But FWIW, Madoff was not an investment bank.

------
dctoedt
Involuntary transparency can have its good aspects, but those might be offset
by "unilateral disarmament" - if WikiLeaks doesn't do the same to the
confidential information of, say, Chinese and/or Indian companies, then U.S.
and European companies could well be at a competitive disadvantage.

~~~
eru
Unless there's an advantage in being seen as open. ("If your European company
would have done something bad, we would have heard of it. We haven't (or have
heard only a mild relevation.) So you must be pretty good guys!")

------
cantbecool
I applaud WikiLeaks and Assange for disseminating the classified information
to the public. That disseminated information keeps politicians honest to their
constituents, which in turn, makes for better, transparent governments.

------
Supermighty
I've always been concerned that if I played it honest with my business if I
would end up being fodder for the sharks that twist, bend and break the rules.

~~~
lsc
eh, I've been 'in business' most of my life now, and, I guess that isn't all
that long (I think I was 12 when I started my first venture, selling pumpkins,
and I'm 30 now.) I haven't seen great success, or really great failure. The
thing is, every time I tried to be less than honest to gain an advantage? I
got slapped down. Sometimes hard. (though most of my forays were probing and
weak, and so were the consequences.)

My suspicion is that lying and dishonesty is a skill like any other, and one
that is not trivial to learn. You can't just lie and expect to be rewarded,
you need to know when and how to lie. People spend their lives studying that
sort of thing, as well as how to detect liars. Personally, I think the average
businessperson is better off being as honest and transparent as he or she is
able while focusing on some other competitive advantage. Competing with the
professional liars in this arena is difficult.

------
marcamillion
Hrmm...I am not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, having light
shone on various dark parts of processes can be good for innovation and checks
and balances - but on the other hand, it kinda feels like Assange is getting
too big for his britches.

I feel like it might be getting to his head and he feels he is more important
than he should be.

I also feel like he might be giving an outlet to squeaky wheels - i.e.
disgruntled employees that have a bridge to burn because they are upset about
management decision.

I am no big fan of corporate secrecy and perhaps shedding a light on certain
practices can get 'big business' to stop lobbying lawmakers for some
ridiculous things, but I am nervous that it might have many unintended
consequences.

i.e. we turn Assange into a mercenary that releases stuff for his own self-
aggrandizement than for the greater good.

------
wildmXranat
Raise your hand if you have damning documents on your corporation. |o.

It's pretty obvious that we as the masses, get shat on by people above us.
It's a fact and unless you bend the financial tax rules in your favor, you're
getting smacked around too.

~~~
nickpinkston
So this is a kind of digital pitchfork then - but with up-side-down economics:
no need for an angry mob, just one person is good enough at a corp.

------
mmaunder
Since ICE is seizing domains who infringe copyright, wouldn't it make sense
for all companies to copyright all internal documents and communication
immediately, and then claim copyright infringement if wikileaks publishes
them?

Even if wikileaks.org can't be seized [I'm not advocating that] wouldn't it
give corporations more legal power via the DMCA to be able to claim copyright
infringement?

~~~
dangrossman
1) All those documents are protected by copyright the moment they're produced.

2) The DMCA is a US law, and wikileaks.org's IP is in France. As with Assange,
they'll move the operation wherever in the world they need to find favorable
laws.

If the force of US law was enough to stop wikileaks it would have been gone
long ago. Publishing national secrets is a much more intimidating crime than
civil copyright infringement, no?

~~~
jacquesm
That's not all there is to it, Assange has a 1.4G timebomb out there, the
passkey to which will likely be revealed when he decides or disappears long
enough.

------
callmeed
Curious how this will play out in the stock market

When the leak is out, will the bank's stock tank?

If the leak is leaked, will some short it?

------
some1else
Maybe their next leak is more revenge from former UBS' Brad Birkenfield?

------
sliverstorm
It's like he's on a personal mission to piss off as many people on Earth as he
can manage.

------
known
Privacy != Secrecy

------
DanielBMarkham
"..the coming age of involuntary transparency..."

My, what a nice turn of a phrase.

Assange dumps all your trade secrets on the net? It's not a crime, nope,
you're just being "involuntarily transparent".

Orwell would have been proud.

~~~
nostromo
I'm guessing that Orwell would side with Assange over the US State Department
or companies like say, Exxon, Halliburton, Altria.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Maybe, I'm not so sure. The citizens of Oceania in 1984 were very much the
victim of "involuntary transparency", and it didn't seem to be a good thing.

The problem with "involuntary transparency" as practiced by wikileaks is that
there are inherent limitations of scope and thus inherent discrimination in
application.

~~~
michaelchisari
George Orwell was a left-communist who fought with the POUM, a Libertarian
Marxist group, in the 1936 Spanish Civil War.

When Stalinism came to power, he was extraordinarily critical of it's
centralization of power and of what he saw as a tyrannical subversion of
democratic socialist principles.

If ever there was a man in history who left a clear blueprint on where he
would side in a struggle between multinational corporations and governments,
and an idealistic whistleblower organization, it's Eric Blair.

It's important to point out that the citizens of 1984 had their actions
monitored at all times, yet the government operated in total secrecy. What
we're discussing here is a situation in reverse.

 _And on that note, if you have not read it, no matter your politics, I cannot
recommend "Homage To Catalonia" enough. Orwell was truly one of the most
gifted writers of the 20th century._

~~~
InclinedPlane
My point is that in the time between now and when all governments and powerful
organizations on Earth are open and honest (likely to be a fair stretch of
time) organizations like wikileaks cannot help but discriminate in the
organizations they shine a light onto. There are innumerable reasons why this
is so, starting with the mere matter of random chance and limited
capabilities, moving to the matter of the nature of the organization and the
opportunity for such leaks to occur, to the interest of the "viewership", the
consequences of getting caught, etc, etc, etc.

This discriminatory coverage has the potential to create a false portrait of
reality. And that has consequences. Imagine two magazine covers, one
photoshopped and immaculate the other completely "honest". To most uncritical
observers the "honest" cover will appear vulgar and ugly in comparison. Only a
few people will take the time to appreciate that the perfect cover is an utter
lie. How do such dynamics play out in society, business, and geopolitical
relations? In a wikileaks future a brutal dictatorship that can maintain utter
control over its media image might be able to appear better than an honest and
open, though flawed, country of liberty and consensual governance. Indeed,
this is already a problem to some degree today. Idiots who don't know better
imagine that life in dictatorial regimes might be exactly how the regime and
its sycophants portray it (all the more believable without any dissenting
voices), whereas every gritty aspect of life in western democracies and every
flaw down to the least consequential is revealed in gory high-definition
detail.

To me wikileaks specifically seems very much biased by the "point spread"
problem, of judging America and the west by a much higher standard than the
rest of the world. There's nothing wrong with holding America to a higher
standard, but there's everything wrong with losing sight of the fact that the
standards are different and then falling into the notion, as so many have,
that, say, America is as bad as the Iranian regime, or that American troops
are no better than the Taliban. The consequences of such discriminatory
judgments and of such imbalanced worldviews are dire indeed.

