

Missing the point of WikiLeaks  - setori88
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/12/after_secrets

======
pigbucket
See also the author's earlier articulate, intelligent, and naturally
controversial defense of Wikileaks, which depends on the crucial distinction
between the (more or less) permanent state apparatus (whose agents are
unelected and whose actions are often secret) and the temporary government
power, vested in the US in elected representatives, which imperfectly
harnesses it. It ends with this:

"Of course, those jealously protective of the privileges of unaccountable
state power will tell us that people will die if we can read their email, but
so what? Different people, maybe more people, will die if we can't."

[http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/ov...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/11/overseeing_state_secrecy)

~~~
alexqgb
Excellent use of 'so what?'

------
jdp23
"If we take the inevitability of future large leaks for granted, then I think
the debate must eventually centre on the things that will determine the supply
of leakers and leaks. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals the sense of
justice which would embolden them to challenge the institutions that control
our fate by bringing their secrets to light. Some of us wish to encourage in
individuals ever greater fealty and submission to corporations and the state
in order to protect the privileges and prerogatives of the powerful."

------
michaelchisari
I think the best point this piece makes is that things have changed. This is
not something you can wish or threaten away. Nothing ever goes back to the way
it was after something as profound as all of this.

~~~
Herring
Well I'm not so sure. I have lots of respect for digital watermarking methods.

~~~
sielskr
Good point. Before concluding that things have permanently changed, maybe we
should wait for some large leaks for which the leaker does not get caught.

------
sbt
I hope the mainstream media in general wake up to this soon. Charlie Rose and
others seem to think this is a matter of stopping Assange. Wikileaks is no
more about Assange than DNA is about Francis Crick.

------
newt
The second paragraph suggests that Julian Assange is just a lightning-rod, to
deflect attention from the real work. Or at least is entirely replaceable.
This may be true, any thought?

~~~
freiheit
He's a lightning rod that potential leakers are likely to trust not to leak
who they are. Anybody trying to build a wikileaks clone would have to build
trust, especially to prove that they're not a state actor.

But even if you're leaking to a potentially untrustworthy wikileaks clone,
there's technologies that can make it possible. (anonymous remailers, tor
(combined with other web anonymizing tech), etc) As more people get used to
how the internet works it'll become easier for potential leakers to trust
those types of sources.

In other words: it's a bit of hassle to replace him outright. His replacement
might be a decentralized system of some sort.

------
setori88
personally I think this is what it is all about :
<http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf>

