

The Hazards of Nerd Supremacy: The Case of WikiLeaks - gyardley
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/the-hazards-of-nerd-supremacy-the-case-of-wikileaks/68217/1/

======
quanticle
I agree with a lot of what the author said, but some parts read like the worst
sort of pseudo-intellectual post-modernist pap.

 _The Internet as it is, which supports the abilities of Anonymous and
Wikileaks, is an outgrowth of a particular design history which was influenced
in equal degrees by 1960s romanticism and cold war paranoia. It aligned the
two poles of the bit to these two archetypal dramas. But the poles of the bit
can be aligned with other things. The Internet can and must be redesigned to
reflect a more moderate and realistically human-centered philosophy._

That paragraph attempts to say so much, it says almost nothing at all. What
does the author mean by "equal parts 1960s romanticism and cold war paranoia"?
Does he have any evidence that these ideological considerations actually
influenced the design of the Internet, or is this fanciful thinking that draws
patterns where none exist?

 _One problem is that information in oceanic magnitudes can confuse and
confound as easily as it can clarify and empower, even when the information is
correct. There is vastly more financial data set down in the world's computers
than there ever has been before, including publically accessible data, and yet
the economy is a mess. How can this be, if information is the solution?_

The emphasis on small visible harms caused by greater information serves to
obscure the larger, less visible good that information technology has brought
us. The increased flows of information brought about by widespread computer
networks have made life much, much easier for both consumers and producers.
Goods, both in commodity and finished form can be compared nearly
effortlessly. What's easier, going to four different physical stores, or
opening four different shopping sites in your browser? Focusing on the edge
cases of network overreach obscures the much larger benefits that access to
information brings us.

 _They are, however, potentially consequential to American diplomacy, which is
often, if we are to believe the cables, both trickier and better intentioned
then we might have feared. The contents might be extremely consequential, even
deadly, to a hapless individual on the ground -- and we'll once again invoke
the canonical unfortunate fellow in Afghanistan who translated for a US
diplomat and counted on the USA to keep it secret. I don't know if he exists,
but it seems to me that there must be analogs to him, at least._

That's awfully weak language to support an awfully strong conclusion - that
Wikileaks is _bad_ for releasing this data. Most people accept some version of
"no harm - no foul". That is to say, if an action doesn't cause demonstrable
harm, then the action isn't bad, even if the benefits are dubious. I'd say
that rule, rather than any precautionary principle applies in this case.

 _But it did use all of the cables for blackmail. Encrypted copies were sent
around the world, creating what is known as a "dead man switch." It was
claimed that the encrypted cables contained genuinely dangerous information._

How does the author know? Has he managed to break the 256-bit AES encryption
on the insurance file? If not, any speculation as to the files contents is
speculation and should be stated as such, rather than know fact.

I'm disappointed in the article. I like its conclusion. I do believe that
Julian Assange's actions harmed the United States, and were counterproductive
towards his stated aims. However, the structure of this article is so rambling
and its arguments so weak, I can't support the author's reasoning process.

