Dez
10
2010
Le Web is a conference dedicated to social media, information and free internet. And it was very interesting to be especially at this time there. Everybody was talking about Wikileaks and the opinions ranged from “Assange is a hero” to “Assange should be declared enemy of the state” (both real quotes). There were representatives of web companies like PayPal who got quite damaged through the situation they suddenly found themselves in and journalists like the Reuters executive who commented on the nature of the publication.
By watching the current hysteria I can’t fight getting worried though. It’s not the question about ownership of information that makes me think. Nor do I care much about the motives Assange might be or might not be driven by. It’s the effect and consequences for the social media scene and our information society as a whole that worry me. I think Wikileaks should have done that whole thing differently and maybe even have decided not to publish in the way they did.
But shouldn’t information be free?
think about it: Information had never been free nor will it ever be!
In the past it had been in the hands of few who requested service, goods or money in exchange for sharing them. Alternatively you had to buy books, equipment or move to certain places in order to acquire such knowledge yourself. Also there had been always destructive information that needed protection and was not available to anyone. To protect those kinds of information barriers were erected that increased the costs to acquire this information even more.
Hell, even I possess information that I don’t share because I know it will cause damage and that I’d only share with someone who knows how to deal with it…
It’s an accomplishment of our modern society that information to some extent got detached from their carrier and therefore became cheaper. Cheaper – not free! It still costs money to gain knowledge and since there is information that can kill or destroy, there need to be a level of trust and skills in order to handle it. So its also not free in terms of accessing it. Should it be? I personally don’t think so.
As much as you do not allow teenagers to drive a car without getting a drivers license first you certainly do not like to have all knowledge freely floating around. And most importantly:
Free information and free speech are not the same thing!
Huh? But what is the difference? Isn’t wikileaks acting their right to speak freely?
Yes they do. So what?
First of all: There are limits to free speech and most of us agree on that. E.g. we expect that certain hate statements regarding religion or minorities are not allowed to be published. The same is true for statements that immediately affect others negatively. The right to speak freely sometimes collides with the rights of others and it is the responsibility of the individual, the government and law to balance this. If you search for some ideas when limits are appropriate follow this link, it’s a very interesting read…
Secondly: Not the speaking is the problem but the fact that they’re publishing information that had been stolen in the first place. If information would be tangible we’d call this “dealing with stolen goods” which is a crime in most countries. So concerning the difference between free speech and free information: The term Freedom of Speech refers to an human right that basically says that you should be allowed to speak your mind freely and voice even unpopular ideas without the fear of punishment. Governments are not giving this right, their job is to protect it. Related to “Freedom of speech” leads to “Freedom of Expression” and “Freedom of Press” which means that you’re allowed to search for information, educate yourself and publish your findings. All those rights are limited by laws though and of course by the fact that there is a moral responsibility to deal appropriately with what you’ve learned. In contrast “Freedom of Information” deals with the question who is allowed to use ideas and information and whether there are limits to this ownership.
Freedom of speech is a human right. Freedom of information is a question of ownership and use rights.
Yeah, let’s throw Assange into jail then and forget about it
That’s not what I’m implying :-) Whether you like him or not: He is making an important point to the world.
Information is not only very hard to secure, it is also dangerous to publish it.
I personally don’t like this but I always thought that this is quite evident. I’m a bit surprised that this wasn’t obvious to most discussants I listened to though, so maybe somebody had to make this point... But here is my real problem with the whole situation:
I predict that by 2020 the internet not only will be fairly regulated it will also be possible to keep the free flow of ideas and information under tight control.
I think that Wikileaks kicked off a development that will severely limit and in some regions severely threaten freedom of speech and the freedom of press since the main learning for all of us was that in today’s world nobody (yet) can control information. They united governments and large companies in their desire to get to that point and I do not like most of the consequences this could have. And for what? For information that mostly doesn’t look like the world really needed it…
my 0,02€. Let me know what you think :-)
Update: Have seen this documentary that really made me sad…
I definitely can relate to their motives even though I think that they might have killed their idea by hitting the worlds governments and institutions too hard... Also I think they do the same they accuse the US Government to but in another context: They ignore the impact on the individuals they influence with their releases… They impersonalize.
Update 2: Meanwhile the US government released a strategy paper discussing trusted ID management in cyberspace. Is it just me who sees a connection here?