WikiLeaks has done it again. The website, intended to give whistle-blowers a safe outlet for sharing information while remaining anonymous, has now published a set of secret documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan.
WikiLeaks published over 90,000 reports about the war since 2004, while withholding 15,000 more in order to protect the anonymity of those who submitted them. The reports paint a very bleak picture of the war, detailing its many civilian casualties and showing problems related to Pakistan's cooperation in the war, demonstrating that "representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders." (CNN)
This is not the first time that WikiLeaks has released reports or information that have reverberated around the world, but with something of this magnitude, this incident may have enormous implications.
As far as this class is concerned, the incident serves to demonstrate how drastically social media has changed the whistle-blowing landscape. Before the Internet, it would have been virtually impossible to release this kind of information while remaining anonymous and avoiding legal repercussions. But it is possible today, and WikiLeaks takes special pains to overcome such hurdles (for example, by having servers based in multiple nations to avoid being trapped within a specific country's laws). Thus, for better or worse, new media are allowing people to overcome traditional barriers and create a more open society, whether or not it is in the interest of their nations' politicians, institutions, and security agencies.
Posts
NYT Connections Sports Edition today: Hints and answers for December 21
-
Connections: Sports Edition is a New York Times word game about finding
common sports threads between words. How to solve the puzzle.
3 hours ago
3 comments:
A high-profile example of how social media shifts power from organizations to the people. I'm interested to see how this situation unfolds in the next week, as the White House has already "condemn[ed]" their "disclosure."
On another note, the power that anonymity gives social media users is intriguing in many ways. In this instance, it makes people more willing to shared information they might not otherwise would've. And as the bloggers on last week's panel discussion said, anonymity on social media can make people more willing to share(largely harsh or critical) opinions that they might not otherwise would've. Social media not only gives us power, it makes us feel empowered. The question is, how do we use that power?
Good question Gabrielle - I think in cases like Enron which happened before social media existed then you could argue that social media would have helped to bring the situation to light quicker - because maybe the person could have released the information anonymously. But when/if information is leaked and causes harm in a significant way - I think that will be the moment where people might step back and think more about consequences. I almost think something serious has to happen first before it gets to that point.
The issue raised about the power that social media gives us is an interesting one. While social media undeniably does grant individuals and collective groups more power than ever before, it makes me wonder about the value of anonymity. People are definitely more willing to share information if they are sure that their identity won't be known. But at what cost? Is is better to have more information, spread by face-less and unknown social media users, or is it more beneficial to know the source of your information so you can evaluate and make judgment calls based upon this source? Obviously the content in the latter case would be less extreme, but it also might be more reasoned. I'm just not sure which is better...
Post a Comment