+

Wikileaks and WhistleblowingEthical and Professional ComputingMichael Heron

+Introduction

Have you heard about Wikileaks? Of course you have.

Whistleblowing has become one of the ‘great journalistic activities’ of the 21st century. John Pilger has said ‘The pursuit of Julian Assange is an

assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism’

However, Wikileaks has its many detractors. Several politicians have called for Wikileaks to be branded as

a terrorist organisation.

Julian Assange himself is a controversial character. And his role in Wikileaks is important.

+Wikileaks

Wikileaks has, at its heart, Julian Assange.  "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder,

philosopher , spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest.

"First of all, let’s give Julian Assange a chance to make his case first: http://

www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html

Wikileaks has created an environment in which the effect of whistle-blowing can be maximised. And in the process has resulted in whistle blowing

becoming very much part of the modern zeitgeist.

+Whistleblowing

A ‘whistle blower’ is an individual who takes it upon themselves to release privileged information into a more public forum. This may simply be a small scale escalation, such as a

senior manager providing minutes to department heads.

It is most often used when the intent of the revelation is to reveal dishonesty, misconduct or illegal activities. Revealing that individuals are conspiring to act against

their legal or ethical obligations.

Public perceptions on whistleblowing are mixed. In some cases, such as wikileaks, support can be relatively

broad.

+The Legality of Whistleblowing

The ethics of whistleblowing have increasingly become a mainstream issue. Largely as a result of the media attention focused on Julian

Assange and Wikileaks.

In many jurisdictions, whistleblowing has protected status under law. In the UK, we have the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1999 In the US there is a complex and often contradictory network of

enabling and disabling legislation. It’s okay in some situations, not okay in others.

The complexity of the legal system is one of the reasons why many whistle-blowing incidents are anonymous.

+Important Whistleblowers

There are a large number of important whistleblowers. Peter Buxton, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments Mark Felt, Deep Throat Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers Cynthia Cooper, Worldcom Sherron Watkins, Enron Katharine Gun, Iraq War (2003) Paul Moore, HBOS Clive Ponting, Belgrano sinking

In all these cases, the individuals exposed misconduct that was illegal, immoral, or unconscionable.

+The Impact of Whistleblowing

The impact of a whistle blower can be significant. Deep Throat, in his interactions with Woodward and

Bernstein, helped to bring down Nixon. Manning via Wikileaks is credited as a major catalyst for the

2010 Arab Spring.

They can bring to light important information that would otherwise be difficult to access.

They help address informational asymmetry.

However, in doing so they also often violate many moral and ethical principles that we hold generally true.

+Anonymous Information

Part of the problem with anonymous testimony is that it cannot be validated. We do not know who he/she is. We do not know the veracity of his or her information. We do not know the full context of his or her information.

This anonymity provides a protection against potential reprisals, but it also dilutes the value of the information.

We don’t know if the whistleblower has some kind of professional code of ethics that requires discretion. A lawyer? A therapist?

+Confidentiality

Several possible identities for anonymous informants cast their revelations in a less favourable light: Was this hearsay learned from a patient as a therapist? Revealed to a priest in confession? Revealed to a doctor when the stress became too much? Revealed to a company lawyer in the interests of full disclosure?

At what point does the harm to an individual become an acceptable cost for making a disclosure of confidential information?

At what point does a personal conversation (conducted ‘off the record’ between friends) become suitable for public consumption?

+Wikileaks

As computer people, Wikileaks is an especially important development in the narrative of whistleblowing. Like most things in our module, the technology didn’t invent

whistleblowing but it enabled it to a previously impossible degree.

Some of their first revelations were shocking, which drove traffic to the site.

Some may find the following footage to be disturbing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6OTb5xeFHU

This footage was published in 2010. As a designated website called “Collateral Murder”

+Wikileaks

Wikileaks is significant for several reasons. The technology used to facilitate whistleblowing. The crowd-sourced nature of disclosure. The penetration into the public consciousness.

Wikileaks says: ‘Our goal is to bring important news and information to the

public’

The US says: Wikileaks is tantamount to a terrorist organisation.

+Technology of Wikileaks

Wikileaks has many things it must deal with technically. Continual DDOS attacks The risk of the site being closed down by governments. Difficulty in receiving donations.

They are understandably secretive about how it all works. However, some details are known.

Encrypted information is routed through ‘friendly’ legal jurisdictions.

Operates on a ‘cell’ basis. One cell goes down, another can be switched on.

+Technology of Wikileaks

When documents are at risk, they are released in full as encrypted torrents. Redundancy of storage ensures information never dies.

However, this is done on an opt-in basis and does not protect internal information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S98PeY7WqZM

Difficulty in scaling up. Especially during moments of intense public interest. ‘The more information we get, the harder it is to store and

protect’

+Crowed Source Whistleblowing

Individuals who have confidential information can submit it anonymously through the site or via email.

A group of volunteer editors them analyse the leaks for publishability. How authoritative is the material How important is the material?

Not a pure ‘wiki’ model. Wiki-Minus

Volunteer editors then comb through large document caches. These get published on a scheduled basis.

+Wikileaks and Editorial Control

As soon as editorial control is exercised, bias comes in. This is unavoidable, no matter how professional someone is.

One may choose to publish information raw without commentary. But in order to do that, other information had to not be

published. There’s only so much

Space in a newspaper Attention span in readers Time in a day

Editorial control is exercised over leaks. Ensuring the ‘best’ are published.

+Significant Wikileaks

Assassination attempts

The Church of Scientology ‘The collected secret bibles of Scientology’

BNP Membership

‘Climategate’

Internet Censorship Lists

Bilderberg group meeting reports

+Significant Wikileaks

9/11 Pager Messages

State department cable leaks. From Bradley Manning

Afghan War Diaries

Iraq War Logs

Diplomatic Cable Release

Guantanamo Bay Files

+Bradley Manning

The case of Bradley Manning is significant both for its timeliness and the impact. He is the primary source of much of the wikileaks

diplomatic cable archive.

Public perceptions of him are extremely mixed. Is he a modern day whistleblower exposing corruption in

the diplomatic ranks? If he a traitor exposing personal backchannels and informal

gossip to those who might do harm? Is he a scapegoat for a corrupt system? Did he endanger lives?

+The Ethics of Wikileaks

There is no doubt that much dark material has come to light as a result of Wikileaks.

Is all of this for the good? 9/11 Pagers Climategate BNP membership

Is all of this for the bad? Diplomatic cables Guantanamo Bay Files Church of Scientology

+The Ethics of Wikileaks

I make no judgement here on any individual release.

I instead ask the following questions for each release: Who benefited from the release of the information? Did the public have a right to know? Was anyone harmed by the release of the information? Was the world situation improved or damaged by the release of

the information?

And I ask the following general questions: Is it okay to hide information if its disclosure will risk lives? To what extent to governments and corporations have a right and

a responsibility to keep secrets?

Discuss in small groups.

+Julian Assange

Julian Assange himself is a very controversial character. Currently under siege in the Ecuador embassy. Accused of running a cult of personality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdDZmFcxnj8 Internal disputes within Wikileaks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4

Accused of illegal sexual misconduct in Sweden. Extradition to Sweden is being vigorously opposed. Supporters seem to believe that the charges are politically

motivated. Does this make a difference? To what extent does motivation come to play in ‘forgiving’

offences?

+Whistleblowing and You

When do you have a responsibility to whistle-blow? When you have exhausted all internal routes to resolve the

issues? When the public has a demonstrated right to know? When disclosure can be made safely?

Do your motivations matter in this? Does it matter if you benefit from disclosure in some way? Does it matter if you’re a dislikeable character if your

information is correct?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3XuqBNOkCs

+The Five Ethical tests

Kallman and Grillo (1996) propose five informal tests for determining if an action is ethical: Would you tell your mother? Would you tell your story on television? Does it make you feel bad for having done it? Would you like if it had been done to you? Would you be able to make a good pitch as to why it was

the right thing to do?

To this we can add: Are you legally able to make a disclosure? Are you forbidden by a code of ethics from making a

disclosure?

+Conclusion

Whistleblowing is not a modern phenomenon. But Wikileaks has brought it firmly into the public

consciousness on a persistent basis.

In the best cases, whistle-blowing is in the public interest and discloses information for which the public has a genuine need to know.

In the worse cases, it is dangerous and titillating.

Editorial control means that we cannot necessarily trust we see all the information.

We cannot know the agendas of those leaking information if they remain anonymous.