Sofya Shahab looks closer at the power of Wikileaks; questioning the security of the public information, the view of founder Julian Assange, and who is watching the watchman…

As a young, liberal journalist, freedom of speech is not only something I believe in but in my direct interest. Transparency and freedom of information are all vital in sustaining a democratic society; however there is a point where some information becomes too much information (TMI). I’m not talking about the attempt to prevent MPs expenses being released on the basis that it contains home addresses, but rather the introduction into the public sphere of thousands of military documents including the names of Afghan informants, whose lives were directly put at risk. WikiLeaks are happy to do all the talking, but accept none of the responsibility.

‘Assange agreed that whilst he avoids making judgements on the information the ultimate responsibility for what is published lies with him. However he somewhat chillingly noted that sacrifices may be worth making in the pursuit of ‘the greater good’’

In an auditorium filled with sympathetic students, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange took on his critics, most notably right-leaning Times Columnist David Aaronovitch; in a debate co-hosted by the Index on Censorship and City University. The event chaired by Jonathan Dimbleby, posed the question ‘Who put WikiLeaks on the moral high ground?’

The website famous for releasing sensitive information for public consumption is one of the latest players in the ongoing battle between freedom of information and security. Seeking to promote justice through knowledge, Assange presents WikiLeaks as a key means of holding governments to account and ensuring they maintain their own rule of law- in many ways constituting to the theory of monitory democracy. By demonstrating what individuals and organisations, such as the Pentagon are capable of, the website subjects them to the jury of public opinion, possibly enticing the powerful to behave more justly and openly in the future. 

However the site has come under fire for potentially endangering the lives of those about whom it publishes information. WikiLeaks lacks the resources and manpower to screen many of the documents filed on its website and the US government said it had ‘no interest in minimisation’, when approached for help; declining the offer to assist in trawling the 90,000 documents released -  which pertain to the war in Afghanistan for data which may make Afghan informants Taliban targets.

Western governments tend to view the site as putting ‘open societies’ more at risk by making information available to those opposed to democratic systems and making it easier for them to attack, consequently undermining and destabilising the freedoms we do have.

Seen as a publisher of last resort, where sources are assured of anonymity, WikiLeaks is free from many of the ties and regulatory bodies which bind the mainstream media; however this calls into question how it can be held to account for the information it publishes. For a man deemed to be the face of freedom of information, Assange appeared somewhat cagey about the processes employed by WikiLeaks in deciding which documents are made public and how they are guaranteed, announcing that they will publish whatever the source wishes to be released, but that they will not take witness statements. Whilst the lack of editorial judgment remains in line with WikiLeaks, battle against censorship there must surely be an acknowledgement of the consequences this may have and on whom the responsibility must fall.

‘WikiLeaks are happy to do all the talking, but accept none of the responsibility’

Assange has often been described as the ‘Scarlet Pimpernel of cyberspace’, a somewhat dashing name that no doubt appeals to many of the sites’ anti-establishment followers. Less palatable however is the accusation made by Admiral Mullen that Assange has ‘blood on his hands’ as a result of the leaked documents. When pushed, Assange agreed that whilst he avoids making judgements on the information the ultimate responsibility for what is published lies with him. However he somewhat chillingly noted that sacrifices may be worth making in the pursuit of ‘the greater good’. 

Funding for the site also needs to be scrutinised amidst claims that the Chinese government has contributed to keep the site running. Whilst Assange denied all knowledge of his donors in order to uphold impartiality, he did admit that the largest single contribution was of £20,000. The site has been publicly funded since
January and is dependent upon these donations. This is the primary way in which the public are able to judge whether they believe in the site’s mission and is as yet the only form of scrutiny applied to the website, but when donations could be coming from hostile governments the extent to which WikiLeaks is accountable to, the jury of public opinion is questionable.

Much of the information published on WikiLeaks would take the inexperienced observer days to trawl through in order to find anything of interest. It is not journalism but it does have an agenda, the risk is that those accessing the site will be unaware of this and therefore fail to employ the levels of scrutiny they would with a newspaper. By the end of the debate many of those who had previously aligned themselves with Assange’s ideals were taking a second look at whether we really do want everyone to know everything, and as Aaronovitch noted, WikiLeaks (with Assange as its editor in chief) is now one of the powerful – but who is there to watch this watchman?

Words: Sofya Shahab
Photo: Flickr user cvrcak1, of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.