Pros:
- It's nice to see some behind the scenes communications rather than the public facing toned-down-to-suit-my-allies media sound bites that we're usually fed. I'm specifically referring to the Arabic countries asking the US (read: "indirectly Israel") to help solve 'the Iranian issue'. The Arabic countries can't do this in front of camera, so it's nice to see that behind the media façade, they're actually thinking sensibly.
- Many of the articles on the site seem to be more embarrassing than serious. I'm sure that some of the descriptions of key politician's personalities are no worse than those same politicians hear from comedians or the press. One would hope that the politician's have thick enough skin not to be affected.
- David Cameron wants an open government. Well Prime Minister, like you probably warn your children to "be careful what you wish for", Wikileaks is what you wished for. Every commercial brand who has ventured into social media has wanted to be seen open and transparent, and then tightly clenched their buttocks when someone on a social platform says something negative. The really open, transparent and consumer facing brands then use the platform and customer comments to respond and demonstrate customer service. OK, I've ventured off topic so returning to the main point - don't try anything half hearted on the Internet, because the Internet population will make sure you go the whole way. The Open Government initiative is an excellent start, but people want the fluffy bits in between the publicly available stats.
- If you don't want to be quoted saying something, don't say it. Why were some of the embarrassing emails ever written? Most people wouldn't write an email at work describing their boss in any level of negative detail, for fear of it ever ending up in HR or their boss's Inbox. Or they might not say anything negative because they are trying to be morally correct about their views (which is why we all prefer people who are positive and aren't two faced about other people). Granted I understand that not all the leaks are like this (such as minutes of meetings), although most of the newspaper's quotes related to descriptions of individuals that should never have been said in the first place.
Negatives:
- After reading a few of the newspaper articles, which seemed to hold up Julian Assange (the founder of Wikileaks) as some sort of superhero (including the Evening Standard's "if in doubt, a journalist should always publish first and question later", I didn't realise until today that Assange is a 'wanted man', with every country in Interpol looking for him. I think Mr Assange should be attacked in the press, because of the next point...
- Due to the simplicity of the site, it's just too easy for a copycat Wikileaks to appear. I'm sure there are already a few hundred. Unless the press make the practice of Wikileaks 'socially' unacceptable, Pandora's box will remain open.
- My final worry is about how this might will extend into the corporate world. A couple of years ago a website was setup where upset, anonymous employees could publicise internal memos/emails within companies. It was mainly used for companies announcing redundancies, hence it was called 'FuckedCompany.com'. The site has since been shut down. At the time it was very similar to Wikileaks. I'm not sure how much publicity the site generated, however you can imagine that with the level of publicity of Wikileaks, it would hit share prices very hard. It's a real worry that these sites may return because share prices rely on secrecy, hence 'Chinese Walls' exist within investment banking (a key role of the FSA) and the public companies.
Other comments:
- Tongue in cheek - I did joke with a a friend yesterday that the government and large corporations who spend hundreds of thousands of pounds a year trying to integrate their electronic documents together to make them easy to navigate, are probably scratching their heads at Wikileaks from a technical perspective! Mr Assange has received documents in all formats, from CDs to whatever else, and organised them in one site.
- How is Wikileaks funded? The site has gathered a lot of publicity, which will have sent a huge amount of traffic. Bandwidth needs to be paid for, and the cheaper hosting providers limit the amount of bandwidth for a website. I just can't believe that many people are donating money to the site, and the only advertising on the site is to it's own donation page.
- To demonstrate how far behind the curve the authorities are, if you go to the Interpol page for Assange, it says a picture is unavailable. Yet Google has about 2.9 million of him.
My overall view of Wikileaks is that it's illegal and should be shut down. Publicising what everyone else can be tried for treason for is illegal. Assange needs to be made to account for these potentially damaging secrets and politically unstabling releases. Governments also need to behave more, and watch what is said rather than worry if it's leaked. I think Assange will be caught, and governments won't change, for the time being.
