Subscribe / Unsubscribe Enewsletters | Login | Register

Pencil Banner

Spies, wikiLeaks, and hackers, oh my!

Robert X. Cringely | June 21, 2010
A U.S. intelligence analyst has been arrested for spilling secrets to WikiLeaks, and now the whistle-blowers are on the run

WikiLeaks a small organization going through enormous growth and operating in an adverserial, [sic] high-security environment which can make communication time consuming and the acquisition of new staff and volunteers, also difficult since they require high levels of trust.

To try and deal with our growth and the current difficult situation, we want to get you to work together with our other supporters to set up a "Friends of WikiLeaks" group in your area. We have multiple supporters in most countries and would like to see them be a strong and independent force.

This episode raises all kinds of questions, none of which have very clear, satisfying answers.

Is Manning a true whistle-blower or an ordinary spy? Is he closer to Daniel Ellsberg or to Christopher Boyce (whom you may remember from "The Falcon and the Snowman")? It seems from this vantage point he started out as Ellsberg and ended up more like Boyce.

Does Julian Assange have those 260,000 cables Manning claimed to have sent him? So far Assange has only issued some vague denials via Twitter. Can he please stop being so damned coy about it and just tell us?

Was Adrian Lamo right in flipping on Manning? Did his Asperger's play a part in that?

Was Wired right in revealing the alleged source of these leaks? Journalists are supposed to protect the confidentiality of sources. Though Manning was not one of its own sources, Lamo was. Apparently he and former-hacker-turned-reporter Poulsen are friends. Did Lamo understand that he was putting himself in jeopardy by talking to Poulsen and not securing an agreement to keep his identity secret? Did Poulsen take advantage of Lamo's condition to get him to reveal this information?

It's a hot, sticky mess any way you look at it. And once again WikiLeaks and its operations are called into question.

As I've said before: In an age where news-gathering organizations are either being pared to the bone or sucked into the maw of corporate conglomerates, WikiLeaks serves an extremely useful purpose. It's a cheap, easily accessible, hard-to-squelch outlet for news that powerful people don't want you to hear.

But it's also ripe for manipulation, and the material it handles on a daily basis requires the ultimate in editorial judgment and discretion, which we haven't always seen from WikiLeaks. If Assange had 260K confidential cables in his possession, and some of those cables would put U.S. operatives in mortal peril, would he withhold that info? That's a question only WikiLeaks and Assange can answer. So far, he isn't talking.

Hopefully we'll get answers to at least some of these questions, before Hollywood steps in and sugarcoats everything.

What do you think? Who's the hero, who's evil, and who will play them in the movie? E-mail me: cringe@infoworld.com.

 

Previous Page  1  2 

Sign up for Computerworld eNewsletters.