In Fahrenheit 415, Ray Bradbury described a world that had done away with controversy. Books have been deemed harmful to society because present uncomfortable issues to consider. Instead of thinking and analzying, the society is contentedly distracted by the media and the "firemen" burn books so that people can remain content, unaware of the problems the world faces. The main character is a fireman who has had a change of heart. Guy Montag realizes that the ideas the books contain are valuable; that reasoning and independent thought are valuable. As he is passionately trying to convey to his wife the error of their ways, he makes a very astute statement. "We need not to be let alone. We need to be really bothered once in a while. How long is it since you were really bothered? About some thing important, about something real?" Montag has realized that being bothered is valuable. It forces us out of our complacency and spurs us to action.
It has been a long time since I was really bothered about something. Maybe I just haven't paid enough attention until now, but I can say that the situation surrounding the Wiki-leaks controversy bothers me. It bothers me immensely. I spent the first few days after the leaked documents emerged being nothing but bothered, mostly just about the fact that there is so much dishonesty everywhere I look, and so little can be done about it. It felt like everything was fine until one news report came along and shattered the whole illusion of a functioning system. Suddenly it became all too clear how bad things have gotten--are getting--and how little world leaders really know about how to stop it. It felt like the kind of sensation the passengers on the Titanic must have experienced as they approached the iceberg, like the whole ship was about to go down. I don't think there is any choice but to be bothered when faced with an insurmountable situation; to know that something is terribly wrong but to have no power to change it. With little else to do that would matter, I began researching.
In the unlikely event that anyone reading has not heard, Julian Assange recently released thousands of confidential U.S. files onto the Internet via his whistle-blower website, Wikileaks.com. He was taken into custody in Britain on Tuesday pending questioning about unrelated charges. It is significant that the same charges were already brought and dismissed for lack of any supporting evidence in August. This, of course, has left many asking why he is being held. Meanwhile, activists for whistle-blowers and free speech have risen up against any and all entities opposing Assange and his work. Many suspect that the government has pressured various companies and websites to distance themselves from Wiki-leaks. So far PayPal, Amazon, MasterCard, and Visa have all severed contact with the organization, and as a result have been the target of boycotts and cyber-attacks waged by activists who feel that they are cowards and are bowing to government pressure. Assange has yet to be charged with any crime, but the suspected source of the information, 23 year old Pvt. Bradley Manning, is facing 52 years in prison. If convicted of treason, he is likely to be executed. One well known piece of information he is suspected of distributing is the footage of a shooting in which a U.S. helicopter team killed 12 in Baghdad, including two Reuter's staff members. The complications and controversies surrounding the leaks are too numerous for this blog, but there is a virtual ocean of information circulating right now.
There are really two dominant positions when it comes to the leaks. The first group criticizes Assange and believes that he should be severely punished for his actions. They point to the fact that he allowed the names of Afghan informants working to help the U.S. to be published. This has, undoubtedly, endangered these individuals who the Taliban now say will be pursued and tried as traitors. The lesser known fact is that Assange, prior to the release of the files, asked that the Pentagon help screen them and remove the names of anyone who could be put in harm’s way. The Pentagon emphatically refused this request. This may not be the Pentagon's job, but they did not even attempt to bring the issue to court to seek an order that he refrain from publishing. The Pentagon also claimed that they were not “directly” contacted by Wiki-leaks. This is true, they were indirectly contacted by the Times on behalf of Wiki-leaks. Many are calling this statement deliberately misleading, and understandably so. They also claimed that they had no idea how the Reuters agents in the helicopter footage were killed, despite clear documentation of exactly what happened. They claim that facts such as these are withheld because the public cannot handle them. Cannot handle them, or wouldn’t tolerate them? This is just one example of the inconsistencies the leaks have been revealing.
Many ignore the fact that Assange was given the documents by an outside source, and did not actually break any laws in obtaining them. This is much like what newspapers and journalists do every day. Some argue that Assange cannot be held at fault because what he did was, in effect, merely journalistic and is protected under the First Amendment. Not everyone realizes that the New York Times, The Guardian (U.K.), and other news agencies also published selected cables. There are those that call for a criminal investigation of the Times for writing about the leaks, but others argue that it is ridiculous to prosecute a news agency for reporting the news. There is no doubt that the U.S. government feels that what Assange did should be illegal, but so far they have not been able to find a law to clearly support that it was. As such, they are currently working to revise the espionage act, among other laws, to cover such circumstances in hopes it will help bring Assange "to justice."
Then there are those who support what he is doing. They are the ones that, like Montag, believe that democracy requires truth so that the people can make wise choices. Usually this group does acknowledge that certain strategic information must be kept secret and that not everything is appropriate for the public eye. Still, they are furious that the government appears to have been blatantly lying about various endeavors that they expect the tax-payers to fund. This is not sensitive information, just information that many suspect the government knew the people would not support if they were told the truth. They argue that his organization is the the only one indiscriminately revealing the truth about corporations and governments, while also providing the proof for viewers to see for themselves. This group also argues that although the U.S. claimed extensive damage as the result of a previous Wikileaks release, the Afghan war logs, this turned out to be very over-exaggerated. In fact, despite a panel being assembled to go through and assess damages resulting from the leak, not a single case of endangerment to troops or the country was found. As of yet, no damage has been attributed to the recent release of U.S. communications, except perhaps a bit of political embarrassment.
How does this relate to censorship? It is not so much the controversy over the documents themselves that has me worried, as it is the lengths the government is going to in order to prevent others from seeing that information and the lengths activists are going to in attacking their opposition. Student bodies at two separate colleges have been warned by faculty that even discussing the leaked documents could jeopardize their career prospects, and federal workers have been told that reading the files is a crime, since they are still considered classified. As I mentioned previously, there are U.S. officials quite seriously suggesting that we charge a foreigner with treason, despite the fact that he is not a U.S. citizen, and then execute him for spreading uncomfortable truths about the institutions we place our trust in. There have even been suggestions from politicians that he be assassinated.
I am bothered by how many are criticizing Assange for informing them that they have been misled without really considering the full story. Granted, his method might be questionable, but was there really another way to bring it to our attention? If I told you that your bank was periodically stealing money from your account, then proceeded to show you the evidence, would you ask the police to arrest me for telling you, or thank me and take your finances elsewhere? I do not believe that whether or not we agree with his methods is really the issue. At least I don't believe its the biggest one. We have been shown certain failings of our current leaders, and instead of using that information to make wiser decisions, we are calling for the elimination of the person who brought it all to light. Why? Because he has made us face our unpleasant reality?
Those who support Assange are beginning to harm their cause by becoming such a nuisance that the government will be all but forced to restrict them. One cannot recklessly harass banks and other large corporations and expect it to be ignored. I don't know what the result of such a conflict might be, but the possibility of the government placing new restrictions on the freedom we experience online does not seem like a very far-fetched response to the haphazard way many activists are currently using it. Did you know there is an encrypted file available as we speak that contains all the unreleased and unscreened files that Wiki-leaks has not yet published? It requires a password to access; a password that Assange has threatened to release if anything should happen to him. Hundreds of thousands of people have already downloaded this file. It is known as the poison-pill, or the "insurance" file.
Those who support Assange are beginning to harm their cause by becoming such a nuisance that the government will be all but forced to restrict them. One cannot recklessly harass banks and other large corporations and expect it to be ignored. I don't know what the result of such a conflict might be, but the possibility of the government placing new restrictions on the freedom we experience online does not seem like a very far-fetched response to the haphazard way many activists are currently using it. Did you know there is an encrypted file available as we speak that contains all the unreleased and unscreened files that Wiki-leaks has not yet published? It requires a password to access; a password that Assange has threatened to release if anything should happen to him. Hundreds of thousands of people have already downloaded this file. It is known as the poison-pill, or the "insurance" file.
I agree with Bradbury, there are times when we should be bothered….really, really bothered. Regardless of how you feel about Assange, one thing is undeniable. Right now the entire world is very bothered, and while I believe this is valuable, it could also prove to be dangerous if we don't start putting that energy to proper use. Some are rushing to shut him up so we can all place our heads comfortably back in the sand. Others are responding with attacks and deviance of their own. A few are pushing through the frustration and outrage to make something of what we they learned. The answer isn't to furiously take sides, it is to collectedly review the data and form a reasoned response. Only if we attempt to face the problem head-on, and with an objective view, can we ever hope to do anything about it. Both sides can agree that this is a major event, and it is likely to change the course of history. Now is not the time to stand by as an idle observer. There are those that would do whatever it takes to “burn” the message, as well as the messenger. There are also those that have taken their outrage too far, and are indiscriminately attacking anyone they feel stands in the way of the “truth.” Both groups are completely missing the point.
Regardless of which side we feel is right, the outcome will impact all of us. If the extremists for free speech prevail, we may find ourselves in a world with little to no security left. If the group pushing for secrecy is forced into too defensive a position, we may find ourselves with even more restrictions on our freedom to obtain information. The situation has initiated the creation of new laws and the revision of old ones. If we are to have any impact on this process, we must educate ourselves and consider where our actions will wind up leading us. So, in answer to what I am doing about it. I am doing my best to read, to analyze, and to relay both sides of the issue in hopes that it make make a small dent in the rampant extremism that is so predominant right now. I am not an expert, but I have seen many cite "facts" that are unverified, assumed, or embellished. I do not claim to know who is right, but I hope to at least do my part to encourage objective thought. Extremism will not accomplish anything. Nor will hiding from the problems and waiting for them to go away. It is time to dive in and take charge of our future, before we wake up to find that Bradbury's fictional nightmare has become all too real.
