WikiLeaks Podcast Reflection

One of the main takeaways from our podcast is that organizations like Wikileaks should exist and that people who witness the government doing illegal things should use them. But governments should be able to act within their own laws and still have secrets from the public. Also, Wikileaks certainly makes it easier for government whistleblowers to get the word out, but the free press probably does a better job at releasing the documents because they at least try to redact things. Ignorance is definitely not bliss, but Wikileaks could use some discretion.

Their recent revelations about Vault 7 were very interesting. It seemed that they, for the first time, implemented a redaction scheme. We mentioned this in the podcast, but they replaced certain people's names and other sensitive information with codes. Also, what was revealed doesn't seem to have as big of an impact as I first thought. Most of the tech companies who were affected by the Vault 7 leak said that they were aware of the issues mentioned and had already pushed security patches. The infamous TV security hole that turns your Smart TV into a microphone requires physical access to the device. In fact, the CIA's actions outlined in the Vault didn't seem that extraordinary; one tech expert said that "It seems like the CIA was doing the same stuff cybersecurity researchers do." As we mentioned in the podcast, in this light this "Vault 7" kinda seems more like a popularity stunt by Wikileaks, not as deserving of national attention as it first appears to be.

Another issue that came up during the podcast was whether or not you could separate the message from the messenger, and the messenger from its founder. Julian Assange is controversial character. He has claimed that "if an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die." He has been accused of rape and has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy for years, and remains there to this day. Every discussion of Wikileaks involves him. Somewhat fairly, because he holds the captain's wheel of Wikileaks tightly. However, the press probably focus on him too much, and this gives Wikileaks a more negative connotation than it deserves.
As for sorting out the message from the messenger, this starts to make more of a difference. We asked in the podcast: "What makes Wikileaks different from a news corportation?" The answer to that seems to be that, if you are a whistleblower, they are easier to contact, more likely to accept your story, and more likely to guarantee your anonymity. Also, as noted before, they perform almost no redacting (at least until Vault 7). So this makes the message drastically different if it came from the Times or if it comes from Wikileaks. The Times message would have names and important information obscured, while Wikileaks won't, and even once published people's social security numbers.

Another item addressed in the podcast is whether or not whistleblowing is always ethical, and when to release data or whether secrets are necessary. In the podcast, I was leaning the furthest towards secrets are ok for a government to have. In that case, honesty is not always the right policy. However, if you notice the government acting unethically or outside of the law, then honesty and transparency are the best policies. So the government should not be forced to be entirely transparent, but when they misstep it is the duty of whoever notices to shine light upon them. So in this sense, transparency should be forced upon rule-breakers, but not the entire government in general; they should be allowed to classify certain documents in the name of national security.