This blog post examines whether WikiLeaks’ indiscriminate disclosure of information is a righteous act that enhances societal transparency or a dangerous act that poses risks.
Cryptographic technology has evolved in complex and diverse forms from ancient times to modern society. This technology has played an essential role in safeguarding secrets and protecting vital information from external threats. Particularly in warfare, diplomacy, and commercial activities, cryptography has served as a crucial means to protect lives and property. However, alongside the advancement of cryptographic technology, movements opposing it through information disclosure have also developed. If cryptography exists to conceal, then WikiLeaks exists to reveal hidden information. This blog post examines WikiLeaks, which performs the exact opposite function of cryptography, and seeks to answer the question: Should information ultimately be concealed or disclosed?
Whistleblowing refers to the act of an organization member publicly exposing internal wrongdoing. Since organizations invariably respond defensively and retaliatorily to whistleblowers’ disclosures, states enact laws to protect whistleblowers, safeguarding acts that contribute to the greater societal good rather than the interests of a particular group. However, the situation changes when the state itself becomes the target of whistleblowing. Protection laws do not apply to them; instead, they are prosecuted for treason under the Patriot Act. Consequently, individual whistleblowers taking on the state find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. An organization that has taken it upon itself to protect such individuals is WikiLeaks. Shortly after its founding, WikiLeaks set a record by releasing more classified documents than had ever been disclosed by other media outlets combined. WikiLeaks’ large-scale disclosure activities shocked the media and the public, sparking serious discussions about information disclosure and transparency. The released information caused various shocks around the world. It caused waves by revealing the grim reality of the war, such as the severe civilian casualties in the US-Afghanistan war being covered up by military operations and the torture of prisoners. It also contributed to the Arab Spring by starkly exposing the corruption of political leadership in Middle Eastern countries.
So, is WikiLeaks a righteous crusader exposing state corruption? I am not one to applaud WikiLeaks unconditionally. WikiLeaks only verifies the authenticity of the classified documents it receives without any censorship, then releases massive volumes of raw text online all at once. This method is highly inefficient. First, as anyone active on social media knows, an overwhelming amount of information can actually breed public apathy. Second, this method of disclosure can sometimes produce unintended consequences. I wish to examine this second reason in detail.
Let’s categorize the information disclosed by WikiLeaks into three types: beneficial disclosures, non-beneficial disclosures, and disclosures that are undesirable but tolerable. Beneficial disclosures are those that expose human rights abuses, illegal activities, or corruption that would have remained hidden forever without WikiLeaks, as mentioned earlier. The disclosure of such facts provides the driving force for societal improvement.
On the other hand, there are also harmful disclosures. Among the documents released by WikiLeaks, many contained information that threatened the safety of undercover agents operating behind enemy lines, such as those related to the early stages of the Afghan War or Zimbabwe. Citing this, Reporters Without Borders criticized WikiLeaks for abandoning the key journalistic function of protecting sources. Whistleblowers who endanger lives by disclosing secrets that fall into this category should be stopped and, furthermore, should be subject to punishment.
Third, there are disclosures that are not always beneficial but are tolerable. An example is the 2010 disclosure of U.S. diplomatic cables. This incident exposed the raw reality of U.S. diplomacy, as it instructed the thorough collection of personal information on individuals contacted and even disclosed documents containing nicknames used among themselves, pinpointing the weaknesses of diplomats from various countries. However, such disclosures do not lead to better government or diplomacy. This is because the intelligence activities of diplomats in host countries, already established as a kind of customary international law, will not change. Moreover, analyzing the personalities of diplomats from other countries is a routine task for a foreign ministry, aimed at facilitating smoother negotiations from the perspective of the relevant nation. Therefore, publishing perfectly legitimate diplomatic documents that contain practices common in other countries—practices that are not even improper corruption—and calling it hypocrisy is akin to applying moral standards meant for personal relationships to the intelligence warfare between nations. Rather, WikiLeaks’ indiscriminate disclosures have caused governments worldwide to become more hesitant about information disclosure, leading to the unintended consequence of undermining the transparency that had previously been guaranteed. The first reaction from the U.S. Congress after the cables were released was not condemnation of WikiLeaks, but rather criticism of the intelligence agencies for granting excessive access to classified documents to too many employees. It is known that many of the leaked materials contained information accessible without classified clearance. It is as clear as day that management of such sensitive documents will become stricter going forward. In the long term, this could be seen as significantly reversing the trend of voluntary information disclosure by governments worldwide, especially the United States.
Therefore, WikiLeaks, operating under the anarchic philosophy that “all information must be disclosed,” cannot be considered perfect. The very black-and-white logic that all information must either “be disclosed” or “be hidden” is fundamentally flawed. The decision to disclose information must be made cautiously based on the situation and context, with careful consideration of the impact the disclosed information will have on society. Therefore, WikiLeaks requires journalism capable of drawing clear lines regarding the information to be exposed. For this, WikiLeaks’ staff alone is insufficient; additional personnel capable of providing professional insight will be necessary.
