On 7 Dec 2010, at 14:26, Seb Bacon wrote: > I'm not sure it holds water myself, but then I'm not a revolutionary. > Plus, although it's very eloquent, the metaphors lose me. The > authoritarian system is an undirected graph in that it includes actors > and relationships, it's the internet in that it routes around > problems, it's a cognitive network in that you can impair the > functioning of the entire system by... err... making your neurons > mistrust each other...?
This (referenced in the post you linked to) is in fact a better starting place: http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf I've been torn on this. I've held security clearances and handled classified material. I recall one of the reasons material can be classified as "SECRET" is that somebody *might* die if revealed ("TOP SECRET" ups this definition to somebody *will* die). It's not the only reason something can be classified at that level (others include national embarassment, strained diplomatic relationships, etc.), but it's one of them. As I read the leaks, I can't help but think right now various "diplomats" in Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Palestine are thinking how much they want to kick the crap out of each other. I suspect North Korea is about to go mental. I'm pretty sure somebody will end up dead indirectly as a result of all this. 50/1 it's more than a thousand people. But I can't disagree with the premise its release is based on - that if the King of Saudi Arabia has a problem with Iran, rather than protecting his power base in the Middle East by bullshitting about it, he should just simply say so. If China has a problem with North Korea acting brattish, stop bigging them up to their face and behind their backs tell the Americans how much you're really fed up with them: nobody wins that way. Assange's stance is that more open and just societies are built on fewer secrets held by those who govern those societies. He believes that by helping people leak information, those who govern are weakened into a position of HAVING to be more open and transparent. It is frankly, an extreme and revolutionary outlook. If a society goes through such a transition, the resistance from existing power bases will be extreme. That transition might look like - and perhaps be - a civil war. Thing is: he's actually doing it. He's not just saying "wouldn't this be nice", he's actually got a few gigabytes of classified material and is drip-feeding it out. That guy has got some balls. Already his character is being smeared and the leaks are being described as "diplomatic tittle-tattle" when in fact he's just breaking hundreds of years of diplomatic process to pieces, day by day. If this keeps on going for another few months, something will break. He's hoping it's an industrial-military complex or three. I suspect it might not get that far (unless he has something else up his sleeve). But the smears will continue. There is a book out next year from a former Wikileaks staffer that is being touted as an exposé on what a horrible man Assange really is, how much of an egomaniac he is, and how flawed Wikileaks is as a model in terms of its internal structure. I don't think I care about that. I think I'm liking the fact that people are getting a taste of what the World might feel like with more transparency. With my "open data" hat on, I'm definitely all for that, and I'm not really concerned about the individual actors at this point. It's going to be interesting to watch, anyway... _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
