Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

The right kind of open

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 11:58am - 36 Comments

Taylor Owen considers how Wikileaks fits into the open data discussion.

By highlighting a core tension in the open data discussion, however, Wikileaks puts much of this progress in jeopardy. While few would argue that leaked data is open data, or that all data should be open, the case of Wikileaks reminds us that data exists on a continuum from highly classified to open. In certain policy areas, we need to think carefully about who we want making the final decision over secrecy—the governments that we elect, or individuals over whom we have no control. No issue better exemplifies this dilemma than national security data.

Bookmark and Share
  • tobyornotoby

    On the other hand maybe what puts the open data movement in jeopardy is the reflexive tendency to hide everything until forced to do otherwise.

    • PolJunkie

      True but there is a middle ground in this discussion. Surely diplomatic cables ought not be published in this manner. WL has gone as far as publishing cables where the Chinese express reservations about North Korea. There are severe implications here.

      • Amateur Hour

        Especially as the diplomats and other very serious people have done such a bang-up job on the file since 1953.

        • PolJunkie

          Ah well… by all means… Let's put it all in the open because that is the surest way to keep North Korea from going nuclear.

          • Amateur Hour

            Too late. Also, do you think the Wikileaks action is more deleterious to the security situation than, say, North Korea repeatedly firing ballistic missiles over Japanese territory? On the hierarchy of "things that can make this all go wobbly", the leaks are WAY down the list.

          • PolJunkie

            One has nothing to do with the other. WL's actions here are irresponsible. It certainly doesn't help to have North Korea's govt, already known for its schizo-like behavior, think it has been humiliated by having China's words ("acting like a spoiled child" is what they said about NK) to the Americans make front page news around the world.

            They may have known that China felt this way but to have it made front page news is a whole other affair.

            Who benefits from this? The broader public? I think not.

          • Amateur Hour

            We were much better off when it was left to the New York Times to speculate about China's attitudes vis a vis NK?

            Do you really think anything contained in these cables comes a surprise to the parties concerned?

          • PolJunkie

            Amateur, you don't get it.

            If you were NKorea, which would you prefer? Reproaches behind closed doors or being called a "spoiled child" on national papers around the world by your one solid ally?

            Other countries would take this in stride but we are talking about one of the most belligerent, triger-happy govt in the world which happens to have an nuclear arsenal.

            I ask you again. Who benefits from what WL has done here?

          • Mike T.

            They are indeed an incredibly unpredictable nation which means their responses….can't be predicted. they certainly don't trump the public interest in knowing.

          • PolJunkie

            "they certainly don't trump the public interest in knowing."

            Actually, I would argue that it is in the public's best interest that NKorea not be unnecessarily taunted and humiliated on the cover of newspapers everywhere. We all know that they are assholes. I just don't see the benefit in slapping them in the face with it when they hold a finger on the red button.

          • MostlyCivil

            Actually, I think hearing that some officials in China have chatted about a united Korea might well make The Peoples Democratic Republic of Crazygonuts step back and consider who actually has their back.

            "Psst, dad, remember those billion guys over there, our good buddies? They seem to be…unhappy…"

          • PolJunkie

            MostlyCivil, if you actually believe this, you then clearly have not followed what is taking place in that country. If anything, they've just been backed against the wall. In the case of NKorea, retreat and humility isn't in their vocabulary. If they are not given an opportunity to save face, this is a govt that would not hesitate to pull the trigger.

          • Mike T.

            I find you overconfident in your ability to accurately predict foreign response.

          • MostlyCivil

            Like I said. Finding out China is waffling a bit might cause the current power structure (and if poljunkie knows exactly who is in power at the moment, he knows more than everyone else) to back down, or not. Also, discovering the last bottle of Remy Martin has cracked might also trigger a military pogrom of soy farmers in People's District 7c.

            I guess the difference between us is out level of confidence.

          • PolJunkie

            And I find you quite naive in not considering the diplomatic fallout of this. No one but us cares what James Judd mumbles under his breath but this is North Korea that we are talking about.

  • Phil_King

    "…In certain policy areas, we need to think carefully about who we want making the final decision over secrecy—the governments that we elect, or individuals over whom we have no control…"

    Shouldn't that be "governments with ultimate control that can't be checked by democracy versus individuals who have no such power other than to reveal what said government is doing?"

    I mean honestly, who should we be more concerned about, a lone wolf or an omnipresent institution with a monopoly on violence?

  • Trass D

    Seems like a false dichotomy there – Citizens don't feel that those they elect have real control over much data.

  • Emily

    Ah geez, the weapon of secrecy has been taken away from them, poor babies.

    'Information bombs' will be a commonplace in the 21st century, so govts are going to be forced into being more open.

    And come January Wikileaks starts on the corporations and banks.

    Then you'll hear real screaming!

    • hollinm

      The opposite could also happen where diplomats et al decide nothing should be put in writing particularly on sensitive issues. If that happens then there is no official record of how and why something was done. That may not help us at all in following the historical record at some point down the road.

      • Emily

        I'm more concerned with eliminating the stupidity here and now….and then there won't be need of a 'historical record' on how a war started, later on.

        • hollinm

          This is more than just about the war Emily. It goes to all kinds of diplomatic efforts. I wish everything could be as black and white as you make it out to be. It must the twilight zone that you seem to live in these days.

          • Emily

            Of course it's not just about the war…it's the whole enchilada of power and dominance around the world….or as the Guardian said today 'you ain't seen nothing yet'.

            There is no black and white, but it's time people stopped believing in fairy tales and grew up.

    • dan,UBC

      forced to be 'more open'?

      I was/am in general agreement with WikiLeaks aims, but divulging vital security points wholesale only provokes a panicked officialdom and a global lock-down. Not to mention 100's of billions of dollars that could be spent on useful good: health, education, etc. will be paid out for black helicopters (this time for REAL), undercover creeps following all of us around, cameras everywhere, ALL communications (get in line Blackberry) monitored everywhere.

      Get back to dumping constructive leaks, Julian.

  • evenflow

    The truth shall set you free.

    I can think of no circumstance where hiding the truth is a good thing. None.

    • Mike T.

      I can. esp. where it's only hiding certain details of the truth. but the government tends to hold more secret than they really should.

    • hosertohoosier

      If you honestly believe that, then post your credit card number and PIN.

    • dan,UBC

      I've just given the most current circumstance to Emily, which I'll repeat below:

      I was/am in general agreement with WikiLeaks aims, but divulging vital security points wholesale only provokes a panicked officialdom and a global lock-down. Not to mention 100's of billions of dollars that could be spent on useful good: health, education, etc. will be paid out for black helicopters (this time for REAL), undercover creeps following all of us around, cameras everywhere, ALL communications (get in line Blackberry) monitored everywhere.

  • MostlyCivil

    "No issue better exemplifies this dilemma than national security data."

    Which is already the default description for every scrap of paper ain Ottawa…or have we forgotten about the Afghan papers already?

    • PolJunkie

      That would amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'm all for transparency. That said, I also understand that successful diplomacy calls for people to be able to speak frankly to each other without having to fear that their words will be repeated on the front pages of the NYTimes.

      As of now, if I'm a diplomat speaking on behalf of a govt in a "hot zone," I will refrain from speaking to Americans on paper, email, bberry, etc. Everyone knows that phone conversations in those parts of the world are monitored.

      So what's left? Radio silence is what is left.

      • Fred Moro

        As a former US ambassador puts it “The consequence will be even less written reporting and communication—a disaster if you ever want to reconstruct what happened. It is already bad and now will be even worse. Everyone (or those in the know) will be passing info verbally. Ever play that whisper game as a kid?” He means the one where you pass a message from mouth to ear and discover it’s utterly distorted at the end of the chain. “Yep!" he wrote, that’s what internal communications are going to be like."

        Yeah, that's going to work great.
        http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/28/transparency-i…

        • MostlyCivil

          Newsweek. Goodness, how sad that publication has become. Sorry, I can't get to the article because of the ad videos and pop ups…

          • Fred Moro

            Links work at my end, here's the news bit the was linking to the article, it might work from there. http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/wik…

            Edit: Tried to put the article from Tunku Varadarajan on the the Daily Beast where I found the first link but intense debate just deleted the post immediately.

      • Emily

        Radio silence??

        How about encryption?

  • hosertohoosier

    So can anybody tell me whether the correlation between increased openness/more information and effective government has been broadly positive or negative since the 1970s?

    I posit that we were better served by governments in an era when information was less freely available. Technocrats, largely insulated from public opinion, could enact good policies. Voters could vote based on the effects of those policies ("do you feel better off than you did four years ago") rather than basing decisions on their sense of the policy itself (which is generally less informed by technocrats). Politicians could sleep around and even be somewhat crooked without having their personal lives impacting their public lives. Citizens, with a high confidence in government, often decreased the costs of government by being more naturally cooperative. Legislators could forge social relationships with people across the aisle, without facing primary challenges (more true in the US). Finally, absent good information on public opinion at the level of very small groups, politicians targeted policy to the broader public, rather than targeting many small groups at the expense of the vast majority (eg. the phenomena of micro-targeting).

    We need a time machine.

    • kcm

      Disagree – in principle anyway. You're completely overlooking the cozy relations many pols and business tycoons had before the sixties, half the time they were one and the same. Yes, people may have had more faith in their govt, but the reality was they didn't know any better. It's a sweet rosy dream that many conservatives had that, in Canada for instance, the country was justly governed by benevolent politicians pre-charter. The truth is ignorance abonded and politicians as often as not happily played demogogue, indulging all manner of ignorance and prejudice.
      In any case it was politicians who lost the faith of the people and not the other way around. Unfortunately the pendulum swung too far toward gotcha journalism after watergate, with a predictable turn toward professional spinmeisters being the politicians response. It's probably all very regretable, but there it is, the olden days were not always the golden days.
      I'm not arguing life wasn't less complicated and even happier then. Bill Bryson's The life and times of the Thunderbolt kid, is a very good and funny read in this regard – almost made me want to be a white kid growing up in 1950s middle America.

  • dan,UBC

    I generally supported the transparency value of WikiLeaks, but yesterday's divulging of wholesale lists of vital targets?

    This threatens many nations' security; eg. Russia's oil and gas infrastructure, and what Assange is going to accomplish for it is an Orwellian global lockdown by panicked officialdom everywhere, without any commensurate increase in freedom.

    The fact that these targets are/were not difficult to identify anyway does not stand in the face of this in-your-face challenge, and will turn many otherwise supporting officials, such as powerful maverick senator Ron Paul against WikiLeaks.

    I can only submit that:

    1. Assange really has a hidden anarchist agenda, or

    2. Active harrassment and passive surveillance have finally taken their toll on his reason, or

    3. He feels he's running out of time and is rushing out stories seriatim, and hasn't time to filter the appropriate from otherwise.

    In any event, I fear for the outcome: official global panic does not bring a salutary chaos, but a dystopic prison.

From Macleans