In this blog post, we examine whether WikiLeaks’ indiscriminate disclosure of information is a righteous act that enhances societal transparency or a dangerous one.
Cryptography has evolved in complex and diverse forms from ancient times to the modern era. This technology has played an essential role in safeguarding secrets and protecting critical information from external threats. In particular, cryptography has been used as a vital means of protecting lives and property in contexts such as war, diplomacy, and commercial activities. However, alongside the advancement of cryptography, the movement for information disclosure—which opposes it—has also grown. If cryptography exists to conceal, then there is WikiLeaks to reveal what is hidden. In this blog post, I will discuss WikiLeaks—which performs the exact opposite of what cryptography does—and attempt to answer the question of whether information should ultimately be concealed or disclosed.
Whistleblowing refers to the act of an organization’s member publicly exposing corruption within that organization. Since organizations invariably respond defensively and retaliatorily to a whistleblower’s revelations, the state enacts laws to protect whistleblowers—not to serve the interests of a particular subgroup, but to safeguard actions that contribute to the greater good of society as a whole. However, the situation changes when the target of the whistleblowing is the state itself. Protection laws do not apply to them; instead, they are prosecuted for treason under the Patriot Act. Consequently, individual whistleblowers acting against the state find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. There is an organization that has taken it upon itself to protect such individuals, and that is WikiLeaks. Shortly after its founding, WikiLeaks set a record by releasing a volume of classified documents greater than the total disclosed by other media outlets combined. WikiLeaks’ large-scale disclosures shocked the media and the public alike, sparking a full-scale debate on information disclosure and transparency. The released information had a profound impact on countries around the world. It caused a stir by revealing that the severe civilian casualties in the U.S.-Afghanistan War were being covered up through military operations, and by exposing the realities of war, such as the torture of prisoners. It also contributed to the outbreak of revolutions in the Arab world by laying bare the corruption of political leaders in Middle Eastern countries.
So, is WikiLeaks a champion of justice that exposes government corruption? I do not take the position of simply applauding WikiLeaks. This is because WikiLeaks only verifies the authenticity of the classified documents it receives without conducting any censorship, and publishes large volumes of raw text all at once on the internet—an approach that is highly inefficient. First, as anyone active on social media knows, too much information can actually lead to public apathy. Second, this method of disclosure can sometimes produce unintended consequences. I would like to examine the second reason in more detail.
If we classify the information disclosed by WikiLeaks into three categories, we can divide it into beneficial disclosures, harmful disclosures, and disclosures that, while not ideal, are tolerable. First, beneficial disclosures are those—as mentioned earlier—that expose human rights abuses, illegal activities, and corruption that would have remained hidden forever had it not been for WikiLeaks. The disclosure of such facts provides the driving force for social improvement.
On the other hand, there are also harmful disclosures. Among the documents released by WikiLeaks, many—such as those related to the early stages of the Afghan War or Zimbabwe—contained information that threatened the safety of informants hiding in enemy territories. Citing this, Reporters Without Borders criticized WikiLeaks for abandoning the press’s key function of protecting sources. Whistleblowers who endanger the lives of people falling into this category must be stopped and, furthermore, subject to punishment.
Third, there are disclosures that, while not always beneficial, are acceptable. An example is the 2010 leak of U.S. diplomatic cables. This incident laid bare the raw reality of U.S. diplomacy, as documents were released that revealed instructions to thoroughly collect personal information on contacts, pinpointed the vulnerabilities of diplomats from various countries, and even included the nicknames they used among themselves. However, such disclosures do not lead to better government or diplomacy. This is because the intelligence activities of diplomats stationed in host countries—which have already become a form of international customary law—are unlikely to change. Furthermore, character analyses of diplomats from various countries are a standard practice of foreign ministries—regarded as a given—aimed at facilitating even the slightest degree of smooth negotiation from the perspective of the respective nation. Therefore, labeling the release of legitimate diplomatic documents—which contain practices that are customary in other countries and do not constitute improper corruption—as “hypocrisy” is tantamount to applying moral standards, such as those governing personal relationships, to the intelligence war between nations. On the contrary, WikiLeaks’ indiscriminate disclosures have caused governments worldwide to become more hesitant about disclosing information, leading to a backlash that has actually undermined the transparency that had been guaranteed until now. The first reaction to emerge from the U.S. Congress following the release of the cables was not condemnation of WikiLeaks, but rather a rebuke of intelligence agencies for granting access to classified documents to an excessive number of employees. It is reported that the leaked materials include a significant amount of information accessible even without clearance to view classified documents. Given that stricter controls over such sensitive documents are as clear as day, it can be argued that, in the long run, WikiLeaks has actually set back the trend toward voluntary information disclosure by governments worldwide—particularly in the United States.
Therefore, WikiLeaks—which operates under the anarchic philosophy that “all information must be disclosed”—cannot be considered flawless. To begin with, the black-and-white logic that all information must either “be disclosed” or “be hidden” is fundamentally flawed. Whether to disclose information must be decided carefully based on the situation and context, and the impact of the disclosed information on society must be thoroughly considered. Therefore, WikiLeaks needs a form of journalism capable of drawing the line regarding what information should be revealed. To achieve this, WikiLeaks staff alone are insufficient; additional personnel capable of providing professional insight will be necessary.
