When considering the issue of anti-corruption within
governments, the name Julian Assange instantly pops into mind. The founder of
the notorious ‘Wikileaks’ page, Assange is known around the world for his involvement
in the hacking of government information, and the dissemination of what was
once secret government information. Assange is the most well-known figure surrounding
WikiLeaks due to his position as editor-in-chief as well as the spokesman for
the organisation however several journalists, computer programmers, activists
and even volunteers were also involved in the establishment of the website. Since
its formation in 2006, several controversial leaks of information have been
spread around the globe, sourced from anonymous informants, government documents
and classified media. According to Assange wikiLeaks is “an un-censorable system for
untraceable mass document leaking and public analysis” (Columbia university, 2012),
where information that was once protected is made public.
It’s
always interesting to consider the two sides of the story. It could be said
that the idea of WikiLeaks and its aims enable us to be aware of issues in the
world. WikiLeaks provides a place for citizens to gain an understanding of a ‘real
story’ which is, in theory uncensored and enables us to see our basic human
rights exercised. The organization stands up for the idea of freedom of
expression and human’s desire for the truth. We are able to see the ways in
which our governments control information, and WikiLeaks has the potential for
citizens to be made more aware of issues such as censorship and corruption within
regimes.
On the
other hand, in saying that WikiLeaks will provide citizens with freedom and an
understanding of the truth, there comes problems, both political and ethical that
needs to be considered. Politically, WikiLeaks transparency means that governments
are vulnerable and a typical hierarchy within a nation becomes damaged. In turn,
this created a distrust of the government by the people which is potentially damaging
to a nation and its governments credibility. There also becomes a fine line
between governments protecting security whilst also providing citizens with
truthful and detailed information (Yale Global Online, 2013). There is also the
risk of information being wrongly reported, misunderstood or being read out of
context. Ethically, the information that is being reported by WikiLeaks is
classified as secret, and the reasons for the information not being readily available
is obviously a good one. The identities of government members and information
about individuals involvements are also released which is less than ethical.
Currently,
Julian Assange is living at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and has been for
over 9 months after being offered asylum in august of 2012. Assange is facing
rape and sexual assault charges in sweden, and he hopes to avoid being
extradited there. As well as this, Assange also fears being extradited from Sweden
to the United States in relation to his involvement in WikiLeaks. However,
despite his absence, WikiLeaks is still up and running, with the most recent
post being dated the 8th of april 2013. The future of the website is
ambiguous at this point in time and only time will tell the future of one of
the best examples of digital activism today.
Columbia University, 2012, Friend or Foe? Julian WikiLeaks and The Guardian, viewed 26th
of April 2013
https://casestudies.jrn.columbia.edu/casestudy/www/layout/standard.asp?case_id=70&id=627
https://casestudies.jrn.columbia.edu/casestudy/www/layout/standard.asp?case_id=70&id=627
