Has WikiLeaks or web censorship gone too far?

This past weekend, WikiLeaks, the organization that publishes whatever government documents it can get its hands on, leaked thousands of pages of private cable correspondence between U.S. embassies and Washington causing, as you can imagine, considerable embarrassment for the United States. Meanwhile, web censorship was making news and it raises the issues about just how much control governments should have over web content.

Deja vu all over again

As a trained journalist, I've been taught that the people have a right to know. Many may recall that the Pentagon Papers in 1970 caused a firestorm and blew the lid off U.S. policy in Vietnam. As a journalism student in the late '70s, I saw this as a great moment in the history of U.S. journalism. I still do, but somehow, the WikiLeaks information feels different to me.

According to a New York Times article (reg. req.) published on Sunday about the leaks, these cables include names of individuals who could be endangered if their names were released. These are people who have helped the government in some cases, and as such, there has been an effort to protect them. While I'm not completely comfortable with secrecy because I know how badly it can be abused, neither am I comfortable with the idea of exposing people who thought their identities would be protected.

It's worth noting that in an editorial on Sunday, the NYT Editors reported that they took care to exclude source names and other sensitive material, but it's not clear that WikiLeaks itself or other publications will be as careful.

Web censorship heats up

Meanwhile, on Monday, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols blogged on ZDNet about the growth of web censorship around the world. Countries with strong foundations in free speech rights--including the United States, United Kingdom and Sweden--have been making news by shutting down websites. As Vaughan-Nichols points out, this isn't a big deal when it involves people selling counterfeit sports memorabilia--like him, I have little sympathy for con artists and thieves--but the problem is where you the draw the line and who gets to decide when a site should be shut down. It's a bit stickier question when shadowy government agencies are given free reign to shut down sites as they please with little or no oversight by the people.

How do we reconcile this?

In a world of extremes, we have the Obama administration pledging a more transparent government and we have terrorists who want to kill people indiscriminately. We have people around the world trying to protect us from that, but we also sometimes have corrupt and inscrutable individuals purporting to act on behalf of the government.

In a world where almost every document probably exists in a digital form somewhere, they are more than likely a clever hacker away from being exposed. It's a hard world in which to keep secrets, but it begs the question: Is nothing sacred?

We do live in a very dangerous world. We also still live in world where as Dalberg-Acton once wrote "...power corrupts absolutely..." and it is the job of journalists and other government watchdogs to check that power.

We are left with governments overextending their power and watchdogs overextending theirs, with no easy answers and no clear lines. We only know that when data is put in a database--whether that's labeled a content management system or not--there are no guarantees that that data will always be secure.

It's a conundrum that corporations, governments and citizens must ponder moving forward. How can we find the common sense point where nobody goes too far and on which side do we err? Security or freedom? There are no easy answers. - Ron