wikileaks case 7.2 (Page 147)
Summary
This case talks about a website called WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is a public web site that posts private articles and information belonging to different organizations. The site was founded by Julian Assange in 2007 and has sparked global outrage, interest, and controversy since. The site was initially thought of as a safe haven for whistle blowers to leak information about different corporations. Reports about government practices, private industry documents and military information has been posted on the site. A posting that has brought much attention to the site was in 2010 when over 75,000 classified reports about the war on Afghanistan were released, accompanied by a video containing graphic content of a helicopter attack that killed 12 people in Baghdad. The site was banned from USA temporarily due to this, and threats of an immediate termination of the page arose. The leaking of such stories has bestowed founder Julian Assange with fame as well as ridicule.
WikiLeaks illustrates that whistle blowing can lead to a series of problems and legal issues, destroy the privacy of the companies affected, and put individuals in danger. The documents being released can lead to more harm than good for all parties involved.
WikiLeaks illustrates that whistle blowing can lead to a series of problems and legal issues, destroy the privacy of the companies affected, and put individuals in danger. The documents being released can lead to more harm than good for all parties involved.
critics have argued that wikileaks is now attacking secrecy on all fronts, with no concern for the consequences of the information posted on its site. do those actions align with the ethical principles of whistle-blowing?
WikiLeaks is exposing all sorts of information on a wide spectrum of topics that can compromise the well-being and safety of companies as well as innocent people. The irresponsibility and disregard for safety expressed by WikiLeaks can be illustrated in the example of them exposing names of Afghani citizens who had helped American soldiers. The ethical principles of whistle-blowing suggest that the concern is raised and brought to attention to preserve the safety of the company or people effected by it. WikiLeaks is exposing information without any consideration for who it may affect and how. The site does not appear to have public interest in mind and only want to be the providers of controversial information. WikiLeaks proudly states that it owes no allegiance to any government or group.
does wikileaks have an obligation to censor postings to protect innocent individuals who may be harmed by making the information public? should the site take steps to verify the accuracy of the posted documents?
The publishers of information on WikiLeaks do have an obligation to protect innocent individuals. Disclosing dangerous information contradicts WikiLeaks image of being a safe place for whistle-blowers to reveal information. Endangering people goes against the intent of whistle-blowers to show the world corruption in government and corporations. The website should definitely verify the accuracy of information to as great an extent as possible. Validity must be relevant or the WikiLeaks publishers are just creating unnecessary conflict and problems.
would fulfilling the vision of a "wiki" community (with editors and fact-checkers) reduce the criticism directed at the site? why or why not?
This sort of page is one that should only contain valid, relevant, and helpful information. The issue with WikiLeaks is not something that can be fixed by editors, as it is not a matter of accuracy. Instead it is accepted that most information on the site is true, but may not be appropriate to be viewed online by the public. Criticism will not be reduced because editors and fact checkers just adds more people who can tamper with information that must be completely valid and error-free.
does the decision to withhold 15,000 documents in a "harm minimization process" indicate that wikileaks is developing some sense of the potential consequences of its actions? why or why not?
The fact that WikiLeaks has chosen not to release documents in an attempt at minimizing harm suggests that they are taking some consideration regarding how their information can negatively impact and compromise people’s well being. One must wonder why they have chosen to release some controversial documents with obvious associated dangers but withhold others. Any harm minimization efforts are honorable but WikiLeaks is failing to eliminate all harm that their publications bring about – contradicting the purpose of whistle-blowing.