The significance of WikiLeaks was discussed Oct. 4 by a panel at the 7th International Conference of Information Commissioners.
WikiLeaks has not turned out to be a game-changer in terms of transparency for four main reasons, according to Alasdair Roberts, Rappaport Professor of Law and Public Policy, Suffolk University (US).
“A year ago we did think WikiLeaks was a big deal,” Roberts recounting, citing headlines about “The end of secrecy in the old fashioned sense” and “a global diplomatic crisis.”
But in retrospect, the disclosure of internal U.S. diplomatic communications “didn’t have a substantial impact” and “produced only the illusion of transparency,” he said.
The magnitude of the leaks was overestimated, when in fact the stockpile of government information is much larger, he said.
Underestimated was the task of making sense of the information, and WikLeaks realized it needed to rely on a consortium with mainstream media to make sense of the material.
Further underestimated was the public readiness to be outraged, he observed, pointing to poll data indicating that American opinion switched against WikiLeaks as more information was released.
The affected parties reacted against WikiLeaks, commercial interests serving any ties and the government instituting protections against repeat instances.
Jennifer Lynch, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, attributed the leaks to overclassification of government information and the failure of FOI laws to provide the public with real information about what’s going on in government.
Unnecessary classification is rampant in the United States, she said, involving trillions of documents. Contributing further is that 1.4 million persons have top level security clearances. “When you hear those numbers you realize that leaking is not so surprising,” she said, also mentioning backlogs in the handling of FOIA requests.
The effect of WikiLeaks has been “a real push for more secrecy in government,” according to Lynch. The Obama administration has brought five prosecutions about other disclosures under the Espionage Act, an unprecedented level, she said.
Technology facilitates leaks, because information can be transmitted without a trace and “mirror sites” can provide counter efforts to close host websites.
George MacLean, associate dean of graduate studies at the University of Manitoba, said WikiLeaks is “disrupting.” He also said, “We often are given the impression that the information being far more important than it really is.” Little follow-up has occurred in the media.
“WikiLeaks damages media” he said, saying journalists need to be more skeptical. The information lacks valuable without analysis, and that’s been missing he said. He said that the information has not been that surprising.
Scottish Information Commissioner Kevin Dunion noted during the question period that the status of normally off-limits diplomatic exchanges is called into question because the released documents have not been so harmful.
Laura Neuman, associate director of The Americas Program at the Carter Center, Atlanta, Ga., said There have been negative affects by these leaks” such as named activists being forced underground in China.
German Information Commissioner Peter Schaar said too much secrecy exists and recommended “new thinking” to make re information public.
Filed under: What's New