Free wiki

My views on the wiki leaks affair are  hardening I think. First of all, I think my initial comments of the diplomatic cables as being almost gossip were partially misplaced, since there do seem to be some very important issues touched upon, for example covert operations in Afghanistan, and cruise missile attacks involving civilians in Yemen. These in themselves I think qualify the leaks as true "whistle blowing" , and this I think justifies both wiki leaks itself and the various papers for carrying them.

Furthermore, once the worth of the information in general is shown, then this also counters the gossip charge: this is an important leak and hence all aspects of it are "fair game". This second point is I admit debatable, but I think there is difference to a situation where there was no public interest issues raised and it was just pure miscellaneous chatter.

However, what seems to becoming more important now is not the right or wrongness of the leak itself, but what the reactions to it mean for free speech in a connected world. As has been pointed out, a large part of our modern "discussion space" is in the virtual world, and relies on a supporting structure whose roles and practices haven't yet been properly scrutinized. Previously, we knew what was meant by "the media", and importantly, it did too. Of course not that it consisted solely of, or was even dominated by, venerable trustworthy institutions, but at least it was clear what it meant to be venerable and trustworthy, and whether they followed it or not, most networks and papers at least paid lip service to the ideals of a "good" press. Censorship, bias and inaccuracy were thus labels they at least claimed to care about, and in general tried to avoid.

However now the media world is more fragmented and decentralized, with blogs, websites and databases now being important new players. It was always apparent  that these small operations, being so numerous and easy to setup, inevitably diluted the media space with sources and opinions which posed problems for corroboration and responsibility, but this was a price with paying for the expansion in content and comment which came with it; however, now it is coming to light that the very structure which facilitates this expansion in freedom of expression also puts it at risk. This new media, precisely because it consists of small time operations whose only focus is providing news, relies on other entities, with different priorities, to deliver that news, and therein lies the problem. The new "free speech" is dependent on the likes of Amazon, who have no duty as such to protect it.  They grant the "small man" enormous support, but it comes with catch all agreement clauses which allow immediate revocation without reason or recourse.  In this case the driving pressure seems to be political, but the vulnerability applies to other situations as well. If a hosting company doesn't like what you're using its services to say, or you're causing it problems for some reason or other, then it can boot you with very little comeback.

In the past suppression came from governments, who had the means to enforce it. But in democracies at least they needed to have reasons as well. But now the power lies with the market at large, and the unpredictable and often irrational forces at play in it, and these might be harder to combat. And of course as this particular shows, government interference has not gone away, and can now also try to use these new elements to its advantage. Whither the wiki world? Hard to tell...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Wiki wars

(btw, these are my first few posts using the "swype" input method on my phone, and while really impressed by it, still takes some getting used to ; so if there some odd word choices, or obvious non-sequiters, them it's probably to blame!)

Definitely the major current affairs topic at the moment is wiki leaks. At first it was just the leaking of so many sensitive documents, but now the whole affair has widened significantly: Julian Assange is now in jail in the UK pending extradition to Sweden to face rape charges, companies like VISA, Amazon and Paypal are refusing to deal with his website, and, in response, a mysterious army of independent hackers are targeting them as punishment.

From being an almost traditional debate about press freedom (and how even "democratic" governments react when not in their interests) it has grown into a question about who really controls the web, if anyone. Can an angry government , specifically the US, suppress information by bullying the private companies that help hold the web together? And, as a consequence, what does it mean for how the web develops in the future? As I saw mentioned in an article recently, for the first time the general concept of ' cloud' computing, which seemed relentless in its progression, has been called into question. Could this restrict or at least pause its growth?

It's probably being a bit hyperbolic, but I wonder if this is in some small way, a kind of web 911? Of course in human impact no way comparable to the death of over 3000 people, but rather as a similar 'game-changer' news event witnessed by most of the world in real time.

It's almost like the first cyber war, and rather than being between superpowers, or involving rogue states, it's between one government (and ironically the one professing the most commitment to furthering freedom!) and a vague  collection of outraged 'netizens', with 'violent' militias (hackers) involved on both sides. The parallels with an uprising against a colonial power are I think striking: it's becoming like a guerrilla war waged online,  with the dominant authority using the apparatus of the society (the hosting websites and credit card companies) to try to regain control while an underground resistance uses sabotage to fight back (DDOS attacks). The weird , and slightly scary thing is though, while the authority's agenda is clear, the same cannot be said for the hackers both for and against it. Of course at the moment there is the initial rallying banner of ' web freedom', (and on the other presumably US patriotism) but that's too vague a notion I think to hold such a disparate group together for long, and in principle it's more a mob than a movement.

So while on the one hand it might be good that are forces to resist a domineering government, those forces are I think dangerously unpredictable. And it seems there are indeed similar forces on both sides. While I'm sure Amazon and co. were put under pressure by the US, there was the point made that some of the smaller sites, like the hosting company, felt they would be faced with an anti-wikileaks hacking onslaught which they couldn't withstand, and hence pushed it away to protect themselves. In this case I think the forces of the web seem less benign, (even though they might consider themselves to be just as principled).

Crazy times, and it might just be that "the revolution" won't just be "digitized", it will be digital...

Posted from phone via Blogaway (so excuse any typos!)

Leaky wiki boat

Whether they support what it's doing or not, I think most normal people must agree the wiki leak affair is pretty gob smacking, both in the sheer amount, and the detail, of data involved. It really is amazing to get such an unfettered insight into the workings of the diplomatic machine of a super power. But I think as well as simply being fascinating for anyone interested in current affairs, there also was an illicit thrill to it, like being party to juicy pieces of celebrity gossip, which were actually real, and about agents in the world who really mattered. And that I think is the problem with the latest batch of leaks-it was more telltale whispering than whistle blowing, and I really have reservations as a result.

While I think whistle blowing is something to be defended in principle, it is however always a breach of duty and trust, and hence not something to be undertaken lightly. All organizations are deserving of the loyalty of their members, but the point is that loyalty does not supersede the individuals other loyalties and duties to society at large. Thus whistle blowing is only justified when there is a conflict between these obligations, and the individual is trying to remedy that by exposing it.

Government is perhaps also a special case since it is supposed to represent its people, and so they have always have a principled stake, and hence some rights to know what it is doing on their behalf.

However even here some limits are needed, since there are also other external parties involved (other countries or even special interest groups within the country) that the government has to deal with, and hence some of the workings need to be hidden, both so that it can develop its policies and plans in private until they are mature, and so that its hand, and hence bargaining power, isn't revealed to all and sundry.

The problem is, I think the latest batch of leaks, the diplomatic cables, are by and large (with some exceptions) not whistle blowing proper, but instead just a revealing of these inner workings, and hence not really justified. Interesting as it is to know what ambassadors and officials are thinking, the fact that they think these thing is not really scandalous. It doesn't call their behavior into question, just provides some entertainment to us on the sidelines.

And of course, apart from the principle, there are the pragmatic considerations - these leaks not only make the diplomatic job harder - one side having revealed their hand on existing issues, and other sides now more way of talking candidly - but also the blunt revelations risk causing new problems by revealing to some countries and leaders what others really think or know, but would never say without more tact and caution. Furthermore, there is a definite risk of killing the golden goose, since inthe future such information will more carefully looked after, which means there will be less opportunity for true whistle blowing when it might really matter.

So, while I can't help reading it all, I think in this case things might have gone too far.

One other question is whether the papers, like the Guardian, who published the stories and who are closely involved with the wiki leaks site, acted wrongly. My first reaction is to say no, since they were just informing the world about what was already in the public domain. But is it logical to blame wiki leaks for publishing it and not those papers as well? Who is supposed to draw the line? Maybe the best approach is actually not to blame either, as long as they did not incite or reward the initial leaking, since they just then act as neutral channels of communication, which is what a free press should be. Perhaps then the only blame really resides with the original leaker, who broke his bonds of duty without justification. It seems slightly counter intuitive that the initial act can be wrong and the amplification of the results is not, but I think this is the only coherent way of viewing it. It is not the consequences if the act which were wrong, so magnifying those consequences is not to be blamed. Rather the initial act of betrayal was wrong in isolation.

Nu-unclear

I remember seeing once a Horizon documentary (also on youtube) which raised the topic of how dangerous radiation (and by extension) nuclear power) really and how the risks might well be much less than is commonly assumed. Given the whole climate change debate and the potential role nuclear power might play, for me the significance of this was huge, so it surprised me that I never saw the same facts or issues discussed anywhere else. The basic premise seemed so solid - that the model of how dangerous radiation really is at low levels is an unverified extrapolation - that I was astonished this wasn't something being actively commented upon and hopefully studied. Surely this was something that should be clarified once and for all, given that the one real downside of nuclear power, is the dangers of either an accident or the semi-eternal problem of the waste. My own personal views were wholly based on the assumption that it was a major health risk, and since most countries and even some countrysides rarely remain stable for even hundreds of years, the chances of finding a safe place for a half life of thousands are virtually nil.

At last however I have seen an article about this topic (in Scientific American, ), and the author seems just as bowled over as I was. Which at least confirms both that it is information that makes an impression, and it really must not be on the general radar since I'm not the only one to not hear much about it, and wonder why.

some of the points (and here I quote) which the Sciam article list are :

—There is no clear-cut evidence of adverse health effects from radiation at levels below 100,000 millirem a year. The health effects of radiation have been calculated from people who received extremely high doses, including survivors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Chernobyl accident, and "radium girls" who painted radium on watches and other instruments in the early 20th century. The cancer epidemiologist Charles Key told Cravens that "compared to tobacco, gasoline, drunk drivers or being a couch potato, radiation is of very little risk to most of the public."

—Claims about adverse effects from low levels of radiation are often based on a so-called linear non-threshold model. The model assumes, for example, that if an exposure of n millirem kills 50 percent of a population, then 0.1 n will kill 5 percent, 0.01 will kill 0.5 percent and so on. There is no evidence for this model. Background radiation from natural sources varies around the world from an annual dosage of less than 100 to over 10,000 millirem. (Residents of Ramsar, Iran, receive up to 26,000 millirem a year!) Studies have not found increased cancer or other illnesses in areas with naturally high radiation.

—Fifty plant and emergency workers died of acute radiation exposure in the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the U.S.S.R., the worst nuclear accident in history. The explosion contaminated more than 200,000 square kilometers with radioactive fallout, but radiation in parts of this zone is now lower than in Finland and other regions of the world with naturally high radiation. The International Agency for Research on Cancer estimates that radiation releases from Chernobyl caused a slight increase in thyroid cancer but adds that "smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the same population." So far, there have been no excess deaths among the 200,000 "liquidators" who helped clean up the mess from Chernobyl compared with controls.

—The worst nuclear accident in U.S. history was the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, which led to venting of radioactive gas. The highest dose received by plant workers was 4,000 millirem, 1,000 less than the annual dose permitted for U.S. nuclear workers. The highest dose for people living near the plant was 100 millirem. There is no credible evidence of increased cancer or birth defects among plant workers or residents near Three Mile Island.

—According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, so-called depleted uranium, which consists primarily of the isotope U 238 and not the more fissionable U 235, "has never caused a case of cancer in animals or humans." The dense metal is used to make tank armor, armor-piercing projectiles, shielding for x-ray machines, boat keels and other applications.

Surely even just the fact that radiation in Finland is higher than in the Chernobyl fallout zone raises major questions about the safety levels?

Of course statements like 'no clear cut evidence' (rarely is any evidence 100%) and the irrelevance of bringing mentioning how more harmful smoking is (that doesn't mean radiation isn't still harmful) have to be treated carefully. But some solid questions are still raised, and in my view ones that need urgent answer.

I wouldn't mind, but nuclear is big business, with probably much more lobbying power and cash on it's side than against, which makes the lack of further study into an area which seems to be in its favour even more puzzling. Hmm,...then again, maybe there has been, and the evidence wasn't good, and said lobby is just sitting on it. Alwayos a possibility, but not a likely one given the size of the studies which would need to be involved.

Actually maybe I should just start combing the net myself for some info...stay tuned!

Copies of referenced Articles are (a) nuclear fall in and (b) Nuclear Nightmares