The Problems Posed by America’s Documents Leak
Published in Nikkei
(Japan) on 2 December 2010
by (link to original)
(Japan) on 2 December 2010
by (link to original)
Translated from
by Craig Vanaman.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
The whistle-blowing website, WikiLeaks, has begun its disclosure of some 250,000 American diplomatic papers. Contained within are secret diplomatic cables and documents criticizing the heads of state of many different countries. These documents have caused a global shock.
American investigating authorities are considering whether or not the U.S. Army private who was arrested after the released images of American soldiers shooting civilians in Iraq is also involved this time. They are also investigating the use of anti-spy laws with regards to WikiLeaks’ Australian founder and operator, Julian Assange.
This problem must be considered from many different viewpoints, the first of which is to ask the question, “What kind of information deserves to be considered classified?”
Without doubt, if information regarding diplomacy and defense were to be made available, then it would threaten the safety of a country and its people. At the same time, governments are obviously naturally inclined to hide any information that they consider to be inconvenient. It is a fact that whistle-blowing has become a powerful means to blow a hole in the information concealed by governments.
This is not limited to just America. It is logical for people to demand that information be made as public as possible, regardless of which government it is. Even the uncooperative attitude of the Japanese government, when it comes to making diplomatic papers available to the public, must change.
Information regarding things such as the safety of nuclear facilities can be considered genuinely sensitive, as its disclosure could facilitate terrorism. The strengthening of control over such information is the second point to consider.
Moving on since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, America has advanced its mechanisms for information-sharing between governmental departments. On the flip side, however, such consolidation made it easy for one military private to get his hands on diplomatic telegrams that shouldn’t have been available to him — a large failure on the part of their management.
Moreover, the third point is the undeniable responsibility of WikiLeaks.
Mr. Assange has explained that he verifies the validity of the contents of the obtained documents using help from journalists. Recently, Mr. Assange has been offering his information to American and British major newspapers and media outlets, while at the same time announcing the presence of the information being offered. He claims that he is carefully checking whether the information being published is genuine, whether it is appropriate for publication, etc.
In the age of the Internet, to have this kind of media exchange is fine. However, their action in and of itself is, in actuality, going unchecked, and the lack of any plans to form such a checking mechanism is cause for concern.
The present mass media, Internet media, etc. must bear the responsibility for the information they sell after its publication. It is necessary to consider the effect of the publication of such information and the strengthening of controls that may occur as a result. I wonder if WikiLeaks has made such a consideration about its own publications.
The leaking of a country’s domestic information to the Internet is surely next. It is now impossible not to fear that the Internet will become a tool whereby it will be possible to leak confidential information that could endanger a country and its people.
American investigating authorities are considering whether or not the U.S. Army private who was arrested after the released images of American soldiers shooting civilians in Iraq is also involved this time. They are also investigating the use of anti-spy laws with regards to WikiLeaks’ Australian founder and operator, Julian Assange.
This problem must be considered from many different viewpoints, the first of which is to ask the question, “What kind of information deserves to be considered classified?”
Without doubt, if information regarding diplomacy and defense were to be made available, then it would threaten the safety of a country and its people. At the same time, governments are obviously naturally inclined to hide any information that they consider to be inconvenient. It is a fact that whistle-blowing has become a powerful means to blow a hole in the information concealed by governments.
This is not limited to just America. It is logical for people to demand that information be made as public as possible, regardless of which government it is. Even the uncooperative attitude of the Japanese government, when it comes to making diplomatic papers available to the public, must change.
Information regarding things such as the safety of nuclear facilities can be considered genuinely sensitive, as its disclosure could facilitate terrorism. The strengthening of control over such information is the second point to consider.
Moving on since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, America has advanced its mechanisms for information-sharing between governmental departments. On the flip side, however, such consolidation made it easy for one military private to get his hands on diplomatic telegrams that shouldn’t have been available to him — a large failure on the part of their management.
Moreover, the third point is the undeniable responsibility of WikiLeaks.
Mr. Assange has explained that he verifies the validity of the contents of the obtained documents using help from journalists. Recently, Mr. Assange has been offering his information to American and British major newspapers and media outlets, while at the same time announcing the presence of the information being offered. He claims that he is carefully checking whether the information being published is genuine, whether it is appropriate for publication, etc.
In the age of the Internet, to have this kind of media exchange is fine. However, their action in and of itself is, in actuality, going unchecked, and the lack of any plans to form such a checking mechanism is cause for concern.
The present mass media, Internet media, etc. must bear the responsibility for the information they sell after its publication. It is necessary to consider the effect of the publication of such information and the strengthening of controls that may occur as a result. I wonder if WikiLeaks has made such a consideration about its own publications.
The leaking of a country’s domestic information to the Internet is surely next. It is now impossible not to fear that the Internet will become a tool whereby it will be possible to leak confidential information that could endanger a country and its people.