Secrets in the Internet Era
Published in Expresso
(Portugal) on 15 December 2010
by (link to original)
The WikiLeaks case has reached unexpected proportions this week. Julian Assange’s revelations are very partial, but the attack he suffered in response is unacceptable.
It’s a bit strange to see Vladimir Putin or Lula da Silva defending Assange, who is being held in London — away from any computer — until he is heard by a judge next Tuesday. But neither the Russian prime minister nor the Brazilian president* wanted to miss the opportunity that the U.S. handed to them on a platter after the enormous contradictions in which the States have entangled themselves during the counterattack launched against WikiLeaks and Assange.
Putting pressure on Amazon, Visa, Mastercard or PayPal and making them cut ties with WikiLeaks is serious because it was done on no apparent legal basis. All these companies found rush justifications to do it. But PayPal, who manages one of the most popular and secure payment systems on the net, assumed that they stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks only because of the American political pressure. If this offensive against technological companies has brought the U.S. closer to typical Chinese government practices (of which the Google case is the most famous), then the judicial trial against Assange weakens the democratic states that we always used to trust.
The Swedish justice system, where Assange is accused of sexual crimes, and the British one, where the suspect is held, cannot act conditioned by the diplomatic crisis caused by the divulging of U.S. diplomatic secrets. Laws were made with which to be complied — by citizens, by justice systems and by the states themselves. Governments will have to learn to manage their secrets in another way. But they can’t fall into the trap of running over the laws, creating public enemies and fighting them in illegal ways. The Internet is undiscovered territory. But states cannot forget its rules.
An Important Veto
Asking the president to veto a law is not a tradition of the Expresso newspaper. But in the case of the new law of party financing, this newspaper is not hesitating to do so. This law is contrary to transparency, has ambiguous writing and various traps. And it makes it even more difficult to control the money that circulates in the parties. When parties legislate in their own interest, they cannot hide it and insist on being vague. They should work on the legislation again.
With No Fear, but with Caution
Employment law is many times pointed to as the origin of all that is bad in the Portuguese economy. This idea is wrong, as it is wrong to think that any alteration to it will transform Portugal into a competitive country. This legislation has anachronistic articles, which can and should be changed. It also perpetuates huge inequalities between the people employed with permanent contracts and the rest. It is important that the law is changed without fear. But the current situation calls for much cautiousness.
*Translator’s Note: At the time the article was written, Lula da Silva was still president of Brazil.
It’s a bit strange to see Vladimir Putin or Lula da Silva defending Assange, who is being held in London — away from any computer — until he is heard by a judge next Tuesday. But neither the Russian prime minister nor the Brazilian president* wanted to miss the opportunity that the U.S. handed to them on a platter after the enormous contradictions in which the States have entangled themselves during the counterattack launched against WikiLeaks and Assange.
Putting pressure on Amazon, Visa, Mastercard or PayPal and making them cut ties with WikiLeaks is serious because it was done on no apparent legal basis. All these companies found rush justifications to do it. But PayPal, who manages one of the most popular and secure payment systems on the net, assumed that they stopped processing donations to WikiLeaks only because of the American political pressure. If this offensive against technological companies has brought the U.S. closer to typical Chinese government practices (of which the Google case is the most famous), then the judicial trial against Assange weakens the democratic states that we always used to trust.
The Swedish justice system, where Assange is accused of sexual crimes, and the British one, where the suspect is held, cannot act conditioned by the diplomatic crisis caused by the divulging of U.S. diplomatic secrets. Laws were made with which to be complied — by citizens, by justice systems and by the states themselves. Governments will have to learn to manage their secrets in another way. But they can’t fall into the trap of running over the laws, creating public enemies and fighting them in illegal ways. The Internet is undiscovered territory. But states cannot forget its rules.
An Important Veto
Asking the president to veto a law is not a tradition of the Expresso newspaper. But in the case of the new law of party financing, this newspaper is not hesitating to do so. This law is contrary to transparency, has ambiguous writing and various traps. And it makes it even more difficult to control the money that circulates in the parties. When parties legislate in their own interest, they cannot hide it and insist on being vague. They should work on the legislation again.
With No Fear, but with Caution
Employment law is many times pointed to as the origin of all that is bad in the Portuguese economy. This idea is wrong, as it is wrong to think that any alteration to it will transform Portugal into a competitive country. This legislation has anachronistic articles, which can and should be changed. It also perpetuates huge inequalities between the people employed with permanent contracts and the rest. It is important that the law is changed without fear. But the current situation calls for much cautiousness.
*Translator’s Note: At the time the article was written, Lula da Silva was still president of Brazil.