Too Much Information

Those of us who see significantly more potential for harm than good in WikiLeaks' ongoing disclosures are probably trying to resist an inexorable tide. We will all have to get used to more exposure and make the best of it, but that shouldn’t stop efforts to draw lines where they really matter.

CANBERRAAs a British court weighs whether Julian Assange should be extradited to Sweden, and American prosecutors weigh the criminal charges they will file against Private Bradley Manning, the alleged major source for the disclosures by Assange’s WikiLeaks, global debate continues on whether such revelations do more good than harm. But, too often, that debate is polarized as national security vs. democratic accountability, with no room given to the distinctions that really matter.

In government, any leak is, by definition, embarrassing to someone, somewhere in the system. Most leaks are likely to involve some breach of law by the original source, if not by the publisher. But that doesn’t mean that all leaks should be condemned.

One of the hardest lessons for senior government officials to learn –­ including for me, when I was Australian Attorney General and Foreign Minister – is the futility, in all but a tiny minority of cases, of trying to prosecute and punish those responsible for leaks. It doesn’t undo the original damage, and usually compounds it with further publicity. The media are never more enthusiastic about free speech than when they see it reddening the faces, with rage or humiliation, of those in power. Prosecution usually boosts leakers’ stature, making it useless as a deterrent.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

required

Log in

http://prosyn.org/Hb6MfXQ;