Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Building the Hybrid Cloud
- Connected Government: How to Build and Procure Network Services for the Future
- Continuing Diagnostics and Mitigation: Discussion of Progress and Next Steps
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- The Future of Government Data Centers
- The Future of IT: How CIOs Can Enable the Service-Oriented Enterprise
- The Intersection: Where Technology Meets Transformation
- Maximizing ROI Through Data Center Consolidation
- Moving to the Cloud. What's the best approach for me
- Navigating Tough Choices in Government Cloud Computing
- The New Generation of Database
- Satellite Communications: Acquiring SATCOM in Tight Times
- Targeting Advanced Threats: Proven Methods from Detection through Remediation
- Transformative Technology: Desktop Virtualization in Government
- The Truth About IT Opex and Software Defined Networking
- Value of Health IT
- Air Traffic Management Transformation Report
- Cloud First Report
- General Dynamics IT Enterprise Center
- Gov Cloud Minute
- Government in Technology Series
- Homeland Security Cybersecurity Market Report
- National Cybersecurity Awareness Month
- Technology Insights
- The Cyber Security Report
- The Next Generation Cyber Security Experts
Shows & Panels
WikiLeaks aftermath: What is unpublishable?
Tuesday - 1/4/2011, 1:46pm EST
This is a distinction that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, does not seem to recognize, Abrams argues.
Abrams is the lawyer who represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. He writes that WikiLeaks cannot be compared to the Pentagon Papers.
In 1971, Ellsberg handed over 43 volumes of the papers to the Times. The Pentagon Papers detailed the Defense Department's study of why the United States was involved in the Vietnam War. But there were four volumes that Ellsberg did not released that described diplomatic efforts, Abrams writes.
Ellberg didn't want to get in the way of diplomacy -- but Assange does, Abrams says.
Abrams writes, "[WikiLeaks] revels in the revelation of 'secrets' simply because they are secret. It assaults the very notion of diplomacy that is not presented live on C-Span. It has sometimes served the public by its revelations but it also offers, at considerable potential price, a vast amount of material that discloses no abuses of power at all."
The aftermath of WikiLeaks could be interpreted as a lesson for governments to open up, Financial Times reports.
Not all state data should be public, but the leaks do suggest a debate needs to occur about what kind of government information should remain unpublished.
The reasons for keeping information secret "too often stem from fear of embarrassment, force of habit or politicians going cold on previous ideals - not the public interest," Financial Times reports.
This story is part of our daily DorobekINSIDER Must Reads. Be sure to check out the full list of stories.