If this week’s post on EFFYOU.org didn’t give you enough reasons to support WikiLeaks (or at least understand why they are important) here are a few more reasons I’ve snipped from another great post from underpaidgenius:
Jeremy Geelan contacted me about the Wikileaks mess, and wanted my two cents. His piece is an interesting juxtapositioning of cloud computing and political intrigue.
A few snippets:
WikiLeaks & Web 3.0 – A Commentary | Cloud Computing Journal
[…]
“The Internet is open, we have to embrace that. I for one, am proud there are secure silos around the world that can host material and get it out to the people. Yes we have to take the rough with the smooth, and while we do not agree with what they publish, if we live in a free society then this is what we have to swallow if I am to be able to stand up to be heard without fear.
The Internet can keep governments honest…or at least more honest than historically allowed. We have to keep things open.”
[- Alan Williamson]
STOWE BOYD, self-declared social philosopher and “webthropologist,” takes Williamson’s “We have to keep things open” stance to another level.
“What WikiLeaks represents is civil disobedience channeled through an agenda of radical openness,” declares Boyd. “The individuals involved on a personal level are deciding that laws that may or may not designate their activities as illegal are illegitimate, that our obedience to the state is coerced, and therefore can be morally opposed and countered.”
Boyd goes on to explain this in more detail as follows: “Wikileaks is an example of direct action, like Greenpeace activists attempting to shut down the Knightsnorth power station, claiming that the laws against trespass and destruction of private property were outweighed by the need to counter global warming to prevent far greater property damage around the world. They were acquitted, the first time such a claim was used as a ‘lawful excuse’ for committing a crime (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace). One form of “direct action,” Boyd continues, is to expose secrets, especially when governments or large corporations are saying one thing publicly and doing another clandestinely.
“In some cases these exposés might involve criminal wrong-doing, or simply duplicitous behavior,” says Boyd.
“Amazon or other hosting providers that opt to decline support for WikiLeaks or other activists may be acting because of alternate moral viewpoints, or through coercion, or fears of future repercussions when governments may decide that the hosts are culpable in some way,” he adds.
Incidentally, according to the WSJ, Amazon has said that they weren’t coerced by the USG to drop WikiLeaks, but that they were in violation of their TOS. More miraculous timing! Like that rape charge this isn’t really a rape charge, according to a Gizmodo post (turns out he didn’t use a condom—seriously! You can clearly see why Interpol was required to catch this man! >_<).
UPDATE 20101205: Turns out it *was* a rape charge after all. Isn’t this supposed to be the communication age? >_<
Incidentally, I head Assange’s lawyer say on Democracy Now last week that when this story first broke he offered himself up to authorities to work out what was going on. Turns out they didn’t take him up on it and now want to arrest him. Go fig!
