Wikileaks poses ethical conundrum
Duncan McLeod posted an interesting note about what he calls a “whistleblower’s haven”, Wikileaks. It’s a site where anonymous users can upload (and analyse) confidential or secret documents. It’ll be a godsend for journalists, no doubt.
He cites reliability and misinformation as a major potential problem, but as much as I’d love to see secret documents related to corrupt deals with government, government-owned entities or political parties, there’s another reason why I’m not very enthusiastic about it.
Quotes McLeod: “We also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations.”
However, revealing confidential documents is itself unethical. In many cases it will be illegal, and it almost certainly will be a breach of relevant employment contracts or non-disclosure agreements.
What would make any particular employee a reasonable and fair judge of what constitutes unethical behaviour?
The Wikileaks creators claim: “Each person is an arbiter of justice in their own conscience.” Perhaps so, but they’re not the arbiter of the justice of other people’s actions. That is the role of the judiciary. That is why we have independent courts and closely regulated law enforcement.
They claim: “In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that ‘only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.’ We agree.” And so do I, but a free press is not above the law. It cannot use anonymity as a shield to publish whatever it pleases, no matter how secret, confidential, libellous or false this information might be. And even if it could, one would hope its readers would abandon it.
I have no objection to protecting whistleblowers that follow proper legal channels — by reporting malfeasance to police or other relevant authorities and providing supporting evidence to courts if necessary. Protect them, absolutely. If an independent officer finds the whistleblower’s identity deserves to be hidden, then hide it. At least we’ll have a qualified, independent person whose identity is known, whose reputation is at stake, and whose word we might rely on.
I object, however, to handing out free jackboots to anyone with a mind to use them. I have very little sympathy for people who cover themselves with the mantle of “whistleblower”, when their agenda could be anything from personal vendettas, disgruntlement, industrial espionage, pranks, misinformation, sabotage, or (most insiduously, perhaps) political activism or populist agitation.
This reason alone is sufficient to give no credence whatsoever to anything posted on Wikileaks, just like I’d hope, even in the absence of legal restraints, that readers would abandon media that publish unreliable information under a cloak of anonymity. It is also why I would take a dim view of anyone who leaks documents to Wikileaks, or relies on the resulting (mis-)information to inform public debate.
Making such a site illegal, of course, would amount to prior restraint. Besides, I cannot see how you could stop such activity even if you wanted to. But that doesn’t condone the many possible abuses of Wikileaks.
