Heighten The Contradictions

[Puppycow]

The Ambitions of Julian Assange

Assange, being a clever guy, is well aware of this reality; indeed, his own writings suggest that he’s counting on it. Like the Marxists of yore, he’s a heighten-the-contradictions kind of guy. Here’s his theory of what WikiLeaks might accomplish:

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

The hyperbole of certain Republicans notwithstanding, Assange is not a terrorist. But he has this much in common with al Qaeda: In response to what they perceive as the inherent injustice of the American empire, both the jihadis and the Australian anarchist are willing to take steps that they know will make the United States more imperial in the short term — in Al Qaeda’s case, acts of terrorism that inspire American military interventions in the Muslim world; in Assange’s case, information dumps that inspire ever-greater secrecy and centralization in the federal bureaucracy — in the hopes that the system will eventually collapse under its own weight and “more open forms of governance” (or, I suppose, a global caliphate) can take its place.

We have come full circle since 9/11 when the call went out for government agencies to share more information with each other so that someone would be able to "connect the proverbial dots." But when so many people have access to so much classified information, the odds increase that someone will leak it to wikileaks. So now the bureaucratic pressure will be to go back to the old "need-to-know basis" where classified information is compartmentalized and fewer people have access, to limit the risk of leaks. This would theoretically leave us more vulnerable to terrorism, because no one has all the proverbial dots to connect.

 

[Stylesjl]

I thought it was cute that he called Assange a Marxist.

Anyway I think though it is interesting in the sense that indeed information might have to go back to the old days where it was only available to a select few. Originally it was to prevent foreign infiltration by groups like the KGB from compromising the entire intelligence apparatus. I suppose weather they'll go back depends on if the embarrassment of leaked documents is worth the potential of foiling terrorist plots

 

[Drachasor]

Actually, they can't make everything super-secret. That's just not practical and never has been. The net result of this is that they'll have to form good policies to keep the important secrets secret.

 

[egslim]

But when so many people have access to so much classified information, the odds increase that someone will leak it to wikileaks.

If I were in charge of American security I would be more worried about access by foreign or even terrorist intelligence agencies than by wikileaks.

 

[Puppycow]

If I were in charge of American security I would be more worried about access by foreign or even terrorist intelligence agencies than by wikileaks.

Well everything that wikileaks leaks is obviously available to them too.

 

[Cain]

Well, one thing we cannot have is transparent government. We obviously need to have a whole bunch of super secret secrets. All this behind-the-scenes wheelin' and dealin' is not fit for public consumption and for certain parties (e.g. Marxist rapists) to pretend otherwise is sheer lunacy.