Wikileaks Can No Longer Claim Neutrality

The ethics of document-leaking are just another growing pain of the digital age

In the wake of Wikileaks exposing the emails of the Democratic National Convention—dirty laundry and all—Edward Snowden has criticized Julian Assange on Twitter, stating, “Democratizing information has never been more vital, and Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.”

Wikileaks responded to the tweet with a critique of their own, saying, “Opportunism won’t earn you a pardon from Clinton & curation is not censorship of ruling party cash flow.”

Many media companies and government figures have, like Snowden, criticized Wikileaks for its reckless practices in leaking information. Following the failed coup attempt in Turkey, Wikileaks released 300,000 emails of the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. In an article from The International Association of Privacy Professionals, Professor and social critic Zeynep Tufekci states that the Erdogan e-mail leaks exposed “massive databases of ordinary people, including a special database of almost all adult women in Turkey.”

Snowden’s procedures differ from Assange’s in that Snowden submits leaks to credible journalists for curation and harm minimization—in this case, the Guardian in the UK. In efforts to preserve national security, data that would unnecessarily cause negative implications upon circulation would be ethically and morally assessed to determine necessity of disclosure. These practices are in line with the ethics of leaking, as outlined by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which state that “the content you post will not violate or infringe the rights of others; that the information and content you post will not violate the rights of, or cause injury to, any person or entity.”

Journalism is differentiated from information dumping by the efforts that are undertaken to ensure credibility, confidentiality and security. Harm minimization is an essential part of the information curation process, preventing breaches in ethical violations through reckless publishing practices which result in possible risks to life, human well-being, property, and reputation. Sensitive information must be assessed to prevent backlashes or exploitation of digital data.

Although leaking procedures practiced by Wikileaks are questionable, one may argue that its practices are meant to combat the current political climate that is rife with doubt, paranoia, and extremism. Supporters echo the sentiment of the NSA, claiming, “If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
This discrepancy of trust and transparency between citizen and government fuels the engine that Wikileaks operates on. Growing discontent and loss of faith in government bodies are prime conditions for extremism, as the actions governments take are eventually reflected upon the actions of its citizens. A reasonable government begets reasonable citizens, and a chaotic government begets chaotic citizens.

Regardless of their reasoning, it is deplorable that Wikileaks would endanger innocent people. Such practices only serve to diminish the people’s trust and support for the group, which has been increasingly criticized by news consumers since its creation in 2006. Many now consider Assange to be biased, and in extreme cases, the pawn of a malevolent foreign influence.