A debate organised by the London Communicators and Engagement Group and sponsored by EventExtra Limited
- Euan Semple, Social media expert
- Dr Dannie Jost, Resident Philosopher, World Trade Institute
- Matt O’Neil, Founder of LCEG
There is a classic scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, when Butch (Paul Newman) is challenged to a knife fight and asks, ‘What are the rules?’ to which he gets the astonished reply, ‘There’ aren’t any rules in a knife fight.’ Butch promptly kicks the guy in the crotch and knocks him out. You can see it here
There was something slightly quaint about the internal comms community trying to conduct a rational debate about the correctness of releasing confidential information and the motives of WikiLeaks. Fair play doesn’t come into it. The real question is about whose crotch is being kicked.
Opinions were divided between a minority in the command and control camp who thought WikiLeaks was wrong, that they were not playing by the rules, and a majority who thought they were working in the public interest, whatever that may be. Whether you regard Julian Assange as a journalist, terrorist, campaigner, brand or bête noire, he has become a heroic figure of our modern times.
Dannie Jost emphasised the value of transparency. “We don’t want to know the private faults of every politician but be in a position to follow the rationale behind their decisions and achieve some form of justice in government and an equal distribution of rights.”
Euan Semple reminded us that in the industrial era we had the notion of knowledge being power where big business kept knowledge within its boundaries and distributed it as it saw fit. WikiLeaks can also be seen as a power play by people who are disaffected by the system.
Several thought there would be some kind of backlash to the WikiLeaks exposures and that information would become much less free. Rather than simply inducing greater secrecy, it would be nice to think it might encourage greater responsibility, though the risk of exposure seems the least worthy of motives.
Until now, WikiLeaks has focused mainly on big government and in the process, has severely undermined the US’s image as the land of the free. Many US commentators have even suggested Assange be tried for treason, overlooking the fact that he’s an Australian citizen. It is generally acknowledged that most of the information released to date was already available and that scare mongering about threats to national security and endangering lives has been not been substantiated. Even the US intelligence services will admit to that.
Matt O’Neil suggested people say they want 100% honesty in business and public life, but perhaps only about the things that don’t directly affect them. We may be less keen on honesty when leaks affect our competitiveness our share price or the well being of our clients. Leaks about WikiLeaks made Bank of America’s share price tumble by 3%.
There is a shift towards democratisation through technology as anyone can release information onto the internet. To counter this, many large organisations have programmes in place to manage insider threats. Meanwhile, the same organisations are still happy to play fast and loose with the information they hold about their own customers. For example, Euan had concerns about the use of credit card records to identify WikiLeaks’ supporters. He fully expects his own credentials to be challenged when he next goes through JFK to work for the UN. Meanwhile, the Swiss bank PostFinance froze Julian Assange’s bank account. PayPal cut off payments to WikiLeaks and were joined by MasterCard and Visa, all citing violation of their policies, not pressure from the US Government. Yeah!
Leaks come in different flavours, each with their different motivations and moral connotations. As Nick Saalfeld pointed out, leaking is not the same and whistle blowing or hacking for that matter, even though the press tend to put them in the same naughty box.
WikiLeaks is not taking place in a moral vacuum. We have had the breakdown of the banking system, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, politicians’ expenses scandals as well as corporate and political corruption at the highest level. These were areas of public and business life that used to be notable for their integrity. Now they are being revealed to be corrupt and self serving. Maybe the system needs a kick in the crotch to remind it that if you live by the sword of corruption, you are very likely to die by it.
January 22, 2011
That was good fun, Jonathan.
The real lesson I draw from it; Always wear a box when participating in a knife fight!
M