On Wikisteria...

I thought of a word recently in response to the rabid reporting on recent Wikileak postings of US government documents (okay, not much of a stretch- and I'm sure among 5 billion human beings,  I'm not alone in coming up with a turn of phrase for this not-so-blinding flash of the obvious):

Wikisteria.  Noun.  1. A condition brought on by the sudden and unexpected release of your not-so-deep-dark-secrets in a public forum characterized by outbursts of irrational and/or ill-conceived policies, statements and/or actions.

Since the word got out on this story, we've heard everything from "hey...those are ours- give them back" to "Don't visit that website or you'll be breaking the law" to "We should launch a stuxtnet-like virus and 'fry their computers'" to "The Cyber War is joined"- and we are just getting started.

Some claim there's no difference between the NY Times and Wikileaks. Really?

What is the difference between reading the NY Times web edition (or other Journalist web site), this blog- or wikileaks? (other than funding, contacts, professional reputation and talent of course!)

Here's one difference: the NY Times does not promote (even if only through silence) the use of illegal techniques to get a point across (such as a DDoS). If Wikileaks were playing chess instead of checkers, they'd take the Free Press route and ask the DDoSers to stand down- and provide support in other ways.

Meanwhile efforts to stifle the message (the important part- the information- not the website) have failed. There are by some estimates over 1200 wikileak mirror sites- and growing.

The lesson: the web was built to SHARE...not to protect.

So, what are the rules? Or are there none?

There are. The US has the responsibility to bring to justice those that broke their law within their jurisdictional reach, particularly those putting people's lives in danger as a result of their actions.

However, the nature of the web complicates the execution of blanket policies or the interpretation of sweeping statements.

The fact is, the toothpaste is out of the tube. The genie is out of the bottle. The cat is out of the bag- pick your metaphor. Instead of expending energy on half-cocked statements and actions, the US should take the opportunity to shape its message and actions more carefully.

The US should take a stand that says: "the breach in our security is illegal under our law, regrettable (to those whose confidence and trust was violated) and will be quickly and effectively dealt with. However, it is important to bear in mind the data stolen represents unconfirmed and in some cases incorrect raw reporting and certainly does not necessarily reflect the US government position. That said, we stand by our principles. If you are up to no good and are offended by what you are reading about you, then stop being up to no good."

On the other hand, Wikileaks isn't scoring points either. Instead of taking the 'free speech' high ground, they risk losing the battle of public opinion as Wikileaks' perceived 'opponents' (perceived by others as legitimate businesses) come under assault.

There are important, if not always popular, and arguably legitimate arguments on both sides of this. The enforcement of espionage laws, the protection of sources, the need for secrets balanced against freedom of speech and the right of the people to know.

Regardless of which side of the controversy you champion- one thing is true:

How we respond in crisis defines who we are: as an organization. As a Nation. As a Society.

We will learn a lot over the coming days- weeks- months... and not just from reading the cables.

~ Cpwnk