The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[1] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4] Assange himself has stated that he is "the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest". Wikipedia>That's funny. This website has been around for 4 years. Yet not one word was uttered before this incident on how it could "jeopardize" American interests.
But, I understand where they're coming from. They want to "open governments."
And its a very progressive thought, indeed. Lets bring the Pigs to the Sheep. But, unfortunately, there are some problems with this--like all other seemingly awesome ideas..."nothing gold can stay". WikiLeaks couldn't see, or maybe it just couldn't recognize, the Wolf.
Don't understand? Let me explain. See, the difference between a website like WikiLeaks and a news station like CNN is that WikiLeaks is under a "cloak." People have to show some kinda interest to access the documents on the WikiLeaks database (i.e. they must search and pull up the pages); however, to access a TV station, a person must simply have the channel. Plus, these TV channels are under constant and stringent Government regulation, something websites actually don't have to worry so much about. Call it "freedom of speech" or whatever.
Basically, unless WikiLeaks (or any other website) actually goes ahead with a "dangerous" message, the government will not know about its intentions. This is the edge Assange and his people thought they had. But, now that the Cat is out of the bag, the WikiLeaks page is under watch. What might this lead to? Legislation to monitor websites--to "regulate" them. But, wasn't this the point of the Patriot Act?
No, not at all. The USA PATRIOT Act
reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded theSecretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. More>It did absolutely nothing to get rid of the real problem: impulsive, jeopardizing and dangerous internet activity through webpages.
So, am I saying the government must monitor every single website/webpage online? NO. In fact, I am advising the American government (and every other government) to not implement any type of a monitor. My point is this: implementing such a measure is only a waste of money and time.
Modern-day media is growing at such a rate that no type government, not just a Democratic or a Republican, can keep up. Governments are just too cumbersome. Governments should keep their goals straight. By monitoring, Cats aren't just keeping track of millions of innocent messages (and wasting precious time)--they're wasting BILLIONS of dollars. My suggestion? Spend that money on better methods of intelligence.
Of course, I'm sure the documents leaked have very little to do with terrorism (and they might, I might just not be aware of it). But either way, when people have someone/something above them, they can't stand it. They try to get info to overpass it. That is just what WikiLeaks is trying to do. But such a phenomenon is inevitable. There is nothing we can do about it. Patting down and stripping Americans is not the way to go about defeating Terrorism. It may seem like an good solution, but its only temporary, at best.
By ditching these poorly constructed "security" measures, we will have more money. Hence, the War Against Terrorism in Iraq and South Asia will be better fought. But, war, like those security measures, is also, to a degree, temporary. At the end of the day, Education is our best weapon. I'm sure if we spend those Billions of dollars in better places, good education could easily be imported to those areas. How? I honestly have no idea. But, then we must ask ourselves. Are we in Iraq and Afghanistan to solely fight terrorism or is there some sort of underlying reason?
No comments:
Post a Comment