WikiLeaks’ Hacktivist Ethics

The WikiLeaks Organization

WikiLeaks is a nascent media organization that describes itself as a not-for-profit group specializing in publishing important news stories supported by original source material. It places emphasis on the inquisitiveness of the media as an essential component of ensuring stronger democracies “in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations” (WikiLeaks, 2010). Recent controversies surrounding WikiLeaks’ actions highlight why this self-description is not universally accepted and why some believe WikiLeaks to be something more nefarious.

Although small and highly-dependent on volunteers, WikiLeaks has clearly illustrated the capability to deliver controversial stories of significance to a worldwide audience and to challenge established global power structures. Case in point is their release of nearly 400,000 secret US military documents covering the Iraq war. These documents identify more than 15,000 previously-unknown civilian Iraqi deaths and establish tacit acceptance by US and British forces of appalling human rights abuses by Iraqi security forces (Davies, Steele & Leigh, 2010). Release of this information created a firestorm of controversy culminating in the US military calling the actions “irresponsible” and asserting it jeopardized lives (DODvClips, 2010). WikiLeaks justifies its actions by invoking freedom of the press: the US Constitution’s first and arguably most important amendment that exists “so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government” (New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971). Additionally, they claim to have instituted a harm-minimization policy, whereby individuals named in certain documents are forewarned of impending publication (Khatchadourian, 2010). At the same time, WikiLeaks acknowledges the potential for its members to get “blood on their hands” (Khatchadourian, 2010).

Julian Assange and Hacktivism

WikiLeaks’ principal spokesperson, Julian Assange, is a 39-year-old Australian national saddled with a troubled youth that resulted in “narrowly avoid[ing] prison after being convicted on 25 charges of computer hacking in 1995” (Burns & Somaiya, 2010). In reference to his 1995 convictions, Assange viewed himself as a journalist activist and, although very open about his hacker background, objects to stereotyping as a garden-variety hacker simply concerned with self-gain; instead, he intimates his hacker aspirations were always much nobler and that his character is defined by nurturing victims through “policing perpetrators of crime” (TED, 2010). Lead investigator on the case, Ken Day, described Assange as having “some altruistic motive. I think he acted on the belief that everyone should have access to everything” (Khatchadourian, 2010, p. 7). At sentencing the judge remarked, “There is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness [Italics added]” (Khatchadourian, 2010, p. 7). Inquisitiveness and victims’ rights are recurring and intertwined themes in Assange’s life.

Assange remains an extremely capable computer programmer with particular expertise in cryptography and encryption. He is credited with developing a tool to aid in plausible denial of encryption, called Rubberhose, for use by human rights workers and journalists to protect sensitive information (Walton, 2001; Baum, n.d.). He is widely credited with architecting the sophisticated and highly available information systems his organization uses as a shield against adversaries (Burns & Somaiya, 2010). It is difficult to decouple WikiLeaks from Assange; a point foremost in Assange’s mind when he states, “I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest” (Burns & Somaiya, 2010). WikiLeaks is Julian Assange plus a group of followers.

Two important concepts emerge in the preceding profile of Assange—hacking and activism—that, when fused together, yield something referred to as hacktivism: “acts of civil disobedience and direct action […] carried out in the virtual realm of the Internet, where the ability to invent, modify and refine computer systems is exercised for political ends” (Lowes, 2006, p. 115).

Mainstream Hacktivist Advocacy Emerges

The worldview held by Assange and WikiLeaks begins to come into focus when one learns of the principles underpinning the hacktivist culture. Of particular interest are the tenets that impact journalism and the media: (a) access to information is a basic human right; (b) censorship constitutes a human rights violation, especially when combined with repressive, governing regimes; and (c) authority should be mistrusted and decentralization promoted (metac0m, 2003). The central battle for hacktivists is ensuring the free flow of information on the Internet (Jordan & Taylor, 2006) and, in simplest terms, WikiLeaks is most accurately viewed—not as a news agency or anonymous source for mainstream media but—as a media advocate of the ideologies espoused by the hacking counterculture.

Ultimately, WikiLeaks believes its work will lead to greater freedom of the press as it continues to provide information that other news organizations are unable to because of “curtailments on the press that are many and complex – be they economic or legal or fitting into the existing patronage structure or ownership of news organizations” (BBC News, 2010).

The power WikiLeaks now possesses has led many to question its moral position and to challenge the group to hold itself accountable by establishing a code of ethics. Among those calling for this is Stephen J. A. Ward, Director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who points out the need is especially true of WikiLeaks as it “has an opaque structure, a beguiling rhetoric, and is operated by advocates [Italics added]” (2010). Ward’s comments highlight a key consideration regarding WikiLeaks: advocacy.

Ethical Considerations

If WikiLeaks represents a new twist on an old idea and is, in fact, an advocacy group; is it then reasonable to accept they are free from ethical concerns? On the contrary, as an advocacy group, they remain compelled to develop and adhere to norms that are based on general moral principles shared by all human beings, such as respect for life on earth (Baker, 2009). Before exploring the likely ethical code adopted, but not explicitly expressed, by WikiLeaks, it is important to understand the challenge advocacy ethics present.

Advocacy ethics focus on the moral reasoning that provides balance between two key imperatives: obligation to client objectives and obligation to society. In an optimal scenario, advocacy allows the voices of special interest groups, such as hacktivists, to be heard and to contribute to informed and rational decision making (Baker, 2006). In a less-than-optimal scenario it contributes to the harming of individuals or society. Ultimately, advocacy does not exist in a vacuum and must, out of necessity, uphold the notion of truth by adhering to basic moral principles and by placing society’s interests first.

The Greater Good Argument

WikiLeaks clearly believes in freedom of the press as evidenced by the millions of secret documents they have released since 2007. It is reasonable to believe it also values right to life as its members do make an effort to redact portions of documents that are likely to endanger the lives of individuals (BBC News, 2010). It is worth noting that the redaction process represents a relaxing of the hacktivist ideal that censorship is unacceptable. Teasing this out further, WikiLeaks explicitly acknowledges there are legitimate secrets, such as personal medical records (TED, 2010). Presumably, the move away from hacktivist fundamentalism concerning censorship illustrates an understanding of the need for higher-order moral reasoning within the group. Pertinent to the discussion of higher-order moral reasoning is Kohlberg’s theory of moral development: A psychologically-based theory of social justice that applies at the macro level—that is, it applies to relations between institutions, ethnic groups, religions, and the like. The highest level, referred to as the postconventional level, is defined by establishment of universal ethical principles, rational appraisal of overall good associated with a decision, and questioning of what would best serve society (Coleman & Wilkins, 2006). Arguably, groups like WikiLeaks that pursue liberal political ideologies valuing freedom of thought (facilitated, of course, by freedom of speech) “are more attuned to postconventional thinking” (Coleman & Wilkins, 2006, p. 46). This does not imply superior moral behavior on the part of postconventional thinkers; rather, it follows that the processes associated with their moral reasoning are simply more sophisticated (Crain, 2005).

WikiLeaks’ Likely Ethical Code

What then is the ethical code of WikiLeaks? Although it remains somewhat opaque, it appears to be summed up as follows: (a) to varying degrees, governments and corporations are inherently oppressive and limit access to information to maintain power over society; (b) enabling access to information is paramount and an effective tool in curtailing oppression; (c) while rights of individuals are important, they are not absolute and may be violated to ensure access to information; and (d) reasonable steps are taken to minimize harm to individuals and violation of individual rights is weighed against the greater good to society.

WikiLeaks appears to be employing higher-order moral reasoning through consideration of overall good and society’s best interests; however, it remains to be seen whether this is actually facilitating moral behavior on the part of its members. The press is valued in our society, in part, because it imparts knowledge by giving information meaning. Context plays an important role in this and we have to challenge WikiLeaks to consider this as it advances the hacktivist ideal of free-flowing information. Perhaps, the ideal should be modified slightly to promote unfettered flow of knowledge and not simply information.

Thanks for reading and if you learned something, feel free to click on one of my sponsors as a token of your appreciation. If you don’t believe you gleaned even the tiniest tidbit of insight, you are still encouraged to click. ;-)

References

Baker, S. (2006). The Ethics of Advocacy: Moral Reasoning in the Practice of Public Relations. In L. Wilkins & C.G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Baum, S. (n.d.). RUBBERHOSE Review. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from http://iq.org/~proff/rubberhose.org/current/src/doc/review.html.

BBC News. (2010, October 23). WikiLeaks: Iraq war logs 'reveal truth about conflict' [Video file]. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11612731.

Burns, J. F., & Somaiya, R. (2010, October 23). WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety. The New York Times (World). Retrieved November 26, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1.

Coleman, R., & Wilkins, L. (2006). Moral Development: A Psychological Approach to Understanding Ethical Judgment. In L. Wilkins & C.G. Christians (Eds.), The Handbook of Mass Media Ethics. New York: Routledge.

Crain, W. C. (2005). Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications (Fifth Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Davies, N., Steele, J., & Leigh, D. (2010, October 22). Iraq War Logs: Secret Files Show How US Ignored Torture. In The Guardian (News, World news, Iraq: The war logs). Retrieved November 26, 2010, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks.

DODvClips. (2010, October 25). Pentagon WikiLeaks Reaction [Video file]. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from YouTube.com Web site: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0PjnDM51Xw&playnext=1&list=PLEC6B9257769B13D0&index=10.

Jordan, T., & Taylor, P. A. (2004). Hacktivism and Cyberwars: Rebels with a cause? New York: Routledge.

Khatchadourian, R. (2010). No Secrets: Julian Assange’s Mission for Total Transparency. In The New Yorker (Reporting & Essays). Retrieved November 27, 2010, from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian.

Lowes, D. E. (2006). The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories & Motivations. Fernwood Publishing Ltd.

metac0m. (2003). What Is Hacktivism? 2.0. Retrieved November 27, 2010, from The Hacktivist Web site: http://www.thehacktivist.com/whatishacktivism.pdf.

New York Times Co. v. United States. 403 U.S. 713. 1971.

TED. (2010). Julian Assange: Why the World Needs WikiLeaks. In Talks. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from TED Web site: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/julian_assange_why_
the_world_needs_wikileaks.html.

Walton, G. (2001). China’s Golden Shield: Corporations and the Development of Surveillance Technology in the People’s Republic of China. Canada: International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

Ward, S. J. A. (2010, August 24). How to Reveal Secrets. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from The Canadian Journalism Project Web site: http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=5492.

WikiLeaks. (2010). About WikiLeaks. Retrieved November 26, 2010, from http://www.wikileaks.org/media/about.html.