Changes

On Wikileaks, Bitcoin, Copyleft - Three Critiques of Hacktivism (Feb. 2012)

The premise of the 2.WikiLeaks project claims that authoritarian rule and authoritarian tendencies within democratic governments are characterised by their operation in hiding. However it is no secret that the exposure of governmental and corporate secrets profit is the critique of those parties. The project driving motive behind corporations, that the USA and its manifesto - written by Julian Assange before WikiLeaks took off - is concerned with allies are fighting conspiracies, acts carried out deadly wars in hiding, away from Iraq and Afghanistan for their own national interests, and that the prying eyes US government considers WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the publicstate. WikiLeaks detects these hidden agendas in authoritarian regimes and - as a tendency - in some democratic governmentsThese things are not suppressed information; on the contrary, they are openly declared and discussed.1 Against those tendenciesThat Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for 30 years, WikiLeaks does not argue its point or its political positionthat his police tortured and suppressed any opposition using a 30 year state-of-emergency law, since it assumes that exposing the secrets USA backed this rule because of those who are its interests in power suffices to upset the suppressed masses: “Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against region, that the EU negotiated a free trade agreement with the individual Egyptian regime and collective will that the EU cherished Gaddafi's Lybia for its contribution to freedom, truth keeping refugees from entering Europe: all this is public record. There are also actions and self realization. Plans which assist policies by authoritarian ruleand democratic governments which are secret, such as extra-legal killings, torture, once discoveredintelligence gathering, induce resistancerenditions and some deals with other states or corporations. Hence these plans are concealed But this does not imply that these governments' rule is primarily characterised by successful authoritarian powerswhat their subjects do not know about.”2 What WikiLeaks aims to accomplish is to reveal these concealed plans so that democratic resistance for freedomOn the contrary, truth and self realization is induced. According a regime which tortures its enemies to intimidate them wants them to WikiLeaksknow about it, if the people do not rebel, it is because they do not know about the sinister so that they shy away from their plans of their governments. 3.WikiLeaks claims proposes that authoritarian rule and authoritarian tendencies within democratic governments are characterised by their operation in hidingtransparency leads to good governance, to a better life for the subjects. However it is no secret , if a government truthfully reports that profit is the driving motive behind corporationscurrent debt crisis requires large scale cuts to social services, that this is transparency; if the USA and US government openly declares its allies are fighting deadly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for their own national interests, and enmity to WikiLeaks, this is transparency; if the law informs someone that the US government considers WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state. These things his material needs count only insofar they are not suppressed informationeffective demand, this is transparency; on if a state mobilises its population to militarily defeat the contrarymobilised population of another state, they are openly declared and discussedthis is transparency. That Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for 30 yearsTransparency in itself does not prevent harm: rather, that his police tortured and suppressed any opposition using a 30 year state-most of-emergency law, that the USA backed this rule because of its interests misery is wrought in the regionopen.3 4.In characterising “successful authoritarian powers” as anxious to hide their own character for fear of resistance, that WikiLeaks disregards the EU negotiated a free trade agreement with the Egyptian regime purposes of domination. Before asking how something is achieved, one must determine its intended purpose. Both modern authoritarian and that the EU cherished Gaddafi's Lybia for its contribution democratic states demand much more than merely to keeping refugees from entering Europe: all this maintain themselves. Since a strong economy is public record. There are also actions and policies by authoritarian and democratic governments which are secretthe basis of any state's power, such as extra-legal killingsespecially so under capitalism, torture, intelligence gathering, renditions and some deals with other states or corporations. But this does not imply that these governments' rule is primarily characterised by what their the state's subjects do are not know aboutmerely tedious masses but useful material. On 4 States spend considerable effort fostering their economies, jealously compare GDPs - the contrary, a regime which tortures its enemies to intimidate them wants them to know about itoverall economic activity of one country - with other states, so that closely watch currency exchange rates and stock indices: they shy away from compare the economic performance of their populations because it is the basis of their planspower. WikiLeaks proposes that transparency leads But the population's contribution to good governance, to a better life for the might of the state does not end with its economic activity. The state wants its subjectsto cherish it, to support its policies. However, if a government truthfully reports that the current debt crisis requires large scale cuts to social services, this 5 When it is transparency; if deemed necessary the US government openly declares state even demands that its enmity population go to WikiLeakswar. These purposes cannot be achieved secretly, this is transparency; if the law informs someone that his material needs count only insofar they are effective demand, this must be publicised. 5.WikiLeaks' practical critique of governments across the globe is transparency; if a state mobilises driven by its population to militarily defeat appreciation for the mobilised population institution of another stategovernment as such. WikiLeaks aims to induce a resistance which aims to “shift regime behavior”6, this is transparencynot to end regimes. Transparency in itself does not prevent harm: rather, most The prospect of getting rid of domination - i.e. systematic and forceful rule - and the misery is wrought in the open.3 In characterising “successful authoritarian powers” as anxious to hide their own character for fear idea that regimes are only necessary because of resistancethe conditions they establish, is not present in WikiLeaks disregards publications or actions. Accusing the purposes WikiLeaks project of dominationbeing anarchist, possibly opposed to governments and corporations in principle, is wrong. Before asking how something is achievedOn the contrary, one must determine its intended purpose. Both modern authoritarian and democratic states demand much more than merely to maintain themselves. Since a strong economy WikiLeaks' activism is driven by the basis of any state's power, especially so under capitalism, assumption that the democratic state's subjects are as such deserves defense and not merely tedious masses but useful materialfundamental critique.4 States spend considerable effort fostering their economies, jealously compare GDPs -  6.WikiLeaks promotes the overall economic activity raw publication of one country - with other statesunpublished data, closely watch currency exchange rates and stock indices: they compare without commentary, since the economic performance of their populations because data itself ought to spark resistance. Yet, it is the basis of their powernot information - facts - as such that gets people to oppose certain policies - but how people interpret these facts. But the population's contribution to the might The slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US troops is interpreted by opponents of the state does not end with its economic activitywar in Iraq as yet another reason to stop the war. The state wants its subjects to cherish it, to support its policies.5 When it is deemed necessary Others might take away the state even demands message that its population go to war. These purposes cannot be achieved secretlyhad ugly sides yet that those are unfortunately necessary, that the insurgents are to blame since they must would hide behind civilians, that those killed should not be publicisedout in the streets in a war zone or that those “subhumans” deserve no better. WikiLeaks' practical critique of governments across The facts only provide the globe is driven by its appreciation for the institution of government as such. WikiLeaks aims to induce a resistance which aims to “shift regime behavior”6material for verdicts, they do not to end regimesdetermine verdicts. The prospect of getting rid This is especially so when most of domination - i.e. systematic and forceful rule - and the idea data that regimes are reached the public through WikiLeaks only necessary because confirmed what everybody knew already: “This is a description of the conditions they establish, is not present in WikiLeaks publications or actions. Accusing Afghan War that a bright 10-year-old could have given you without the WikiLeaks project benefit of being anarchist, possibly opposed to governments and corporations in principle[...] 90, 000 leaked documents.”7 All that previously unknown facts can provide is wronga necessary precondition for new verdicts that might be impossible to make without them. 7. On the contrary, WikiLeaks' activism ideal of a state is one that is driven measured by the assumption that principles of the democratic state .8 A modern democratic state presents itself as such deserves defense a service to its subjects and not fundamental critique. WikiLeaks promotes as an expression of the raw publication will of unpublished datathose subjects. It grants its subjects rights and freedoms, without commentary, since the data itself ought it asks its subjects to spark resistance. Yetselect its agents, it is not information - facts - as such that gets people to oppose certain policies - but how people interpret these factsprovides basic infrastructure for their economic activities and it provides some social security. The slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US troops is interpreted by opponents of That the state establishes the war in Iraq as yet another reason conditions which force its subjects to stop rely on the warstate does not change this fact. Others might take away the message that war had ugly sides yet that those are unfortunately necessary, that the insurgents are WikiLeaks agrees with these principles: “Better scrutiny leads to blame since they would hide behind civiliansreduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations.”9 Restricting oneself to battling corruption in government and corporations implies that those killed should it is not be out in the streets in a war zone or that principles of these organisations which ought to be blamed for the observed misery, but the deviation from those “subhumans” deserve no betterprinciples. The facts only provide the material 10 Thus, WikiLeaks' fight against corruption indicates support in principle for verdicts, those organisations once they do not determine verdictsare free of corruption. This When WikiLeaks agrees with the US Supreme Court about “effectively expos[ing] deception in government”11, this is especially so when most of no rhetorical trick - they both want effective institutions, the data that reached institutions of the public through current social order. Both WikiLeaks only confirmed what everybody knew already: “This is a description of and the US constitution share the Afghan War that ideal of a bright 10-year-old could have given you without the benefit democratic, capitalist state which fosters its citizens' “pursuit of [happiness”. 8.Some of WikiLeaks' distrust of those who are in power is also institutionalised in the state.] 90,000 leaked documents.”7 All that previously unknown facts can provide is The institutional set-up of the state reveals a necessary precondition for new verdicts considerable lack of trust in those who hold office, it reveals the suspicion that the state's agents might be impossible to make without themsecretly (or openly) abuse their power. WikiLeaks' ideal Law requires regular elections and thus ensures that the collective will of a state is one the people corresponds to that is measured by the principles of politicians.12 Some countries even have term limits for the democratic state.8 A modern democratic state presents itself as highest offices in order to prevent one person from clinging to power. Law mandates a service to its subjects and as an expression division of powers between the will of those subjectsgovernment, parliament and the courts so that no branch can appropriate the power vested in it for purposes other than those in their job description. It grants its subjects rights and freedoms, it asks its subjects Law guarantees freedom of press, speech and assembly and thus allows the democratic opposition to select voice its agentsconcerns. Also, presidential candidates sometimes pledge to “strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, it provides basic infrastructure for their economic activities and it provides some social securityabuse of authority in government”13. That the The democratic state establishes the conditions which force is a state of law and as such suspicious about its subjects to rely on the state does not change agents who exercise this factlaw. WikiLeaks agrees with  9.This institutionalised distrust is not without reason. First, these principles: “Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society's institutionsagents are people who - like everyone else - have private interests, including government, corporations and other organisations.”9 Restricting oneself yet their job is to battling corruption maintain the order in government and corporations implies that it disregard of particular private interests. If bourgeois society is not the principles a society of these organisations which ought to be blamed for the observed misery, but the deviation from those principlescompeting subjects then recruiting from this society carries some risk.10 ThusThese agents might abuse their power to pursue their own agenda, WikiLeaks' fight by accepting bribes or by bending law to benefit their friends.14 It is this kind of misapprehension of positions of power against corruption indicates support in principle for those organisations once they are free the state's rules, regulations and separation of power is aimed. It is also this kind of corruption. When WikiLeaks agrees with against which people like the US Supreme Court about “effectively expos[ing] deception in government”11, this president want to mobilise whistleblowers. 10.The second reason for distrust is no rhetorical trick - they both want that the checks and balances of a democratic state get in the way of effective institutions, government. A limit on the institutions power of the current social order. Both WikiLeaks and the US constitution share the ideal of government is a democratic, capitalist state which fosters limit on its ability to do its citizens' “pursuit of happiness”job. Some of WikiLeaks' distrust of those who The checks and balances are blind towards what the government tries to accomplish and thus may hinder it in power is also institutionalised pushing through policies which are in the statenational interest. The institutional set-up This is why politicians and other agents of the state reveals a considerable lack of trust in those who hold office, it reveals have the suspicion that highest admiration for democracy and the state's agents might secretly (or openly) abuse their power. Law requires regular elections and thus ensures that the collective will rule of law regularly bend the people corresponds to that rules - illegal wiretaps, rendition, etc. Whether these kind of transgressions are treated as violations of politicians.12 Some countries even have term limits for the highest offices in order to prevent one person from clinging to powerprinciples of the state or not cannot be decided a priori. Law mandates a division This depends on the success of powers between these policies. Avoiding a possible conviction for such a digression (whether it is for personal enrichment or doing the government, parliament and best for the courts so that no branch can appropriate nation without following the power vested in it for purposes other than those in their job description. Law guarantees freedom of presslaw) is one reason why state agents may choose to try to keep certain actions away from public. 11.Thus the US campaign against WikiLeaks, speech which is backed by its international allies and assembly and thus allows both big parties in the democratic opposition to voice its concerns. AlsoUSA, presidential candidates sometimes pledge to “strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government”13. The democratic state is a is aimed against a project which is fundamentally supportive of the state of law and as such suspicious about its agents who exercise this law. This institutionalised distrust It is not without reason. First, these agents are running a campaign against people who - like everyone else - have private interests, yet their job is to maintain the order in disregard of particular private interestshighest admiration for its principles. If bourgeois society is a society The people who are declared enemies of competing subjects then recruiting from this society carries some risk. These agents might abuse their power the state are driven to pursue their own agenda, by accepting bribes or actions by bending law to benefit their friends.14 It is this kind of misapprehension of positions admiration for the principles of power against the state's rules, regulations and separation of power is aimed. 12. It is also this kind could seem like a miscalculation on the end of corruption against which people like the US president want administration and other governments to attack WikiLeaks: both seem to mobilise whistleblowersbe in favour of the same principles. The second reason for distrust However, there is that the checks and balances of a democratic state get in the way of effective governmentfundamental difference as to what role these principles play for both sides. A limit on For WikiLeaks and its supporters democratic principles are the power first and grounding principles of the government state, it is a limit on its ability to do its jobwhat makes the state. The checks and balances For the state, on the other hand, these principles are blind towards what means of domination. Just because the government tries state provides services to its citizens does not imply its role is restricted to accomplish and thus may hinder it in pushing through policies which are in this provision. If that were the national interestcase, no coppers, courts and prisons would be needed. This Just because the state is why politicians a state of law and other agents of principles, just because it seeks the state who have support of its subjects, just because it aims to use the highest admiration for democracy and the rule private interests of law regularly bend the rules - illegal wiretapsits subjects productively for its own power, rendition, etcdoes not mean that its rule is no domination and requires no secrecy. Whether these kind of transgressions are treated as violations It still suppresses interests which fundamentally oppose its rule. In general, it presents boundaries to any interest of the principles of the state or not cannot be decided a prioriits subjects: one may pursuit one's own interest - but in accordance with the law. This depends on 15 Put differently, just because the success of these policies. Avoiding a possible conviction for such a digression (whether it is for personal enrichment or doing the best for the nation without following the law) is one reason why state agents may choose fosters and protects some legitimate private interests, this does not imply - contrary to try WikiLeaks' belief - that its ultimate goal is to keep certain actions away from publicguarantee the well-being of its subjects: benevolent domination is a contradiction. Thus 13.Second, the publication of the US campaign against diplomatic cables and internal military reports by WikiLeaks, which is backed does threaten the US internationally. Public statements by its international allies and both big parties in the USA, is aimed against a project which is fundamentally supportive agents of the state as such. It is running a campaign against people who have - especially within the highest admiration for its principles. The people who are declared enemies realm of the state international diplomacy - are driven considered to their actions by their admiration for the principles be expressions of the statepolicy. It could seem like a miscalculation on the end An open critique of the US administration and other governments another state or its personnel is an attempt to attack WikiLeaks: both seem show this state its limits or to be in favour probe these limits. The official account of the same principles. However, there one's own war efforts is aimed to send a fundamental difference as message to what role these principles play for both sidesfriend and foe. For WikiLeaks and its supporters democratic principles are 16 By publishing internal US memos WikiLeaks made policy for the first and grounding principles of the stateUSA, it is what makes made the state. For the stateUS government say things it did not want to say in public, on sending all kinds of messages to governments across the other hand, these principles are means of dominationglobe. Just because The point here is not whether these cables contain news in terms of factual statements. The point is that the state provides services to its citizens does US government did not imply want to say these things to its role is restricted to this provisionallies and enemies openly; WikiLeaks made the US government say it regardless. If that were WikiLeaks forced the case, no coppers, courts and prisons would be neededhand of US foreign policy by publishing those memos. Just because In reaction the state is interprets this attack as a state of law and principles, just because it seeks the support of its subjects, just because it aims to use the private interests of its subjects productively for its own power, does not mean that its rule is no domination and requires no secrecy. It still suppresses interests which fundamentally oppose its rule. In general, it presents boundaries to any interest of its subjects: one may pursuit one's own interest - but in accordance with the law.15 Put differently, just because the state fosters and protects some legitimate private interests, this does not imply - contrary to WikiLeaks' belief - that its ultimate goal is to guarantee the well-being of its subjects: benevolent domination is a contradiction. Second, the publication of the diplomatic cables and internal military reports by WikiLeaks does threaten the US internationally. Public statements by agents of the state - especially within the realm of international diplomacy - are considered to be expressions of policy. An open critique of another state or its personnel is an attempt to show this state its limits or to probe these limits. The official account of one's own war efforts is aimed to send a message to friend and foe.16 By publishing internal US memos WikiLeaks made policy for the USA, it made the US government say things it did not want to say in public, sending all kinds of messages to governments across the globe. The point here is not whether these cables contain news in terms of factual statements. The point is that the US government did not want to say these things to its allies and enemies openly; WikiLeaks made the US government say it regardless. WikiLeaks forced the hand of US foreign policy by publishing those memos. In reaction the state interprets this attack as a very principle questioning very principle questioning of its rule - regardless of WikiLeaks' intentions. 14.The US campaign against WikiLeaks is conflicted. On the one hand, there are calls by some politicians for Assange's assassination and the US administration is looking for legal loopholes to charge Assange. Bradley Manning - the alleged whistleblower who leaked the cables and other internal US documents - is likely to rot in prison for a long time to make an example of those who threaten the state. On the other hand, WikiLeaks still is not illegal in the USA, and hardly any regard has been given to e.g. the New York Times, which collaborated with WikiLeaks on the release of the diplomatic cables.17 The state does want to shut down WikiLeaks but it hesitates to dismantle the freedom of press in the process. The state want citizens like Julian Assange, but these good citizens should consider the reality of the state they are subject to before acting on their idealist conception.