Searching for more information?

Loading
Published On: Sun, Nov 28th, 2010

Wikileaks is a blow to open government

Contributed by: John F Moore on November 28, 2010.
Wikileaks Remix
Image by Fräulein Schiller via Flickr

Open government requires government and citizens to work together, cooperatively, to share information and to execute the tactics determined to enable meeting the goals of the governed and the governing.  This partnership can only occur when:

  • There is discussion, agreement, and clarity of goals.
  • Trust between governed and governing exist.

In some countries citizens vote for politicians, and on various issues, to build this agreement.  In the United States this occurs and, while flawed on multiple levels, it works better than other alternatives I have seen.  We can improve but I will save my opinions on this for a later time.

The focus of this short post, however, is upon the need for trust between governed and governing.  We look to open government, government 2.0, and open data as key strategic components for reaching the level of trust that is required.   While the Wikileaks releases are sharing information with the worlds citizens it is doing so in a manner that is illegal in terms of how the information was obtained.  It is doing so in a manner that potentially results in a breakdown of trust, the exact opposite of what we are trying to accomplish with open government.  This breakdown of trust may occur in a way that pushes people deeper into their individual silos, making communication and progress more difficult.  For example:

  • All governments must have allies they can trust.  The release of these communications weaken the bonds of trust between allies.
  • For true national security governments must, at times, make difficult decisions, decisions that could never be put to popular vote and that may even be distasteful to the majority of its citizens.  The decisions, when brought to light, rarely inspire trust in the governing even when the decisions are correct.
  • These leaks may provide more partisan fuel in american politics and ensure we continue governing to benefit politicians vs. governing to benefit citizens.

The White House stated other concerns:

“President Obama supports responsible, accountable, and open government at home and around the world, but this reckless and dangerous action runs counter to that goal. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.”

Alex Howard wrote a very good article today where he quotes Dominic Campbell as saying: ”For me Wikileaks is open govt.  True [open government] is not determined and controlled by govts, but redistributes power to the people to decide“.  Dominic makes a great point, of course.  Open Government must engage citizens, giving them more information and more influence in the decision-making process.  However:

  • This should not be done by illegal means.
  • This should not be decided by a single organization that is blindly dumping information without thought to consequences.
  • This should not be done by governments that are more interested in avoiding embarrassment than in making it clear how it is operating and why.

The bulk of the Wikileaks information is information that should be in the public eye.  If we are going to learn from these leaks, and truly improve government in the process, we MUST be willing to accept that current processes for sharing information are broken and that politicians of all parties, within all countries, have made plenty of “bad choices”.  This would be the perfect time to create an independent organization responsible for determining what is shared and what is kept private.  This organization should be made of up government employees, area experts, citizens, and journalists.  This group will need to balance the need to keep private issues that are truly national security concerns and the need to make everything else public.  The mandate must be to overshare, but with caution.

Will anyone step forward to make this organization a reality?  If this happens than this blow to open government could turn into a major victory instead.

John

About the Author

- John is the Founder and CEO of Government in The Lab. He is also an open government advocate, strategist, writer, speaker, and analyst. Government in The Lab was borne from a desire to help create a positive transformation in government and politics, throughout the world, via shared knowledge and community. Government in The Lab is focused on delivering the best information possible about politics and government through a world-wide collaboration. Our writers come from around the world, write articles in English, French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Russian, Japanese, and Arabic, and are seeking to bridge the divide between citizens, politicians, and municipal employees. What is Open Government? Open government is a citizen-centric philosophy and strategy that believes the best results are usually driven by partnerships between citizens and government, at all levels. It is focused entirely on achieving goals through increased efficiency, better management, information transparency, and citizen engagement and most often leverages newer technologies to achieve the desired outcomes. This is bringing business approaches, business technologies, to government. – John F Moore

  • Pingback: Government In The Lab | Government In The Lab

  • Pingback: Government In The Lab | Government In The Lab

  • Pingback: Government In The Lab | Government In The Lab

  • http://www.twitter.com/MikeRobert @MikeRobert

    @John, I think you’re right. Whether it’s right/wrong, the WikiLeaks may ultimately harm the open government movement.

    I suspect WikiLeaks may ultimately drive this number up:

    “When asked about the main obstacles to implementation of Web 2.0 technologies, 44% of [government agencies] cited security concerns.”

    http://www.darkreading.com/security/news/225701442/security-fears-hamper-government-2-0-shift-study-says.html

  • Gary Gromet

    “This should not be done by illegal means.” Nixon could not
    have said it better unless he got it from Kissinger. Honesty and
    forthrightness brings peace. No one accuses Wikileaks of publishing
    lies, but yet it is chastised while the liars go on lying and doing
    their best to silence the truth. I see lies being published as
    truth governments and private corporations. Revealing the truth
    used to get one killed; now it only results imprisonment.

  • Pingback: Sir Tim Berners-Lee on WikiLeaks Vs. Open Government | Government In The Lab

  • Eric

    Every time I read something like this piece, my stomach churns. You speak of trust between the US government and its “allies”. You then say that it is the fault of Wikileaks that there is now a breakdown of trust between these groups. That is ridiculous. The breakdown of trust is the direct fault of the US and its allies doing untrustworthy things to each other. The trust was broken the instant those actions occurred, whether you or I or our fellow citizens knew about it at the time or not.

    “Open government requires government and citizens to work together, cooperatively, to share information and to execute the tactics determined to enable meeting the goals of the governed and the governing.”

    If this is truly what open government is, then open government will never be anything more than a lie that on one side allows the government to *appear* honest and forthright, and on the other side allows the citizens involved in the open government “movement” to stroke their egos and pretend they are doing something important for their fellow citizens.

    “Open Government must engage citizens, giving them more information and more influence in the decision-making process. However…This should not be done by illegal means.”

    Sometimes illegal means are the only recourse. This very day, 55 years ago, should serve as an adequate example of that. Were you blogging 55 years ago, would you have written a post calling out Rosa Parks for violating the law? Should she have instead moved to the back of the bus and later filed a complaint?

    Actually, what am I talking about. The very documents themselves even show that illegal means are sometimes necessary, right? Some of the cables demonstrate intentional violations of international and domestic law by the US government. No one seems to mind, though, because those violations of the law were “necessary” for “national security”. Oh, the irony.

    “The bulk of the Wikileaks information is information that should be in the public eye. If we are going to learn from these leaks, and truly improve government in the process, we MUST be willing to accept that current processes for sharing information are broken and that politicians of all parties, within all countries, have made plenty of “bad choices”. This would be the perfect time to create an independent organization responsible for determining what is shared and what is kept private. This organization should be made of up government employees, area experts, citizens, and journalists. This group will need to balance the need to keep private issues that are truly national security concerns and the need to make everything else public.”

    An independent organization does nothing to solve the issue that we can never know what documents exist if the government refuses to tell us. An independent body would merely be a way for, as I said above, the government to *appear* open. If the government still did not want embarrassing or incriminating documents to see the light of day, the government would merely hide the fact that those documents exist from the independent organization.

    • http://miridunn.blogspot.com miridunn

      I was having trouble articulating the many thoughts I had while reading this piece. I nearly choked at the very opening “Open government requires govt & citizens to work together”. What idealism. So, thanks for saying what I wish I said. Or, in other words “Ditto”. What amazes me is the irony that people blame wikileaks for reporting the deeds, rather than those who did the deed. If this causes discomfort and disturbance, so be it. Maybe it will, eventually, lead to some semblance of open government when we feel that parties are finally being honest.

  • Pingback: The White House response to Wikileaks | Government In The Lab

  • http://www.publicworksgroup.com Pam Broviak

    I like the idea of having all the information open other than information that cannot be shared due to national security. Obviously if a nation is in a war, they can’t publicize your strategy and plans or they put their citizens at risk.

    But I also believe throwing it out without consideration or discussion of possible consequences is irresponsible. The most important question to ask before releasing information is “have we provided everything someone would need to fully assess and understand what we are providing and if not, will this lack of information negatively impact the lives of citizens.” I am an engineer, and if I had to assess a situation and was only given some of the information, there is a good chance I would make a poor decision. And this is what happens when the government is unable to provide to citizens exactly what they need to understand or assess what is released. Citizens make decisions or assessments that are not correct. And that is as unfair to citizens as not releasing any information at all.

    Sometimes having people reach a wrong conclusion based on information might not cause a negative impact in their lives. But sometimes it causes citizens to needlessly become worried and change their lifestyle or choices which can impact them. I saw this happen where I worked before. We had a problem at our water plant that we were working on. Everyone involved had many years of experience and all the information available to reach a conclusion that the problem would cause no health impacts to the community. Obviously if it had, the EPA would have shut us down. But the local paper took up the story publishing only some of the information – and as some papers often do – laid it out in a way that scared people into believing their water was not safe to drink. This led people to needlessly reach a conclusion that they would forever have to purchase water for drinking and cooking. Many in that city were on low incomes, and this was a waste of their limited resources. The journalist who chose to publish in this manner ignored the impact of releasing partial information and ended up negatively impacting people’s lives. Again, a move that was totally unfair to that population.

    So I just think throwing out information can be reckless and in the end can hurt people. And I do see where John’s suggested “organization” could help address this concern. Not to prevent the release but to make sure it is done in a responsible manner.

  • http://wiredpen.com Kathy

    This is not an open government issue per se. The problem, as Daniel Moynihan and Larry Combest found in the late 1990s, is overclassification and complexity. See http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/commissions/secrecy/index.html

  • CoCreatr

    A very polarizing topic indeed, and the engagement shows people think it is important.

    Thought experiment: What for a person is the right to privacy, for an organization or administration is the right to _____. .

    I guess many would insert “secrecy”, which brings us to a core issue: if we claim wikileaks are illegal disclosures, there must be a concept of what is “legal secrecy”? Especiially for an administration that has power to define what is legal, while it is seen to have conflicts of interest.

    The balance of powers and abuses is where we need the spotlight of transparency to bring about disclosure of past transgressions. I envision elements of forgiveness, like an amnesty contingent on a due date for disclosure. Let the house of cards collapse and have a fresh start with a clean slate.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Wikileaks is a blow to open government | Government In The Lab -- Topsy.com

  • george

    Such an idiot.you still believe the people of this world are stupid?that we need some smart guy like you to decide what we can or cant read?awareness is some vital component of freedom,and what you are promoting is the oposite.but i can imagine your motives,purely for the benefit of the people,no?just be happy you can still survive ,and start considering changing your attitude .this is a chance for all in this world to change to stop abusing the rest stop stealing resources,stop manipulating and start working with the majority for a better world for everyone not only for the few.
    but you seem unable to participate in this kind of society ,so what would be the purpose of your existence if these liers ,these thieves,these fascists who care for p[rofit and glory ,go away ?(as they will ,dont forget ,the power of the humans is beyond expectation.all these pervertes who seek power and money ,they will get exactly what they deserve.and with them all those who assisted to the attempts to silence the truth ,to cover up ,to lie,to steal .There will be a scheduled flight of a spaceship to a far away planet and all those will be in it.you seem to have a booking already.good for everyone.we ll get rid of the filth

  • http://adrielhampton.com Adriel Hampton

    John, I disagree that this is a blow to open government. “Open government” is not a marketing program.

    • John F Moore

      Adriel, I agree with you that open government is not a marketing program. however, like any change management effort it must be marketed. In this case the audience is government employees, politicians, citizens, and others.

Advertise with IZEA Media