WikiLeaks is a reality for over three years. For those still not familiar, this is a website that allows the publication, after verification of authenticity of any document, ensuring complete anonymity of the source. Practical applications are easy to understand and have, as the ultimate goal, to promote by all means transparency of governments, businesses, organizations and so on. This, of course, cause the release of a large number of documents, secrets and "uncomfortable", from the archives of various institutions.
A medium with these characteristics has the credentials to become a powerful instrument of global democracy and deserves, in my opinion, a great attention from the media. Yet the situations in which we hear about are always the same. Whenever the interests of the United States come into conflict with the revelations of WL, the international press she started in the eternal debate between the pros and cons of this flag without intelligence or secrets. On the one hand, there we are looking to bring out the danger of a media outlet that does not scruple to expose the eyes of terrorists and non-important military and state secrets. The pro faction, by contrast, focuses on how WL could play a key role in the complaint and to combat all those situations in which you want to keep people away from the truth. Bribery of a government, the unethical behavior of a company, everything would be laid bare before the eyes of all.
Recently WL entered the eye of the media, not as a virtual entity and abstract, but in the guise of one of its founders, Julian Assange . He talked about his history, his ideas, but above all, perhaps between the lines, risks running a figure like hers, against putting a good slice of the powerful on the planet. Even had a huge media feedback, the story that saw him accused of rape in Sweden, a charge which then was immediately discharged. Obviously, the common thought in that situation was that someone was clumsily trying to take him out. The effect that this kind of news because in the long term, however, is to put a face to WL. Make it if we are human and therefore vulnerable.
WL
In reality it is not so vulnerable. Its structure is deliberately decentralized, and the root servers that reside in nations considered sponsors of freedom of expression, such as Sweden and Belgium. But the pride of technology behind in WL is, without doubt, the system of sending anonymous documents. The details are secret, of course, but probably it is a dense network of servers around the world that communicate with each other in a blurred and not traceable. This is possible thanks to the effectiveness of the project TOR in the first place, and also because of the use of servers do not record their activity on log file. In other words, you can not move from a paper published at its source, even using the best hackers enlisted by the CIA. This reality gives the user that security is absolutely necessary in order to publish sensitive material without fear of retaliation.
But if the structure of WL is unassailable, and if so, probably, not even Julian Assange has the power to destroy, how to give a face to WL may weaken it? Simple: by touching the emotional chords of possible sources. Only a good knowledge of information technologies that are behind WL sources can make you feel safe, and this knowledge is not for everyone. If the media will keep the focus on Julian Assange, the common man, maybe in possession of sensitive documents, you immedesimerà in fear that the press has painted on the face of the "number one" by WL. Destroy WL does not mean turn off its servers, but it means to cast doubt on the people to publish any document without personal consequences.
Faced with this scenario, it is interesting to analyze how the phenomenon has lived in Italy. Our "beautiful country" has shown many times, and in every historical epoch, to be particularly prone to corruption. WL, if actively used by those who know and can not speak, would be a considerable impetus towards a transparency that has never existed here. Not to mention the positive effects that would have on the entire democratic structure of the country, it might be one of the few methods available to us, to give birth to the civic awareness and confidence in the institutions of which so much seems to be needed. So why on Italy on WL are very few documents and their significance?
A first hypothesis might be that our country has nothing to hide, it would be nice, but we move on to something more realistic. There are three main issues that are immediately apparent: lack of knowledge of the vehicle, protection of personal interests, fear. The first question is certainly one of the most important. Italy is a little computer, and even among those who are familiar with new technologies WL remains unknown. The second category is the saddest to list, but who knows, of course, very often, is personally involved and, unless unexpected redemption, it is difficult to sue alone. The third reason however, is the most important people who would break the silence, but remain nell'omertà for fear of retaliation, there are many.
So far, Italy has ever heard of WL with respect to U.S. military secrets, what we perceive as distant, but also far more "important" the fact that we could possibly know. It is therefore not surprising that, for example, a government official familiar with a few small customers, the pictures you post on WL, would be a little 'how to report their colleague to the police for stealing paper clips. WL until there is presented as something related only to the wars of USA, we ordinary citizens will feel out of place to use it. The other way to where it was discussed is precisely through the figure of JA, a procedure which, for the reasons discussed above, increases the fear factor of those who would denounce something.
The other and perhaps more important aspect that brings forth in us the fear is tied to how the media represent the opponents of WL: The idea is that whatever transpires that intelligence, especially the American, has the desire to annihilate WL. It presented a scenario of warfare between "power" and "revolutionary", which seems reasonable to expect that sooner or later a few heads will hang in the public square, perhaps to JA. Unconsciously, however, each of us perceives the risk that your head will one day be hanging on, because this is what happens to go against the powerful. And if the antagonist is identified in the Pentagon, it goes without saying that our fears are likely to have the better of us. This is only the symptom of a lack of trust in the media WL: no mention of the efficiency of the system that guarantees anonymity, therefore, only the "experts" will trust. The majority is left in ignorance, that same ignorance that is so comfortable in all situations in which you want to preserve the power and control.
In my humble opinion I think WL will have achieved its purpose, even here in Italy, when next to evidence of the abominations of Guantanamo, there will also be testing each and every rigged contract staple stolen. And I think the media should dwell more on the potential of the medium and its effects not only in worlds so distant from us. The web, today as ever, has made the gap between action and passivity extremely short. Neither laziness nor fears unfounded, could justify those who know are watching.
0 comments:
Post a Comment