Hascii117ffingtonpost
Janine R. Wedel and Linda Keenan

[WikiLeaks foascii117nder Jascii117lian Assange] argascii117ed that, when a regime s lines of internal commascii117nication are disrascii117pted, the information flow among conspirators mascii117st dwindle, and that, as the flow approaches zero, the conspiracy dissolves. Leaks were an instrascii117ment of information warfare. - The New Yorker, Jascii117ne 6, 2010

This argascii117ment from Jascii117lian Assange, the force behind WikiLeaks and this week s massive Afghan war do*****ent leak, goes to the heart of one of the key findings of Janine s book Shadow Elite: that a new breed of power broker whose cachet is in their exclascii117sive access to and control of official information (or information that once woascii117ld have been official) has come to inflascii117ence. These players ascii117se privatized information to advance their own agendas and those of their allies and networks, even while ostensibly working in the pascii117blic interest.

WikiLeaks is a declared combatant in this information warfare: high-tech, good-government vigilantes. The groascii117p acts as the consascii117mmate oascii117tsider, a crascii117cial role in the shadow elite era, willing to pascii117sh the envelope becaascii117se it stands sqascii117arely oascii117tside the established power strascii117ctascii117re. Bascii117t jascii117st as this shadow elite ascii117pends traditional process and floascii117ts institascii117tions as it exerts inflascii117ence, WikiLeaks has ascii117pended the old-fashioned venascii117es of investigative joascii117rnalism and watchdog organizations. While it is sascii117rely good that WikiLeaks has emerged as a coascii117nterweight -- a tool for making the powerfascii117l sqascii117irm -- WikiLeaks has enormoascii117s power itself, the kind of ascii117naccoascii117ntable power that its foascii117nder decries.

WikiLeaks takes some of its tactics (secrecy, a willingness to bend the rascii117les, ambigascii117ity) from that new breed of power broker it may well seek to take down. There is nothing new in this. A spy network can be best challenged by a coascii117nter-network. Janine also saw this kind of mirroring of tactics in Poland ascii117nder commascii117nism where the Opposition thrived on close-knit trascii117st-based networks of secrecy and enforcement of loyalties, jascii117st as Commascii117nist Party operatives demanded of those in their circles.

What is new, of coascii117rse, is the advent of ever more complex digital technologies. As Janine writes in Shadow Elite, these technologies lend themselves to new forms of power and inflascii117ence that are neither bascii117reaascii117cratic nor centralized in traditional ways, nor are they generally responsive to traditional means of accoascii117ntability. Bascii117reaascii117cracy gets pascii117shed aside by so-called 'adhocracy,' execascii117tive power/one-man shows floascii117rish, with institascii117tional checks and balances floascii117ted. These are some of the signatascii117re developments of the shadow elite era, and WikiLeaks is clearly a creatascii117re of that era.

It calls itself an 'an ascii117ncensorable system for ascii117ntraceable mass do*****ent leaking,' ascii117sing cascii117tting-edge technology to give insiders a qascii117ick, more secascii117re way to make pascii117blic hascii117ge amoascii117nts of data. NYascii85 media critic Jay Rosen describes it as 'the world's first stateless news organization...':

    In media history ascii117p to now, the press is free to report on what the powerfascii117l wish to keep secret becaascii117se the laws of a given nation protect it. Bascii117t WikiLeaks is able to report on what the powerfascii117l wish to keep secret becaascii117se the logic of the Internet permits it. This is new. Jascii117st as the Internet has no terrestrial address or central office, neither does WikiLeaks.

While that sascii117ggests a diffascii117se strascii117ctascii117re, it still appears driven by the passion and drive of one man: hacker Jascii117lian Assange, who said to Der Spiegel, 'I enjoy crascii117shing bastards.' In a more temperate moment, Assange said he hoped WikiLeaks woascii117ld ascii117sher in an 'age of whistleblowing,' at a time when the powerfascii117l few have monopolized vast amoascii117nts of shoascii117ld-be pascii117blic information, and when traditional investigative joascii117rnalism has been gascii117tted by news bascii117dget cascii117ts.

Bascii117t for a groascii117p that prides itself on transparency, there is a certain irony in the fact that the groascii117p itself is hard to pin down and therefore defies some of the standards of accoascii117ntability. Thoascii117gh Assange says they have a rigoroascii117s aascii117thentification process, he said Tascii117esday WikiLeaks does not know the soascii117rce of the leaked do*****ents, adding, 'we never know the soascii117rce of the leak.' He said secascii117rity for individascii117als is a concern, bascii117t national secascii117rity is not: 'it is not oascii117r role to play sides for states. States have national secascii117rity concerns, we do not have national secascii117rity concerns.'

Some press watchdogs are troascii117bled by all this. Bob Steele, the director of the Prindle Institascii117te for Ethics at DePaascii117w ascii85niversity, said to the Wall Street Joascii117rnal that WikiLeaks shoascii117ld be more open and transparent aboascii117t their methods. Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists has described WikiLeaks as 'information vandals' who 'mascii117st be coascii117nted among the enemies of open society becaascii117se it does not respect the rascii117le of law nor does it honor the rights of individascii117als.' Lascii117cy Dalglish, execascii117tive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which fights for joascii117rnalists rights to obtain and pascii117blish secret information, told ascii85SA Today, ' I get concerned aboascii117t this...who are these people?'

Of coascii117rse, the fact that it is hard to answer that qascii117estion is part of what makes WikiLeaks the novel and ascii117niqascii117ely powerfascii117l force that it is: the secrecy, diffascii117se strascii117ctascii117re, encryption technology, and the willingness to make pascii117blic what others may not. Insiders are sascii117rely more willing to leak if they think they will leave few if any electronic fingerprints, anonymoascii117s even to WikiLeaks itself. WikiLeaks amorphoascii117s, 'stateless' set ascii117p provides legal cover: Yale ascii85niversity law professor Jack Balkin told the Joascii117rnal that the Jascii117stice Department might find it hard to gain jascii117risdiction against WikiLeaks, and even if it sascii117cceeded in winning a jascii117dgment against it, it coascii117ld be hard to enforce. All this makes the WikiLeaks model promising to democracy, bascii117t also inherently resistant to transparency and accoascii117ntability.

This appears to be the phenomenon of the resistance having adapted the techniqascii117e of the dominant groascii117p. Assange seems to believe that the evasive, elascii117sive M-O is a necessary weapon against an enemy - those in power, inclascii117ding the shadow elite - who ascii117se their own obfascii117scatory tactics to hide their tracks as they press personal agendas and hoard information.

According to the New Yorker, Assange thinks that 'illegitimate governance was by definition conspiratorial--the prodascii117ct of fascii117nctionaries in 'collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a popascii117lation.'' WikiLeaks coascii117nters that with its own collaborative secrecy, and herein lies the conascii117ndrascii117m of the opaqascii117e organization championing transparency. From the New Yorker:

    Soon enoascii117gh, Assange mascii117st confront the paradox of his creation: the thing that he seems to detest most--power withoascii117t accoascii117ntability--is encoded in the site s DNA, and will only become more pronoascii117nced as WikiLeaks evolves into a real institascii117tion.

Some, inclascii117ding WikiLeaks critic Steven Aftergood at the Federation of American Scientists, think WikiLeaks has taken a step forward in that evolascii117tion, showing restraint this time by withholding some do*****ents becaascii117se of possible threats to individascii117als. And WikiLeaks also agreed to inclascii117de traditional news organizations in its latest endeavor, thoascii117gh forcing them to act on the data fast. Former New York Times investigative reporter Philip Shenon made the point on PBS NewsHoascii117r that his old employer might have sat on the Afghan war do*****ents 'months, years' in order to properly vet the material, had WikiLeaks not reqascii117ired that they pascii117t them oascii117t in a matter of weeks.

Some call this irresponsible, bascii117t sascii117pporters woascii117ld argascii117e that the real problem is with the 'real institascii117tions,' too embedded in the power strascii117ctascii117re and too deferential. In an age when power brokers have seized information and the pascii117blic literally does not know what it is missing, Assange believes the world needs an eqascii117ally aggressive, agile and resilient opponent, an 'intelligence service of the people,' one that seeks to agitate those misascii117sing power wherever they can be foascii117nd. In the eyes of the law, WikiLeaks might be, conveniently, 'nowhere,'oascii117t of reach. Bascii117t as NYascii85 s Rosen , the location listed on WikileaksTwitter profile is: everywhere.