Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:30 AM ET, 01/28/2011

Secrecy in a WikiLeaks world

By David Ignatius

Transparency is part of the Davos version of “political correctness.” But so is protection of intellectual property to spur innovation. The two values came into conflict Wednesday night in a discussion of issues raised by the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified information.

The near-consensus (which is as close as you get in this debating society) was that government and business must keep some secrets if they hope to encourage creativity and risk-taking. The challenge is to narrow this roster of secrets to the minimum necessary—and to operate your company or agency ethically enough that, even if WikiLeaks should somehow get its hands on the sensitive information, it wouldn’t cause a scandal.

The debate came at a Davos dinner session that was off the record, so I can’t tell you who said what. But it was the mix of top business executives, NGO leaders, professors and journalists that attend most of the sessions here. The group also included a man (not Julian Assange, I should stress) who said he had worked with WikiLeaks on the dissemination of information.

A telling point for me was that in a WikiLeaks world, it’s essential to narrow the gap between what you say in public and private, since a leaked document may reveal any differences. An American professor observed that the reason the U.S. government had not been attacked after the latest disclosures was that the cables showed State Department officials expressing privately pretty much the same views that were publicly debated in America. The problems came for the governments described in the cables—a Tunisia that was concealing official corruption, a Saudi Arabia that was privately urging an attack on Iran while it was publicly mum.

The group discussed the overuse of secrecy—and the way that wrongdoers hide behind it. One telling example involved the U.S. helicopter pilots in Iraq who were captured on a tape revealed several years ago by WiliLeaks chatting calmly as they fired at what proved to be a TV camera crew. They talked (and fired) so freely on the assumption that their actions would never be public.

But the take-away from this discussion, for me, was the contrarian point that too much openness chills debate, free-thinking and entrepreneurship. Participants cited examples where diplomats, bankers and business executives had been less frank and effective in the post-WikiLeaks world. That’s what happens when people fear their sensitive views may be disclosed: They get over-cautious.

So the Davos recipe here, as in most things, would be balance. Protect the secrets that matter, while preparing for the possibility that they could come out anyway. We live in an era when one should assume that life is “on the record,” even if some Davos discussions remain on background.

By David Ignatius  | January 28, 2011; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  David Ignatius  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bill Clinton and crypto-Socialists
Next: World health is critical; so is workplace wellness

Comments

"Participants cited examples where diplomats, bankers and business executives had been less frank and effective in the post-WikiLeaks world. That’s what happens when people fear their sensitive views may be disclosed: They get over-cautious."

Can we elaborate on what constitutes "sensitive views"? I'm trying to understand whether these are actually in the public interest, or just in the interest of the private party.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that the only reason a view might be termed sensitive is because it's dissemination would be met with disapproval from a general public. Would someone with more insight be able to provide examples to the contrary?

Posted by: patcon_ | January 28, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

"An American professor observed that the reason the U.S. government had not been attacked after the latest disclosures was that the cables showed State Department officials expressing privately pretty much the same views that were publicly debated in America."

Not true in many respects. This seems to be a line tossed around to play down what the cables reveal. The USG claims to hold certain values dear, but then they choose to publicly support oppressive regimes like that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, while in private admitting endemic corruption. I understand that the logistics of addressing those concerns in the formal political sphere is numbing (and perhaps impossible), but that's not my point.

My point is this: This constant assertion that everything is as they've told us, is false. And in the case of Tunisia, this deceptive show of support for a corrupt regime has influenced their people, because who would protest against a government when all the influential and military might of the US is behind them? Ref: http://awurl.com/BnT9mOGnB

Posted by: patcon_ | January 28, 2011 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company