The general model behind Wikileaks comprises:
- A system that allows someone (the leaker) to release information to an organization (receiving organization) leaving no traces that lead to him. As a variation, the possible traces may be in the only possession of the receiving organization. In this case the organization either guarantees to keep them secret or destroy them effectively. At last it is a matter of trust: if the leaker trusts the system behind the receiving organization, he will relase the information. Otherwise, he will not.
- A receiving organization that receives the so called “leaks”, verifies and evaluates them and evacuates them to the public or to some other organizations for publishing (publishing organizations).
- In case there are publishing organizations involved, they add some context to the leaks and publish them to the public.
Today there are entities working by this model other than Wikileaks which, at least by now, haven’t attracted (much) public attention to them.
All these organizations have had some permeability within their workforce, they share some of the procedures, general systems and tools they use to achieve their goals.
At this point of time most look at the actual scenario these entities draw. Fewer look forward to future scenarios. When they do, most of the attention goes towards the implications in the specific field where they are being used in: international relations and, laterally, journalism.
But once the systems are in place and have proved to be effective (in the case of Wikileaks, the person who is held responsible exposed himself, it was not because of a failure in the system), why should them be kept bound to secrets related to diplomacy?
Once they spread (and they will), why not use them to reveal administration’s misbehaviors?
And why not use them to report the (naughty) private life of famous people or VIPs?
Or to circulate the life of your neighbor, at least?
I bet there’s a market for that…
Comentarios desactivados en the leaking society