So why is this a problem?

For starters, there is discrimination. The Internet is as an open medium, where every feature and service is treated equally. For example, search engines provide you with sites that are the closest match to your request, not the highest paying content providers.

Next, there is double payment on a service. Currently, net users are charged for access. Opponents to Net Neutrality also want to have users pay for content, by charging the service providers who will then pass on these costs to users. Currently we pay for the pipes, not the type of content that comes through the pipes.

Most importantly is the oppression of innovation. The net as it stands allows start-ups and entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace competitively. A tiered Internet will be dictated by who can afford to dominate the content supply market through massive financing.

On December 21, 2010, the FCC will vote on a net neutrality proposal plan. Outlined by Chairman Julius Genachowski, the plan includes five key points: transparency; a ban blocking lawful apps and services; a ban on unreasonable network management; allowance some ISP network management; and rules governing wireless that calls for the above. Another notable feature is that the plan does not reclassify broadband as a telecom service, and holds it to the same rules and regulations.

Net Neutrality is absolutely necessary for the future of the Internet as we know it, and although many in the U.S. have an inherent mistrust for government regulation, it is the only way we will achieve equity for all users:

“In the end, network neutrality rules are not the only way government can try to lower the costs of market entry in the national economy. However, it is one of the simplest, and it has proven very effective over the last decade.”

Tim Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia University.

According to a report on BBC, Openleaks is planning to allow newspapers and other organizations to have more editorial decisions.

“Unlike Wikileaks, Openleaks will not publish or verify material; leaving that role to newspapers, ‘NGOs, labour unions and other interested entities.’

‘We are trying to build a community of various organisations that need or have use for anonymously submitted information,’ former Wikileaks member Herbert Snorrason told the BBC.

Mr. Domscheit-Berg, said the decision to be a “conduit” rather than publisher was made because of the team’s experience at Wikileaks.”

Specifically, Domscheit-Berg states that the technology can be embedded on any site, allowing for anonymous data leaks to go to the whomever the whistle-blowers choose. This addresses many of the problems with Wikileaks, including “too much concentration of power…in one organisation,” said Domscheit-Berg.

Additionally, Openleaks plans to give legal advice on dealing with and publishing such sensitive material.

The new founder emphasizes that Openleaks is not to be about faces or egos, and that he feels that Wikileaks became more about the project than the mission. “We’re not aiming for any front pages. If anything at all, this organisation is to enable others to do that,” Domscheit-Berg says in the BBC report. Though he claims that the two sites will be different because of the opposing approaches, it will undoubtedly be a rivalry that will be interesting to watch as it develops.

More importantly, Columbia SIPA students now have something new to write about.

Arguments span from accusations that Assange is a terrorist who belongs in jail, to the idea that can free the world from lies and conflict.

Sadly, few seem to argue for the middle path.

Why we need Wikileaks

As the past decade has shown us we do need organizations like Wikileaks. When democratic leaders go to war on false grounds and keep vital information hidden from the public, then, clearly, there is a democratic win in having an organization that can notify the public the way Wikileaks does.

Through its disclosure of classified documents, Wikileaks has given citizens important insights into state secrets and helped fight the trend to over classify government information.

“Wikileaks is enabling people to improve democratic accountability. That’s valuable to a democracy,” says Quint Hendler, staff writer for Columbia Journalism Review.

His opinion is supported by Alexander Hotz, who is Digital Media Associate at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism:

“Even in the US, sources are not entirely safe from outing or prosecution. Wikileaks provides a leaking platform, which is safe, secure and anonymous. I think that’s nothing short of revolutionary.”

… And a Critical Mindset

Yet it seems that caution and healthy skepticism towards Wikileaks may also be beneficial.

Although a democracy needs someone to blow the whistle on governments, it also needs for people to be critical when an organization, whose main objective is to promote transparency, is itself an extremely closed system.

“We are watching seismic events prompted by information from unknown sources, selected by unknown curators, paid for by unknown funders,” says Anne Nelson, Associate Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.

Her opinion is supported by Hendler who adds:

“It would be nice if Wikileaks were a better run and more transparent organization. At the moment, there is room for improvement.”

Further querying the methods of Wikileaks is the fact that the organization relies on framing to shape people’s perception of the material it discloses.

An obvious example of this is the military video “Collateral Murder,” disclosed in April, showing soldiers killing civilian Iraqis. Although the video certainly qualified to be a matter of public interest, Wikileaks was criticized for editorializing by adding a value-laden description of the content, focusing on a limited part of the video and giving it a very subjective title.

“It was definitely intended to be viewed in a certain way,” says Hendler. However, he does believe that Wikileaks subsequently toned down the editorializing effort.

Still, the organization does not refrain from giving its own opinion on the documents it releases.

“Much of Assange’s rhetoric suggests that Wikileaks has an agenda. The organization is clearly anti-Iraq war and hostile to US foreign policy. That bias – even if you agree with it – is a reason for skepticism,” warns Hotz.

A Powerful Underdog

The increased influence Wikileaks calls for a more nuanced view of the organization. In addition to being an advocate of openness, Wikileaks is also a gatekeeper because the organization single-handedly chooses what information to publish and how.

According to Nielson this is problematic because Wikileaks does not provide us with the same transparency and fact-checking ability as the press.

“The legal framework and safeguards for the print media have been built up over several hundred years,” she says, “Now the Internet presents us with a ‘Wild West’ where we don’t always understand the long-range implications of rapidly evolving events as they occur,” she says.

“The public shouldn’t trust anything Wikileaks releases as gospel unless the information is fact checked by journalists or academics,” Hotz notes, “To Wikileaks’ credit, nothing it has published has proven false.”

Wikileaks is trying to promote a world with total transparency. However, in its attempt to do so, it reproduces the exact same practices it’s trying to fight: Though promoting transparency, the organization itself is secretive about its operations and to expose governmental manipulation, it relies on editorializing information.

Nevertheless, this does not justify any attempt to prevent Wikileaks from leaking information that can strengthen democracy.

Similarly, the increased power of Wikileaks’ does not reduce our need for the organization. It does, however, highlight the need for us to assess Wikileaks critically.

With the organization’s multiple roles as transparency advocate, gatekeeper and powerful agenda setter, the question arises; who is to blow the whistle on Wikileaks?

“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, pubic participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

As well as tracking the government’s use of economic stimulus funds with public websites such as recovery.gov, USASpending.gov, and IT.usaspending.gov, the Administration is empowering citizens to influence policy decisions.

The Open Government Initiative was rolled out in three phases. First, The White House invited citizens to brainstorm ideas online for a more transparent, collaborative and participatory government, and then vote on these suggestions. For three weeks, which started on June 15, 2009, the public collaborated on recommendations through a wiki. After this brainstorm period, the White House reviewed the collated concepts and developed integration strategies.

Then, On December 8, 2009, the White House issued the Open Government Directive requiring federal agencies to take immediate steps to achieve milestones in transparency, participation, and collaboration. The Chief Technology Officer and Chief Information Officer were called to create an Open Government Dashboard to assess the state of open government in the Executive Branch. On April 7th, 2010, all Federal departments published an Open Government Plan that outlined how they would make their operations and data more transparent, and allow for further citizen collaboration.

In its first year year, the Dashboard revealed that 45 projects were critically over budget, behind schedule or both. These projects were halted or terminated, resulting in cost savings of $54 million.

I was so surprised to read that the Obama administration (and Obama himself !) called Wikileaks a criminal organization. Logically speaking, if Wikileaks is a criminal organization, then the New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel, Le Monde and The Guardian are too (they have been working with criminals) and should be blamed for complicity. Is this relevant or just ludicrous ? The problem here is not WikiLeaks, it is about the “politics of naming” that should force those who lead those policies to be consistent from the beginning to the end. Amateurism…

I was surprised to hear that the US State Department has required all its staff and employees not to read the disclosed documents. Not only does this information sound like a revival of old forms of conscience censorship, but it is also so ridiculous given that the State Department still call those documents “confidential” and “Top Secret”.

I was surprised by French Minister of Telecommunications Eric Besson saying this week-end that he wants to take action to try and block Wikileaks from being hosted by French Server/Host Owni on the Internet. The Internet is so liquid and volatile that any attempt to block a website’s content from being hosted by another website could only be  a waste of time: if Besson succeeds, no wonder then that Wikileaks would always manage to  be hosted by another guy.

Why are our officials so incompetently appointed? The problem here is not WikiLeaks but the lack of though and judgment of some people applying “real life” measures to what should be once and for all understood as a complex new digital age.

I was very surprised to receive an e-mail email from OSA (Office of Students Affairs) sent to SIPA’s entire body warning students not to discuss the wikileaks fiasco in any online forum, lest students interested in pursuing careers within the State Department would put their future in jeopardy. This directive seems odd considering that last year, the head of the State Department’s new e-Diplomacy was talking at SIPA. It was about need-to-share and transparency policies…

My only consolation last week came from T.Friedman’s new Op-Ed in the New York Times. The author wrote a fiction piece called « From Wiki China » where he imagines : « What if China had a WikiLeaker and we could see what its embassy in Washington was reporting about America? ».

A Must Read. Enjoy !

Founded on August 24^th, 2009, M.A.L.I[i] is a group of thirteen Moroccan citizens who present themselves as staunch advocates of individual and civil liberties aiming at fostering the debate on Individual liberties and civil rights in Morocco.

“We all love our country and that’s why we want it to improve in the field of individual liberties”, explains M.A.L.I Co-Founder Betty Lachgar.

The ambitions of M.A.L.Is go beyond words. In fact, M.A.L.I members are rather seeking to organize coup-de-poing happenings to destabilize the country’s most sacred conservatisms and then start the debate.

“ In this respect, we have decided to start a struggle against intolerance, power abuse, socio-religious inquisition and abusive laws” adds Psychoterapist Betty Lachgar.

And that is exactly what they did.

Aware that Islam is the most volcanic taboo in Morocco’s society, M.A.L.Is did not choose provocation deliberately.  What they were bent on doing was to act as the mirror of “the provocative contradictions of Morocco’s social, religious and institutional fabric.”

“We wanted to perform a symbolic act to point out the very contradictions of Morocco’s institutional backdrop. In fact, while Morocco’s constitution guarantees freedom of Worship, article 222 of Morocco’s criminal code still condemns anybody presumably of Muslim belief to a six-month sentence to jail” argues Co-Founder Zineb El Rhazoui, 27.

The Butterfly Effect

At first glance, M.A.L.I appears as one of the million movements locally struggling for the advancement and improvement of individual liberties. So far, so good. Nothing new under the sun.

However, absent social networks, what happened in Morocco on September 13^th, 2009 could have gone totally unnoticed. And that’s what makes M.A.L.I so revolutionary.

The idea is quite simple to understand. Aware that their low weight and high powerlessness as a 13-member group is a disheartening liability, M.A.L.Is have mostly relied on Facebook as a stepping stone to spread over their ideas.

How Could a 13-people picnic in the small city of Mohammedia, Morocco set off a tornado in the highest ranks of Morocco’s authorities, hit the headlines of  Le Monde and El Mundo, and arouse the ire of Human Rights Watch?

At The Beginning Was Facebook.

The conception, description and pubilicity of the un-fasting happening all started on M.A.L.I’s Facebook page.

What first started as a mild and cordial discussion about religion and society evolved to a more and more tensed, aggressive and sometimes violent exchange between those who supported the initiative and those who condemned it with the utmost vehemence.

Choosing to compare the insignificance of the incident itself with the huge consequences it had and still has as the yardstick by which the success of the operation should be assessed, one would doubtlessly call it a success. Let’s have a look.

The Media

On the local level, the story hit the headlines of all daily and weekly news magazines such as Tel Quel: “They Did It!”

On the international level, Spanish Newspaper EL Mundo’s headline best encapsulated the discrepancy between the incident and its irrational consequences: “In Morocco, 100 Policemen against 10 Sandwiches”.

NGOs

“We should not, in the name of our Muslim heritage, accept that people be condemned only because they express a different opinion” argues Khadija Rouissi, President of Bayt Al Hikma, one of the local NGOs which supported M.A.L.I’s intiative.

“They started the debate, and that’s very positive” adds AMDH President Khadija Ryadi.

On the international level, on September 19^th, Human Rights Watch called on the Moroccan authorities to cancel any charge against M.A.L.I members. A camouflet for a country that has always been boasting about being one of the most advanced democratic Muslim country in the world.

The Internet: Facebook as a facade and forums as ramifications

Facebook has been essential for M.A.L.I.  They were three important phases.

First, the creation of a Facebook group of 13 admins, a couple of clicks, some pictures, a description of the group, and the weapon was ready.

The second phase was impulsed by the creation of an event, the “symbolic picnic”, which made the group grow from 13 people to 200 ones, a sufficient critical mass to spark a small buzz prior to the event.

The third phase is still going on and it is about how the Facebook page beneficiated from the incident post-euphoria. The two groups now have more than 2,500 members. Though this number is incomparable to what we generally witness with NGOs in Western countries, it is still a lot for a country where Internet accessibility, literacy and fear of retaliation are still serious issues.

As for forums[ii], they have been playing a satellite and shelter role. Among them, Bladi has been the most active one.

Recently, In July 2010, the famous American blog Freethought devoted a 2,000-word piece on the story and its consequences.

Speaking in absolute terms, the fact that 13 people stubbornly decided to eat publicly during Ramadan 2009 in Morocco should have remained an insignificant and marginal incident. Yet, owing to the very special modus operandi chosen by the “dissident” movement to make their act go viral and start an unprecedented media buzz going beyong the borders of Morocco, what happened that day should be given the utmost attention and be construed as a major and fundamental change in the way religion and society dynamics are and will be apprehended in Morocco.

Now the Pandora box is open and there’s nothing to do to reverse the tide.

[ii] Forums perfectly illustrate Professors Keck and Sikkink’ arguments (Activist Beyond Borders, 1998)about the power of transnational networks metaphorized by the « boomerang effect »: the idea that a local group can « send » a boomerang (ask for help through the internet for example) to a group acting abroad and have the later inform and put pressure on its own local environment which, the authors believe, will in turn help the foreign group that asked for help in the first place (they « send back » the boomerang).

This somewhat surprising acquiescence by RIM comes in the wake of India’s efforts to ban the devices altogether.  The government began efforts to outlaw BlackBerry smart phones this past summer citing security concerns.   They suspect that the orchestrators of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai utilized encrypted BlackBerry devices that Indian security agencies were unable to monitor.

RIM likely made the concession to avoid being shut out of what it sees as growing and potentially very profitable market. Informa Telecoms & Media estimates that more than 600,000 BlackBerry devices will be sold in India this year.

But will Indian citizens react like some in the United States did when their mobile privacy is threatened?

Since the Obama administration proposed a bill earlier this year that would make it easier to monitor BlackBerrys, among many other devices, there has been significant public opposition.  Though the bill does not come close to opening all communication to government surveillance, it simply requires them to be what the New York Times defines as “technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order,” many Americans feel it is a violation of privacy.

It is yet to be seen whether the response in India will be similar.  As the story unfolds, it will be interesting to watch the public’s reaction and whether it has an impact on the government’s decision to monitor communication.

The leak once again raises debate about WikiLeaks with opponents finding the organization a threat to national security and proponents considering it a safeguard of democracy. According to WikiLeaks, the site is necessary to create governmental transparency.

“We believe that transparency in government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government and stronger democracies,” reads the WikiLeaks Web site. The site operates from servers in countries where national laws protect its disclosures.

According to the US Defense Department the disclosures of WikiLeaks “put risk to the lives of American troops.” In an official response to the new leaks, the Defense Department states: “We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law, leak classified documents and then cavalierly share that secret information with the world, including our enemies.”

Julian Assange, who is the founder of WikiLeaks, has responded to the criticism by stating that there is no evidence that American soldiers have been killed as a result of the leaked documents.

Following the leaks, American army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, has been arrested and accused of leaking the documents.

Needless to say that it was not part of the plan for those young scandal instigators to be-first- seen on a national TV channel before-second- hitting the headlines of major newspapers all over the world.

As expected, reactions and comments around the world coming from political leaders, civil society, NGOs, bloggers and even Tsahal officials condemned the behaviors of those immature kids.

“This video finally debunks one of the most persistent Israeli myths – that ours is the only occupying army in history that does not sexually abuse the women of the occupied nation », says Israeli Editorialist Dimi Reider on his blog, Dimi’s notes. »

Besides its political taint, the reaction of the official Palestinian bodies was undoubtedly the most resourceful one.

“With the advent of easy-to-use media like YouTube, the truth is coming to light about a culture of humiliation of the Palestinians,” said a Palestinian official from Prime Minister Fayyad’s office on Tuesday, October 5^th.

Beyond the non-surprising political interpretation of the video by the Palestinian Government, what is crucial in the statement is the awareness of the impact new digital media has on today’s political realities.

The case of Israel is quite telling, as the Israeli IDF has had a long tradition of discretion and control on everything that relates to its communication. Therefore, witnessing a non-amateur army in such an uncomfortable position (to say the least) is blatant evidence of the immense power and tremendous volatility new media have today.

In fact, things seem to have changed for Tsahal, making it harder and harder for the Israeli army to control everything, as this video is not an isolated case for the IDF. In fact, this new broadcast is the third thorn the Israeli army had to deal with after two similar cases had occurred earlier this year, all three happening within a six-month period.

First, exposure of the video came just seven weeks after an Israeli soldier sparked widespread outrage by posting pictures of herself smiling and larking around next to blindfolded and handcuffed Palestinian prisoners. The army denounced the pictures as “shameful,” while the Palestinian Authority described them as humiliating, but the former soldier, Eden Abergil, could not understand why the images had caused such offence.

Second, earlier last summer, the video of six soldiers breaking out into a coordinated dance routine in the middle of the street while on duty in Hebron prompted a global outcry that had destabilized Tsahal’s communication. The video was all the more shocking, as Hebron has had a sad and bloody tradition of paroxysmal violence between illegal settlers and local Palestinians.

« Israel has not yet find the weapon against this kind of threats », says Omar Barghouti, a founding committee member of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel. No matter how many radars, anti-missile shields,F-15 and M-16 you may have, New Media is stronger than you.

Not an Isolated Case

Yet, Israel and the Palestinian territories are not the only places where new media are changing the rules of the communication/censorship  game.

YouTube was blocked in Thailand because of videos showing people stomping on photographs of the Thai King.

Turkey, on the other hand, is offended by videos that indicate that Ataturk, the founder and first president of Turkey, was homosexual. Turkey wants YouTube to block these videos not only in its own country, but also everywhere else. As YouTube refuses to do so, the site remains blocked there.

YouTube: spearhead of the revolution.

Originally aimed at socializing people through Entertainment videos (music, dance), Youtube has now become a major global actor playing a political role in each and every country.

Ironically on the same day the belly-dancing video hit the web and went viral, Steve Grove, Head of News and Politics at Youtube, came to Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs to have lunch with students, alumni, staff and faculty in the second brownbag lunch of the year sponsored by the IMAC specialization.

“Today with YouTube, you can’t get away from the camera no matter where you go,” he said.

“This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. YouTube was not created to become a public square. But as with a lot of such platforms, it’s most important role can be upsetting the power structure… The old world was a conversation between politicians and news organizations. In today’s world, there’s a whole other layer out there where you have regular people holding their leaders accountable.”

From Fastcompany:

According to Slashdot, Wikileaks has announced a plan to create a leak “uploader” feature that news orgs can embed in their Web sites. The uploader will allow quick and anonymous submission of leaked material that journalists can use exclusively for a window of time–before Wikileaks pulls the information into its publicly available database…

…The upload feature should give anonymous sources a safer, easier way to disclose sensitive information. It will also transfer legal responsibility for the material away from a given journalist and onto Wikileaks itself, a site that has proven very difficult for lawyers to thwart.

ITWorld fills in the details:

The upload system will give potential whistle blowers around the world the ability to leak sensitive documents to an organization or journalist they trust over a secure connection, while giving the receiver legal protection they might not otherwise enjoy.

“We will take the burden of protecting the source and the legal risks associated with publishing the document,” said Julien Assange, an advisory board member at Wikileaks, in an interview at the Hack In The Box security conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Once Wikileaks confirms the uploaded material is real, it will be handed over to the Web site that encouraged the submission for a period of time. This embargo period gives the journalist or rights group time to write a news story or report based on the material.