Protean, elusive, capable of great good and appalling evil, but mostly harmless
“I think Julian Assange’s personal life might be the saddest confirmation that all the information in the world, all the openness in the world doesn’t prevent you from being kind of a prick sometimes.”
Labels: media, whistleblowing
posted by Jacob A. Stam at 2/24/2011 10:35:00 PM
Caz at
27/2/11 12:36 PM Caz at
27/2/11 3:20 PM
at
28/2/11 1:12 PM Caz at
28/2/11 7:24 PM at
28/2/11 8:17 PM at
28/2/11 8:23 PM Caz at
28/2/11 9:23 PM at
1/3/11 10:17 AM
8 Comments:
You've been busy posting Jacob, and I hadn't even noticed ... shame on me. Kath drew my attention to this one, and I think the guy has used an awful lot of words to say very little (although yes, nice quote about Assange, but hasn't that also been said already, many times, along with the flip side, which is that Assange is also charismatic, compelling and good company).
Worse than saying little, and certainly nothing new, he conflates a couple of key issues in a misleading way. His piece is not for the ignorant, that's for sure.
He entirely muddies, or doesn't seem to understand the difference between being a hacker and the purpose of Wikileaks, which is to publish material that others submit. There is no overlap between hacking and publishing leaked documents. He fails, either disingenuously, or deliberately, to make that distinction. He persistently confuses the two activities all the way through.
He also conflates the architecture of the internet, the free and open nature of the internet (which must, as its inventor continues to insist, remain open and free), with privacy matters. Again, it's a confusion and convoluted argument that leads nowhere, as he makes murky waters muddy and reaches no conclusions.
On Wikileaks, but more broadly, anything on the Internet, my thought has always been, and always will be: data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom.
Unfortunately, PowerPoint made us silly, and the internet is making us dumb.
Most people no longer recognise what is and isn't important data, nor do though know what to do with all that data in any case. They simply never get beyond mere data. Perpetual partial attention and perpetual surface skimming.
The infinite value of the internet has been defeated by dumb people.
See also his footnote:
"There are people from the Wikileaks community who became uncomfortable with Julian Assange, and are attempting to rev up alternative leak sites. Some of these experiments might turn out well, and I might become an enthusiast for them."
Utterly inconsistent, or rather, a point that is unsupportable from whatever argument Lanier thinks he has presented in his article (and I'm still not even sure what he thinks he has said, although commenters seem to believe he has made a sharp and compelling point of some kind ... I'm still digging to find it).
How is one publication site, or recipient site for leaked material better than another?
Will Openleaks (or whatever their name is) offer documents for publication received from China or North Korea? Do they have a bunch of academically qualified translators on hand to know what is and isn't valuable, what should or doesn't need to be redacted?
That's one of the big problems with every recent critique of Wikileaks during the last 12 mths: it has become all about America, and the leaks from other countries that lead to real reforms, having exposed corruptions, are now in a waste basket, utterly ignored.
That's the problem of the US and everyone else treating the US as if they're the centre of the universe. If it's not about them, it's unimportant. Which is utter bullshit.
Assange has a sharp intellect, but he contributed to the current obsession by declaring the US a particular target, as if America is somehow worse than any other country - they're bigger, so on a scale, they are, but scale isn't the point, and Assange used to know that. He decided he needed more exposure, of his little hobby, he was tired of doing good, but not getting the kudos and the media coverage, so he went for the biggest target in town. Worse, he has continued to nominate the US as his pet target, despite holding onto goodness knows what documents from other countries, or relating to matters of import to a broader public. Assange dug the hole all by himself. It's so dumb and so obvious, but like some idiot politician or bastard CEO, Assange won't let it go.
Lanier, ostensibly an intelligent man, has been suckered into believing that Wikileaks is all about attaching the US - despite prior years of evidence that it isn't, and regardless of the obvious limitations of any site accepting leaked material: they're at the mercy of access (more access in Western and most European countries, therefore, leaks will come from predominately English speaking countries), and language and political understanding (even if leaks come from a brutalised country, the material will not be in English, and few people in the world would understand the import of the content, even when translated).
I enjoyed Lanier's discussion, he makes a couple of interesting observations along the way. And I think he's supposed to be a pioneer of online culture, coined the term 'virtual reality', etc.
But you're right about the way he conflates 'hacking' with 'publishing'. Although Assange probably may have advanced 'hacking'-type skills (which he used, for instance, in assisting a Vic Police child porn investigation back in the '90s), that is only very peripheral to his Wikileaks activity. Actually 'peripheral' is probably too strong a word.
Moreover, although Lanier admits to a broad consanguinity with both 'hacking' culture and the 'philosophy' behind wikileaks, his ambivalence about wikileaks seems rather confused. It's all heading in "the wrong direction", he says, but then doesn't seem to have a handle on how he thinks anyone else might have done it better.
So for Lanier, the practice of wikileaks doesn't seem to measure up to the philosophy behind it, and - surprise, surprise - Assange's character flaws don't help things at all. As if Assange and wikileaks should somehow be the exception to the general rule that an ideal is always perverted to some degree in the attempt to put it into practice.
I'd be interested to know of any case where some innovation was implemented flawlessly. The vision and talents of a Bill Gates gave rise to Microsoft, that cesspool of anti-competitive racketeering. That was pretty unfortunate, but was anyone really surprised?
Pretty bizarre if he's laying claim to coining "virtual reality" Jacob.
William Gibson - Neuromancer (1984), written on a typewriter, with no knowledge of computing or the yet to be born web, coined and anticipated the "matrix" and cyperspace, and virtual reality.
Mark Pesce, taking his lead from Gibson's fiction (even naming his company after a company in the book) developed Virtual Reality Modeling Language.
Not sure where Lanier thinks he should get credit in that, but nowhere, would be my immediate thought.
Hell's bells, just noticed that my second comment has vanished ... did you receive it and it vanished, or not received at all?
Well that's freaky, I've checked the mailbox where these things go and lo and behold there's your comment. Can't imagine why the blogger engine didn't post it, but anyway here it is:
Posted by Caz at 27/2/11 3:20 PM
"There are people from the Wikileaks community who became uncomfortable with Julian Assange, and are attempting to rev up alternative leak sites. Some of these experiments might turn out well, and I might become an enthusiast for them."
Utterly inconsistent, or rather, a point that is unsupportable from whatever argument Lanier thinks he has presented in his article (and I'm still not even sure what he thinks he has said, although commenters seem to believe he has made a sharp and compelling point of some kind ... I'm still digging to find it).
How is one publication site, or recipient site for leaked material better than another?
Will Openleaks (or whatever their name is) offer documents for publication received from China or North Korea? Do they have a bunch of academically qualified translators on hand to know what is and isn't valuable, what should or doesn't need to be redacted?
That's one of the big problems with every recent critique of Wikileaks during the last 12 mths: it has become all about America, and the leaks from other countries that lead to real reforms, having exposed corruptions, are now in a waste basket, utterly ignored.
That's the problem of the US and everyone else treating the US as if they're the centre of the universe. If it's not about them, it's unimportant. Which is utter bullshit.
Assange has a sharp intellect, but he contributed to the current obsession by declaring the US a particular target, as if America is somehow worse than any other country - they're bigger, so on a scale, they are, but scale isn't the point, and Assange used to know that. He decided he needed more exposure, of his little hobby, he was tired of doing good, but not getting the kudos and the media coverage, so he went for the biggest target in town. Worse, he has continued to nominate the US as his pet target, despite holding onto goodness knows what documents from other countries, or relating to matters of import to a broader public. Assange dug the hole all by himself. It's so dumb and so obvious, but like some idiot politician or bastard CEO, Assange won't let it go.
Lanier, ostensibly an intelligent man, has been suckered into believing that Wikileaks is all about attaching the US - despite prior years of evidence that it isn't, and regardless of the obvious limitations of any site accepting leaked material: they're at the mercy of access (more access in Western and most European countries, therefore, leaks will come from predominately English speaking countries), and language and political understanding (even if leaks come from a brutalised country, the material will not be in English, and few people in the world would understand the import of the content, even when translated).
Hmm, this bio page (love the dreadlocks!) credits Lanier with coining the term 'virtual reality' in the early 1980s. Perhaps Gibson got it from him? Or vice versa? But either way, maybe it was subconscious plagiarism. Or they came to the term independently. Or whatever. Someone should clear this up (he said, with no intention of doing so himself).
At any rate, I can but agree that Assange's public utterances and his ego can get him in some bother. Not clever for someone involved in such activity. I think Lanier wants to argue others might make a better fist of publishing wikileak-type material than Assange.
I guess that could be a tenable argument, in as much as Assange's personality has somewhat eclipsed the wikileaks mission. It's arguable he has allowed and encouraged this to happen. Equally it's arguable that it was inevitable, since the best way for wikileaks critics to attack it is to demonise the guy behind it.
I don't know how that'd be avoidable given Assange owns the enterprise itself. OpenLeaks may turn out to have a better governance model in some respects, but direction and resolve in an organisation is difficult to maintain without some form of strong leadership.
Gibson is the undisputed and globally acknowledged fiction writer who anticipated "cyberspace" and "the matrix" - before it even existed. He didn't even know anything about computers. (Brilliant piece of work, btw.)
"Virtual reality" on the other hand, was first coined and appeared in 1938 ...
Our friend is having a lend of himself, of the rest of us, which is a bit gobsmacking. (Hey, dude, we can all Google, ya know?!)
See wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality
Geez, now my re-posting of your comment has disappeared, Caz! Is there some combination of key words forming an incantation that invokes the blogger gremlins, maybe?
Here 'tis again...
Posted by Caz at 27/2/11 3:20 PM
See also his footnote:
"There are people from the Wikileaks community who became uncomfortable with Julian Assange, and are attempting to rev up alternative leak sites. Some of these experiments might turn out well, and I might become an enthusiast for them."
Utterly inconsistent, or rather, a point that is unsupportable from whatever argument Lanier thinks he has presented in his article (and I'm still not even sure what he thinks he has said, although commenters seem to believe he has made a sharp and compelling point of some kind ... I'm still digging to find it).
How is one publication site, or recipient site for leaked material better than another?
Will Openleaks (or whatever their name is) offer documents for publication received from China or North Korea? Do they have a bunch of academically qualified translators on hand to know what is and isn't valuable, what should or doesn't need to be redacted?
That's one of the big problems with every recent critique of Wikileaks during the last 12 mths: it has become all about America, and the leaks from other countries that lead to real reforms, having exposed corruptions, are now in a waste basket, utterly ignored.
That's the problem of the US and everyone else treating the US as if they're the centre of the universe. If it's not about them, it's unimportant. Which is utter bullshit.
Assange has a sharp intellect, but he contributed to the current obsession by declaring the US a particular target, as if America is somehow worse than any other country - they're bigger, so on a scale, they are, but scale isn't the point, and Assange used to know that. He decided he needed more exposure, of his little hobby, he was tired of doing good, but not getting the kudos and the media coverage, so he went for the biggest target in town. Worse, he has continued to nominate the US as his pet target, despite holding onto goodness knows what documents from other countries, or relating to matters of import to a broader public. Assange dug the hole all by himself. It's so dumb and so obvious, but like some idiot politician or bastard CEO, Assange won't let it go.
Lanier, ostensibly an intelligent man, has been suckered into believing that Wikileaks is all about attaching the US - despite prior years of evidence that it isn't, and regardless of the obvious limitations of any site accepting leaked material: they're at the mercy of access (more access in Western and most European countries, therefore, leaks will come from predominately English speaking countries), and language and political understanding (even if leaks come from a brutalised country, the material will not be in English, and few people in the world would understand the import of the content, even when translated).
Post a Comment
<< Home