Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Dalrymple sobre WikiLeaks

The actual effect of WikiLeaks is likely to be profound and precisely the opposite of what it supposedly sets out to achieve. Far from making for a more open world, it could make for a much more closed one. Secrecy, or rather the possibility of secrecy, is not the enemy but the precondition of frankness. WikiLeaks will sow distrust and fear, indeed paranoia; people will be increasingly unwilling to express themselves openly in case what they say is taken down by their interlocutor and used in evidence against them, not necessarily by the interlocutor himself. This could happen not in the official sphere alone, but also in the private sphere, which it works to destroy. An Iron Curtain could descend, not just on Eastern Europe, but over the whole world. A reign of assumed virtue would be imposed, in which people would say only what they do not think and think only what they do not say.
The dissolution of the distinction between the private and public spheres was one of the great aims of totalitarianism. Opening and reading other people’s e-mails is not different in principle from opening and reading other people’s letters. In effect, WikiLeaks has assumed the role of censor to the world, a role that requires an astonishing moral grandiosity and arrogance to have assumed. Even if some evils are exposed by it, or some necessary truths aired, the end does not justify the means.


Anonymous said...

é o duplipensar, do Orwell.

Badger said...

Hum, vejamos, transações governamentais devem ser incluídas no domínio da privacidade do indivíduo, e colocá-las sob um manto de segredo absoluto aumenta o bem estar da humanidade...
De acordo com Dalrymple, para o bem da humanidade, Watergate nunca deveria ter sido denunciado, e o Washington Post é quem tem culpa no cartório.
Os textos do Dalrymple são normalmente fracos, mas esse aí bateu seus próprios recordes.