The Aftermath of Wikileaks

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Ken Rhodes says:

    As a concerned citizen non-attorney, I am interested in, and fascinated by, the complexities of the legal considerations. This is a perfect example of why things are usually not so simple as we’d like. There are STRONG arguments on both sides of each of the several issues involved.

    I had to chuckle at your introductory paragraph. The U.K.’s Freedom of Information Commissioner, I suppose, presides over the chaos of the London tabloids and their disregard for privacy, decorum, and responsibility for the damage they cause. I like to think we on this side of the pond have a more sensible view of balancing conflicting priorities, and especially of protecting privacy.

  2. Ken, Thanks for reading and the comment. The interesting thing that seems to get muddied is the privacy-transparency binary. We often see them as opposed yet we can have both, i.e., individual privacy and governmental transparency. The U.K. has strong privacy protections especially in the private sector where we have so little. To be sure, the U.K. has more admitted domestic surveillance than the U.S. but we are soon there as well with the advent of fusion centers and the like. The U.K. aims to protect the disclosure of individual information collected by government in the same way that the federal Privacy Act does. Yet what the U.K. commissioner is talking about is governmental transparency, something that we are allegedly committed to improving. I wonder about that, given our lackluster performance on FOIA compliance and now efforts vis-a-vis Assange. (That is not to say that Assange’s activities are not without concern). Thanks again!