Vault 7, as exposed by WikiLeaks recently, details programs which can be utilized by the CIA to hack into almost any device imaginable to use them as glorified wiretaps. One such example, as I discussed in our podcast, was “The Weeping Angel,” which would turn a Samsung Smart TV into a microphone by causing the user to believe that it has been turned off. It is hacks like these that continue to reaffirm my fears of encompassing government surveillance, and while I understand, as Matt mentioned in our podcast, that such a program cannot be installed remotely, the mere proof that such programs are being developed frightens me as someone who values their privacy.
Because of my fears, I believe that it right for WikiLeaks to bring information like Vault 7 to the public’s attention; however, the website should exhibit more caution than have been when releasing such information. Ignoring the problems that WikiLeaks addresses is not bliss as this ignorance perpetuates the problem. Therefore, telling the public of these morally grey actions is extremely important, but those involved with such information need to be protected from its release’s potential negative consequences.
Protecting and/or separating the “message” from the “messenger” is easier said than done, though. If one is tactful and is not in any way bringing attention to themselves in regards to the information, then one may be able to separate themselves from their message. However, digital footprints can, now more than ever, form the connection between message and messenger, and this seems to be especially true if this message is posted on WikiLeaks. Reflecting Julian Assange’s inability to separate himself from his beloved website, I believe that Wikileaks itself is too controversial of a website for whistleblowers to post anonymously.
Instead of revealing such information through WikiLeaks, I believe that posting through media outlets such as The New York Times would allow whistleblowers to better hide their identity. Also, trusting the government to reveal such information would, in most cases, be unwise; while they would be less likely to damage national security when disclosing previously-private information, the government seems as if they would be more likely to never inform the public. Therefore, in a whistleblowing situation, I believe that the messenger cannot rely on the government to eventually make this information public, but that messenger also must be wary of leaking information to places such as WikiLeaks, as their information and identity may not be kept private.
In terms of the release of such information, I believe it is nearly impossible to objectively decide whether whistleblower-material should be released to the public. Withholding information concerning behavior that harmed civilians or could potentially harm societal functions is ethically wrong, but releasing information that endangers US security or put lives unnecessarily at risk should not be revealed to the public. In general, however, I believe that whistleblowing is a commendable act, as it uncovers unethical behavior and promotes change and the prevention of such actions.
Concerning whistleblowing, I also do not believe that the messenger needs to be fully transparent or needs to be transparent by revealing certain information to the public. While I am unsure of all of the connotations “transparency” hold in this context, forcing a person into being transparent by causing them to reveal information against his or her will is morally wrong. The whistleblower has the right to be as transparent as he or she wishes when disclosing sensitive materials. While transparency may seem ideal in most situation, everyone has their own secrets, and completely transparent methods of releasing information is not always in the best interests of the messengers or the receivers.
No comments:
Post a Comment