Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
February 24, 2011 | 7:00 pm -
February 24, 2011 | 6:46 pm -
February 24, 2011 | 4:23 pm -
February 24, 2011 | 9:20 am -
February 23, 2011 | 8:46 am -
February 22, 2011 | 11:02 am -
Everything Is Data, but Data Isn’t Everything
- December 7, 2010 | 12:00 am
- 14 comments
Print
More From this Author
This bumper-sticker headline, borrowed from the sociologist Pauline Bart, speaks beautifully to the latest Wikileaks outpour and the question of what it does and doesn’t mean.
The media theorist Lev Manovich has said that the definitive informational metaphor of our epoch is the database. The database is not just a metaphor, in fact—it’s a certification of what knowledge looks like and how it is to be gained. A metaphor is a carrier, a condensation of meaning. A database is a heap. (Click here to read all of TNR's obsessive coverage of the juicy State Department cables.)
I don’t see a convincing way to feel anything other than agnostic about the impact of Wikileaks—specifically about how much damage the latest data dump will do. Choose your expert opinion. Robert Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski are unfazed. Hillary Clinton is sternly censorious. Joe Lieberman is—Joe Lieberman. Speculation is cheap—so cheap that everyone and her uncle can afford it.
If the database is the shape of knowledge in our time, then the definitive act of mediated communication is the data dump. So it is not surprising that the generation that has made the mash-up its prime aesthetic form has produced the data dump. But to put it this way is not to congratulate Wikileaks—at least not without considerable ambivalence. It’s to lament the coming of a certain—shall we say generational?—style of exposé. Wikileaks is the Facebook of whistle blowing.
Will the Wikileaks of this week make it harder for diplomats to conduct the back-channel talk they need to conduct? Will this not weaken diplomacy as such, and therefore amp up the case for bombing first and asking questions afterwards? The argument that diplomats may be inclined to shut up lest their frank opinions wind up on the Web strikes me as strong in principle, although I’m also persuaded—or only hopeful?—that they’ll figure out protections and workarounds to keep their future channels unclogged and their tongues untied. But I don’t (yet) see convincing evidence that the latest data dump has done or is likely to do substantial damage. (Click here to view a slideshow of the silliest, scariest, and most NSFW Wikileaks.)
As for the content of the leaks themselves, at least the ones that have emerged thus far, it is not exactly news that the chiefly Sunni Arab rulers hate and fear Shia and non-Arab Iran. Or that the United States is suspicious of Vladimir Putin. Or that Pakistan’s nuclear galaxy is an ongoing nightmare and its military a dubious ally, or that Berlusconi is vain, Karzai paranoid, or Qaddafi wacky (although to be fair, the buxom Ukrainian companion is news). On the other hand, I haven’t been through the whole data dump, and neither, reader, have you.
But beyond the particulars, whose significance is indeterminate, it repays attention that Assange is not just a random leaker. Credit him with a theory. It’s his generation’s anarchism—the kind that wears a black mask, values disruption as action, and thinks it imperative to obstruct the workings of international meetings. He wrote in 2006:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption [sic].
To value “system-wide cognitive decline” is to insist that the state is illegitimate. It should not be pressed to do better what it already does poorly. It should not be smarter. Assange says it should not be.
For indeed, where there is a state, there is diplomacy. Where there is diplomacy, some of it must take place out of the spotlight. The diplomats may well be better judges of which part that should be than the bureaucratic squads who stamp classifications on government documents. Surely, overall, the diplomats are better judges than the wild street mobs of the Internet. So the Wikileaks publication of diplomatic cables is an impediment to the sound, constructive work of states as much as to their wicked schemes. Wikileaks cannot automatically—again, on balance—be a gift to the reign of reason.
Meanwhile, the twinning of Julian Assange with Daniel Ellsberg as a sort of tag-team of noble leaking, an aristocracy of transparency, strikes me as glib and unconvincing, even if the two men have at times presented themselves as brothers under the skin. When Ellsberg published—made public—the Pentagon Papers nearly 40 years ago, he released a historical book—a more or less coherent, linear, systematic study of decision-making during the Vietnam war, commissioned by Robert S. McNamara when he was secretary of defense, and a systematic revelation of a pattern of government lies and distortions repeatedly issued to the American people. There was little or no news for the Vietnamese in its revelations of what the war was doing to that land. The secrets had been kept not from the adversary but from this hamstrung democracy itself. And the Pentagon Papers did not propound that the state was illegitimate or that it ought to be rendered more stupid, impulsive, cognitively impaired, or ideologically blinkered.
Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers was a great democratic act that helped clarify for the American public how its leaders had misled it for years, to the immense detriment of the nation’s honor. By contrast, Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate. Assange slashes and burns with impunity. He is a minister of chaos fighting for a world of total transparency. We have enough problems without that.
It was always clear what motivated Ellsberg. He turned against the war. He knew how destructive it was. He had worked on the Pentagon Papers. He rightly thought the people had the right to know how a wrong-headed, barbarous war had developed in the shadows, in defiance of public scrutiny. He did not think that the nation-state should be brought to a screaming halt, or that U.S.-out-of-everywhere was a self-evidently virtuous foreign policy program. He knew some truth—not some data—and brilliantly took responsibility for bringing it to light. He was a light unto journalism, which remains in his debt whether journalists know it or not. He made Americans not just better informed, not better titillated, but smarter.
I know Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Assange, you are no Daniel Ellsberg.
Todd Gitlin’s latest book (with Liel Leibovitz), The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election has just been published by Simon & Schuster.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
One small question:
"If the database is the shape of knowledge in our time, then the definitive act of mediated communication is the data dump. So it is not surprising that the generation that has made the mash-up its prime aesthetic form has produced the data dump."
Shouldn't "mediated" be "umediated" in the above context?
Other than that small question, I'd say this piece is unnecessarily convoluted. Much of its reasoning is twisty and turny all to the point made more clearly and accessibly by Jamie Rubin, in these cyber pages: "But, in the undifferentiated mass disclosure of diplomatic conversations, there is no higher principle to merit damaging the foundations of American diplomacy."
One small question:
"If the database is the shape of knowledge in our time, then the definitive act of mediated communication is the data dump. So it is not surprising that the generation that has made the mash-up its prime aesthetic form has produced the data dump."
Shouldn't "mediated" be "umediated" in the above context?
Other than that small question, I'd say this piece is unnecessarily convoluted. Much of its reasoning is twisty and turny all to the point made more clearly and accessibly by Jamie Rubin, in these cyber pages: "But, in the undifferentiated mass disclosure of diplomatic conversations, there is no higher principle to merit damaging the foundations of American diplomacy."
"Credit him with a theory. It’s his generation’s anarchism—the kind that wears a black mask, values disruption as action, and thinks it imperative to obstruct the workings of international meetings." Gitlin is on to something: the Wikileaks is a form of youthful anarchism.
Really, do we know much about Assange? Is he this generations Kropotkin?, Bakunin? Malatesta? What kind of anarchist is he? So far, this so-called anarchist has not spilled any blood, assassinated any leaders or provoked or ignited a World War. The data-dump makes the US State Department look ridiculous. Although I can appreciate the order from Secretary Clinton to federal government employees to not read the data ... view full comment
"Credit him with a theory. It’s his generation’s anarchism—the kind that wears a black mask, values disruption as action, and thinks it imperative to obstruct the workings of international meetings." Gitlin is on to something: the Wikileaks is a form of youthful anarchism.
Really, do we know much about Assange? Is he this generations Kropotkin?, Bakunin? Malatesta? What kind of anarchist is he? So far, this so-called anarchist has not spilled any blood, assassinated any leaders or provoked or ignited a World War. The data-dump makes the US State Department look ridiculous. Although I can appreciate the order from Secretary Clinton to federal government employees to not read the data, at work or at home, it makes her sound risible, at best.
A serious-minded defense of Daniel Ellsberg is welcome. What is curious is why do we need Tod Gitlin's defense of Mr. Ellsberg? Ellsberg is alive and prospering, he can defend himself. It seems only yesterday that Professor Gitlan was associating with anarchists, youthful revolutionaries, anti-Pax Americana militants, and the counter cultural warriors of the East Village.
Attacks on Wikileaks are mere handwringing of elites, angry that their precious secrets--including all their errors, vanities, and deceits--are being made available to the common man. The first batch revealed a pattern of deceit by the U.S. regarding Iraq and Iran. Among other things, the American military repeatedly lied about keeping track of civilian casualties in Iraq. Not worth knowing? I disagree. Now we learn that the U.S. State Department aggressively spies on all our allies. Not worth knowing? Again, I disagree.
I well remember the "Pentagon Papers," which first started appearing the New York Times shortly after I returned from Vietnam. Really, there was nothing that I didn't know. I ... view full comment
Attacks on Wikileaks are mere handwringing of elites, angry that their precious secrets--including all their errors, vanities, and deceits--are being made available to the common man. The first batch revealed a pattern of deceit by the U.S. regarding Iraq and Iran. Among other things, the American military repeatedly lied about keeping track of civilian casualties in Iraq. Not worth knowing? I disagree. Now we learn that the U.S. State Department aggressively spies on all our allies. Not worth knowing? Again, I disagree.
I well remember the "Pentagon Papers," which first started appearing the New York Times shortly after I returned from Vietnam. Really, there was nothing that I didn't know. In hyping the Papers, the Times and the Washington Post and the rest of the elite media were simply atoning for the fact that they had muted their criticism of the Vietnam War out of loyalty to the Johnson Administration. I find Wikileaks far more informative than the Papers ever were.
I believe that these wikileaks do more good than harm. For one thing we are learning that the world is really just high school writ large and how fun is that?
I believe that these wikileaks do more good than harm. For one thing we are learning that the world is really just high school writ large and how fun is that?
latimes.com is reporting:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wiki-terror-targets-...
"U.S. denounces WikiLeaks' release of list of crucial overseas facilities"
"Making the list public has threatened national security, officials say. Named are vaccine makers, undersea communications cables and mines that supply key metals."
By Andrew Zajac, Los Angeles Times
December 7, 2010
"U.S. officials on Monday denounced a WikiLeaks posting that catalogs hundreds of cr ... view full comment
latimes.com is reporting:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wiki-terror-targets-...
"U.S. denounces WikiLeaks' release of list of crucial overseas facilities"
"Making the list public has threatened national security, officials say. Named are vaccine makers, undersea communications cables and mines that supply key metals."
By Andrew Zajac, Los Angeles Times
December 7, 2010
"U.S. officials on Monday denounced a WikiLeaks posting that catalogs hundreds of crucial overseas facilities that, if attacked by terrorists, could harm American interests — including vaccine makers, undersea communications cables and mines that supply key metals.
Officials said the Internet posting of the list — compiled by the Department of Homeland Security with the assistance of the State Department and other government departments — threatens national security.
The scope of the list, and the wide range of facilities that have potential national security implications, also highlights the U.S. dependence on foreign suppliers, and the near-impossibility of making the country fully immune from the consequences of a terrorist attack.
America's reliance on foreign vaccine makers appears to be a particular vulnerability, according to Randall Larsen, an advisor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's Center for Biosecurity.
"Would we rely on the Chinese or the Brazilians to make our next-generation fighter jet?" Larsen asked. "In the 21st century, that capability to produce vaccines is just as important as the ability to produce our own fighter jets."
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano on Monday condemned the disclosure, saying it contained information that could "jeopardize our national security."
U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said America's espionage act is just one of the laws the U.S. could use to prosecute those involved in the WikiLeaks releases. He declined to say which others might come into play. Possibilities include charges such as the theft of government property or receipt of stolen government property.
Also Monday, a lawyer for Julian Assange told reporters in London that he was arranging for the WikiLeaks founder to speak to British police seeking to question him in a sex crimes probe.
The Department of Homeland Security list on overseas sites, known as the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, includes oil and gas pipelines, telecom cables, rare-metal and other mines, military contractors, ocean navigation chokepoints, and such obscure facilities as an Australian laboratory described as the sole supplier of Crotalid Polyvalent Antivenin — an antidote to rattlesnake venom.
The list, "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States," according to the leaked cable that contained it, is maintained by the Department of Homeland Security, which was seeking to update it in February 2009 by getting recommendations from State Department diplomats.
The February 2009 cable instructed diplomats to focus on key energy and telecom links, sites that produced hard-to-get goods or raw materials important to U.S. industry, as well as maritime bottlenecks.
The list includes graphite, tungsten and rare-earth metal mines in China, military components makers in Britain, Germany and Israel, and a Siemens plant in Germany described as responsible for "essentially irreplaceable production of key chemicals."
It also includes many of the world's key ocean passageways, including the straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz and Malacca, the Panama Canal and the landing points of numerous undersea telecom cables crisscrossing the globe, plus oil and gas pipelines, including one in Russia described as "the most critical gas facility in the world."
The list underscores heavy U.S. dependence on foreign pharmaceutical firms, including European producers of vaccines for rabies, whooping cough, flu, typhoid and smallpox."
Exactly right. Which is why I wrote a similar piece for Forbes.com:
http://blogs.forbes.com/abigailesman/2010/12/06/wiki-yawn/
Exactly right. Which is why I wrote a similar piece for Forbes.com:
http://blogs.forbes.com/abigailesman/2010/12/06/wiki-yawn/
I think the leaks are beneficial. At the very least it shows that the King and his joker are naked. The naked truth shows that they continued telling the Arab terror lie that all would be well if only Israel agreed to their demands. The whole Middle East would become a peace paradise. Anti- Semites Obama and Clinton's have been shown naked their cover of lies blown away. We knew all along that 241 Marines blown up by Hitzbollah, Christians massacred all over the Arab world, women submitted to be just chattel of men... All has noting to do with Israel whatsoever.
I am free of any guilt having not voted for Obama although as it turns out I am far to the left of him in everything except in ... view full comment
I think the leaks are beneficial. At the very least it shows that the King and his joker are naked. The naked truth shows that they continued telling the Arab terror lie that all would be well if only Israel agreed to their demands. The whole Middle East would become a peace paradise. Anti- Semites Obama and Clinton's have been shown naked their cover of lies blown away. We knew all along that 241 Marines blown up by Hitzbollah, Christians massacred all over the Arab world, women submitted to be just chattel of men... All has noting to do with Israel whatsoever.
I am free of any guilt having not voted for Obama although as it turns out I am far to the left of him in everything except in hatred of Israel learned from his spiritual mentor Wright.
I don't know if it's just me, but it's not what American diplomats said that's so embarrassing, it's how they said it. I would be more concerned about much of what was released if it didn't sound like the kind of gossip school kids trade about one another.
I don't know if it's just me, but it's not what American diplomats said that's so embarrassing, it's how they said it. I would be more concerned about much of what was released if it didn't sound like the kind of gossip school kids trade about one another.
"I don’t see a convincing way to feel anything other than agnostic about the impact of Wikileaks—specifically about how much damage the latest data dump will do."
Except that it wasn't a data dump, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out in his column at Salon. Oh, and Daniel Ellsberg says he approves of WikiLeaks. Accuracy and completeness, Todd! They do matter!
"I don’t see a convincing way to feel anything other than agnostic about the impact of Wikileaks—specifically about how much damage the latest data dump will do."
Except that it wasn't a data dump, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out in his column at Salon. Oh, and Daniel Ellsberg says he approves of WikiLeaks. Accuracy and completeness, Todd! They do matter!
Mr. Gitlin, you are flat out lying. Good luck to you.
Mr. Gitlin, you are flat out lying. Good luck to you.
The Wikilieaks event doesn't make the U.S. State Department look ridiculous. It makes the Pentagon look ridiculous because they can't prevent a junior enlisted man from getting into a secure database and dowloading vast reams of documents that they and their allies demanded the State Dept make available for "sharing" after the 9/11 attacks. More generally it makes our system of "secret" clearances (how many are in circulation, 8 million or something?) look ridiculous.
Taking the longer view, the American foreign service comes out of this looking like a body of fairly intelligent, dedicated, and in some cases highly articulate people. The question of the effects of the revelations on other ... view full comment
The Wikilieaks event doesn't make the U.S. State Department look ridiculous. It makes the Pentagon look ridiculous because they can't prevent a junior enlisted man from getting into a secure database and dowloading vast reams of documents that they and their allies demanded the State Dept make available for "sharing" after the 9/11 attacks. More generally it makes our system of "secret" clearances (how many are in circulation, 8 million or something?) look ridiculous.
Taking the longer view, the American foreign service comes out of this looking like a body of fairly intelligent, dedicated, and in some cases highly articulate people. The question of the effects of the revelations on other governments is a separate issue.
...Mr. Gitlin, you are flat out lying..
What's the flat out lie? Shouldn't that be made clear and specific rather than the just amorphous declamation?
...Mr. Gitlin, you are flat out lying..
What's the flat out lie? Shouldn't that be made clear and specific rather than the just amorphous declamation?
ironyroad:
Asking federal employees not to read the documents at work or at home is ridiculous. Moreover, I agree with the substance of your statement.
ironyroad:
Asking federal employees not to read the documents at work or at home is ridiculous. Moreover, I agree with the substance of your statement.
Re "flat-out lying." Here's Glenn Greenwald's post from yesterday:
In The New Republic today, Todd Gitlin writes an entire anti-WikiLeaks column that is based on an absolute factual falsehood. Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin -- in the course of denouncing Julian Assange -- bolsters this falsehood: "Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate" and Assange is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
The reality is the exact opposite -- literally -- of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has po ... view full comment
Re "flat-out lying." Here's Glenn Greenwald's post from yesterday:
In The New Republic today, Todd Gitlin writes an entire anti-WikiLeaks column that is based on an absolute factual falsehood. Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin -- in the course of denouncing Julian Assange -- bolsters this falsehood: "Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate" and Assange is "fighting for a world of total transparency."
The reality is the exact opposite -- literally -- of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them (The Guardian, the NYT, El Pais, Le Monde, Der Speigel, etc.). Moreover, the cables posted by WikiLeaks were not only first published by these newspapers, but contain the redactions applied by those papers to protect innocent people and otherwise minimize harm.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/07/wikileaks/i...
Greenwald doesn't say that Todd is lying, only that what he says isn't true. At the end of his post, Greenwald writes that "Several hours ago, Gitlin emailed me to say: "I'm thinking about your points, and will reply more discriminately, as it were . . . ."
Well, that was yesterday. I guess Todd is still thinking. We all await his "discriminate" reply.