Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
1
The Impact of Wikileaks on IT Service Providers in Australia
Daniel Treacy (10721126)PMP Tutorial 8, Ian Davies, tutor 
Executive summary
The recent debate over Wikileaks highlights ethical dilemmas facing IT serviceproviders around the world. While some aspects of Wikileaks¶ activities arecommendable and serve the public good, it has become the target of legal andethical criticism over its content. IT service providers have responded in differingways, some denying service to Wikileaks, and others unable to find reason to takeaction.With the ramifications of responses of service providers to such matters carryingpotential to impact reputation and profitability, it is imperative that service providersare prepared with an ethical stance (whatever that may be). This ensuresconsistency between their message and their behaviour, while maintainingobligations to professional codes, industry ethical standards and legal requirements.
 
2
Introduction
 Media coverage of the recent controversies surrounding Wikileaks, its founder Julian Assange, and its contributors and supporters has shone a limelight on key issues ininformation technology security, access rights, and ethical use of sensitiveinformation.
 
Wikileaks, founded in 2006, claims to have been founded by "Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US,Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa" with the purported mission to serve the"people's right to know". It exercises this right to freedom of information by disclosingcables, documents, and other sensitive information, usually regarding agovernmental body, corporation, or other institution, leaked to it by anonymoussources via publication on its website (Wikipedia, 2011). Documents leaked byWikileaks in the past include important risk information about Iceland¶s KaupthingBank which led to legal reform in the freedom of information and the press (Vallance,2010). It was also responsible for publishing videos showing indiscriminate assaultson Iraqi civilians by US Air Force helicopters which resulted in the killing of twoReuters employees and the injuring of two small children. While he is often describedas the founder, Julian Assange has served as Wikileaks' primary spokesperson andpublic relations figure, a task for which he is often the face of the organisation amidstcontroversy.
The E 
t 
h
ics
 
of 
T 
ranspar 
e
ncy 
 
In its code of ethics for IT professionals The Australian Computer Societyemphasisesthe ³primacy of the public interest´ and such interests should be placed above"personal, business, or sectional interests" (ACS, 2011). This view is shared in boththe British Computer Society¶s code of conduct (BCS, 2011), and America¶s Association for Computing Machinery (ACM, 2011).It is reasonable to assume Wikileaks is not out for the personal gain (financial or otherwise) of its staff and contributors in conducting its activities and there is noevidence of it exploiting the information it receives to further personal, business, or sectional causes. However, where the matter of public interest weighs in heavily onWikileaks is accountability for information it releases to the public.The Australian Journalists Association notes in its code of ethics that journalists³should be accountable (for what they publish)´ and that ³accountability engenderstrust (and without which) journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities´ (ANC,2011). As a media organisation, it is reasonable to attribute a similar ethical code toWikileaks, however it has been observed that ³Wikileaks as an organisation, and Mr  Assange as its editor-in-chief, seem to believe they have no responsibility for theconsequences of their acts´ and ³simply make available, without due care, whatever is sent«´ (Hamilton, 2011). This disregard for accountability also contravenes theBritish Computer Society¶s code of conduct, which requires professionals to ³carryout work or study with due care and diligence in accordance with the relevantauthority's requirements, and the interests of system users´, the system users inWikileaks¶ case being members of the general public viewing its content (BCS,2011). While some content released by Wikileaks carries grave concern for nationalinterests, most does not. There are many instances where information is releasednot with ³the clear purpose « to expose any wrongdoing or grave dangers, butinstead to merely embarrass government officials and complicate diplomacy´(Radford, 2010). While Wikileaks strives for the praiseworthy goal of transparency
 
3
and good governance in the world¶s political systems ± an ideal in favour of thepublic interest ±it ³gives no indication that it has the expert judgement to make gooddecisions that pass ethical tests´. Instead, it has been allegedto adopt the³anarchistic political view that is opposed to all secrecy, as if all secrets kept bygovernments are a conspiracy against the people´ (Hamilton, 2011). Another important ethical principle pertinent to Wikileaks is privacy andconfidentiality. This principle is emphasized by all three societal codes of ethics(ACS,BCS, and ACM). The BCS notes that professionals ³should not disclose or authoriseto disclose «. confidential information except with the permission of your relevantauthority, or at the direction of a court of law´ (BCS, 2011). The ACM clarifies thepoint further by noting that such ethical and legal obligations apply not only tomaterial to which an explicit promise of confidentiality exists, but also ³when privateinformation « becomes available´, a point particularly relevant to Wikileaks.In a case involving Wikileaks¶ disclosure of screenshots and data dumps from USpolitician, Sarah Palin¶s, personal email account, the personal email addresses of people associated to Palin through her webmail contact book were leaked. Thisviolated their right to privacy (Unastronaut, 2008) and contravened the BCS assertionthat professional organisations must ³have regard to the legitimate rights of thirdparties´ (BCS, 2011).
Implications
 
for 
 
I 
T b
usin
e
ss
 
 As discussed above, Wikileaks remains a formidable threat for governmentsworldwide, which walk the tightrope of international diplomacy, and the informationheld in their custody. In spite of much negative press and the collective oppositionfrom global governments there is widespread support for Wikileaks and its cause,even receiving awards from humanitarian groups, such as Amnesty International¶sNew Media Award for its instrumental role in exposing human rights abuse byKenyan police (Silk, 2009). But what implications are there for IT service providersand other related businesses around the world, whose systems allow Wikileaks torun?Some deny service to Wikileaks due to the controversial nature of its business(Fowler, 2010), and others find no reason, in policy or ethical dimensions, to denyservice (Kirkpatrick, 2010).In a recent event analogous to the Wikileakscase, Amazon's Kindle e-Bookstorecame under intense scrutiny and heated debate over an e-book discovered in itsstore that was essentially a "how-to" book for paedophiles outlining detailedinstructions in "grooming" young children for sex. Wary to set precedent for futureclaims, Amazon initially declined to take down the book, citing such an action as³censorship´ and that they ³support the right of every individual to make their ownpurchasing decisions´ (Arrington, 2010). Finally, however, fearing a boycott and lossof reputation, Amazon buckled under fierce public outcry and removed the book for sale from its store (Tsotis, 2010).This example clearly illustrates the conflict of interest service providers face whendealing with ethically questionable content. Of course, providing service to Wikileaksfulfils the business function of their interests, and, as in the case of Amazon¶s initialreaction to the fiasco, organisations can easily justify non-action through carefullyworded policies and terms of service agreements. Ethical obligations are not alwayslegal requirements (Mooney, 2011).Wikileaks has had it own run-ins with Amazon. In 2010 Amazon¶s cloud storagedivision, Amazon Web Services, cancelled Wikileaks¶ account on the basis that theywere in violation of its terms of service by publishing content that was breachingintellectual property and copyright laws (Beschizza, 2010). Some claim that the real
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more