Currently the dominant discourses fit into more typical mainstream media sensationalist topics: the criminal-hero-activist-mystery-man (founder and spokesman Julian Assange), the legal ramifications (or lack-thereof) of publishing classified data, and the mountains of classified data that was leaked.
The story of Wikileaks will assuredly result in countless books, documentaries, blog articles, and a Hollywood film or three. And while certainly being a worthy topic on its own, Wikileaks can also be explored as an organization that is not just exposing state and corporate cover-ups and secrets, but those of the Internet itself.
The Internet is global network of computers that cultures across the planet have grown to appreciate and adore for its openness and freedom. The Wikileaks affairs have revealed that beyond the façade of sharing and the public good lays a quietly (d)evolving corporate and privately-owned Internet.
Many private interests that operate online services will publically present friendly and open personas, touting their dedication to following the values of a neutral and free Internet – that is, until those private interests’ bottom line are threatened. On those occasions, a cold and clear press statement supplants the personal touch. The former on its own is not necessarily what I argue to be problematic, it is when these statements contradict the supposed values of the service that a cognitive dissonance is apparent.
As an example, PayPal is one of several services that terminated service for Wikileaks, citing suspected illegal activity. This, after assumably knowing for months what Wikileaks does as an organization and not considering their activities as potentially illegal until the November leaks.
The closing of Wikileaks’ PayPal account was not unprecedented or legally problematic: online services such as PayPal can generally close any account they desire. The Terms of Service (ToS) for most websites that allow user registrations include clauses that allow the site owner to terminate access to an account if illegal activity is suspected.
This means PayPal and other services need no police, no court, no judge, and no jury – just an opinion – to justifiably end a client’s account. A politically inconvenient organization such as Wikileaks, while still not charged for any crime, can still be cut off without recourse. With the lack of other highly trusted and known services to process online transactions, the loss of PayPal could be considered akin to having an electric company turn off your lights. (Comparably, if one were to be cut off from a Gmail account, there are countless other email services easily available and relatively “trusted”.)
As both a web developer and an advocate for an open and free Internet, I see the Wikileaks affairs as something that significantly exposes the new colonial and corporate pillars of the World Wide Web.
As the leaks of classified government, military, and corporate data continue, 2011 may very well be a year that foreshadows what the next generation of the Internet will be: utterly dependent on a very small number of corporate online services or remaining open and free of private gatekeepers.
