Wikigate
The Internet means many different things to different people - for me it's a work-place as well as a hub for information and services - but nobody can dispute its importance. There's much hyperbole and grandiose posturing about how the Internet has changed the world, but as a tool of true democracy - i.e. rule of the people - I believe it is epoch-defining.
The main reason for this is access to information. Now, with a few clicks of a mouse button, I not only have access to a historically unrivalled encyclopaedia of knowledge, I can also find out about the rulers of countries and the business oligarchs who influence them.
I can quickly find out whether an opportunity that looks too good to be true is just that, or gain access to a geographically unconstrained marketplace where competition - and thus value - is greater than it's ever been.
This is why the Internet is so important - as an empowerer of individuals in an era of globalised, multinational companies and supranational political blocs. The larger the groups that claim to represent us become, the greater the danger of the tyranny of the majority.
Of course it's impossible to implement true democracy on a day-to-day basis, which is why we elect our representatives every four or five years and hope they'll protect our interests while in power. But the existence of the Internet not only makes us less dependent on our governments for information and representation, it also empowers us to keep an eye on them, and even punish them should they fail in their duty.
This is why the evolving Wikileaks story is so significant, emotive and precedent-setting. The fundamental question being asked is: should the Internet have rules and if so who determines them? Of course there are certain rules online already; one example is here at HEXUS, and at countless other online forums, where the community enforces its own, published rules. But there are few, if any, global rules that are unique to the Internet beyond the rule of law.
The publication of confidential communications from various parts of the American public sector by Wikileaks has incensed the US government - arguably the single most powerful organisation in the world - and caused it to vow to change the law such that this sort of thing becomes illegal.
That implies it's not currently illegal. Yes, the people who took the data apparently committed a crime, but what is much less clear is whether the publication of that information is illegal. Furthermore, if it is, then have the NYT, Guardian, etc broken the law? For that matter have we broken the law by reporting on it?
