Assange, an Australian citizen and ethical hacker, rose to prominence and for some, notoriety, in 2010 after WikiLeaks put out material obtained by former US soldier Chelsea Manning.
In one form or another, sooner or later, the citizen’s right to know comes up against a sealed envelope. Governments and bureaucracies — by design and intent — seek to make their functioning opaque. To his admirers, Julian Assange, arguably the most influential whistleblower of the 21st century, put a spotlight on people, events and practices that some of the world’s most powerful entities would rather hide. However, the WikiLeaks founder’s tale — he is set to be a free man for the first time since 2012 – is not a simple parable of personal suffering and the triumph of the principles of free speech and information.
Assange, an Australian citizen and ethical hacker, rose to prominence and for some, notoriety, in 2010 after WikiLeaks put out material obtained by former US soldier Chelsea Manning. Among the leaks was a video of a helicopter attack by American forces in Baghdad in which two Reuters journalists were killed. The same year, WikiLeaks also released a dump of over 2.5 lakh diplomatic cables and in 2016, ahead of the presidential elections, it published the emails by Democratic Party operatives that are widely believed to have hurt Hillary Clinton in the polls. Assange was accused of two instances of sexual assault in Sweden (the charges were dropped in 2017), and the US charged him under several counts of espionage. Assange, then in the UK, sought asylum at the Ecuador embassy, where he resided till five years ago. Since then, he has been in a British prison. Assange is now reportedly set to plead guilty to one count of espionage under US law — for which his imprisonment will count as time served — and return to Australia, a free man.
The figure of Assange — and equally, Edward Snowden — represents a fundamental tension between the nation-state’s control over certain aspects of information on the one hand and those who believe, in the internet age, in a decentralised model of universal transparency. The former’s justification has relied strongly on a national security argument. Revealing the identity of covert operatives, for example, constitutes a threat to their lives. They also argue that “data dumps” without context or editorial intervention can be misused by nefarious actors. There is some merit to this argument. However, in an era where technology is used to violate privacy and free speech is besieged in many quarters, sunlight continues to be — more often than not — the best disinfectant. Unfortunately, the vigour with which governments have gone after Assange and others like him could deter future whistleblowers.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
First uploaded on: 26-06-2024 at 07:53 IST
