One-third of the world’s population is now online. As we are seeing in the Middle East, this fact is changing global politics. An information revolution is shifting power away from states. US secretary of state Hillary Clinton has called for “a serious conversation about the principles that will guide us” in such a world. She says she backs the “freedom to connect” for people everywhere, and calls on others in the Middle East and Asia to follow. But if she believes this, why is the US trying to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange?
In February, a court in London ruled that Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden, although he quickly lodged an appeal. But the US justice department is considering a prosecution for espionage, and has subpoenaed Mr Assange’s Twitter account. The rationale, from Mrs Clinton, is that the WikiLeaks cables incident “began with an act of theft”. But that is grounds for prosecuting the soldier who allegedly stole the information, not Mr Assange – unless he can be proved to be part of a conspiracy, rather than a conduit of information.
One might also prosecute him for possession of stolen property, but then one must also prosecute The New York Times and other newspapers, with implications for press freedom. A third reason could be deterrence: perhaps the damage done by such disclosures is so great that an example must be set. Did the WikiLeaks disclosures do such harm? Clearly they caused some – as when an otherwise pro-US politician in Singapore publicly cautioned his officials against speaking too freely to Americans. However, as defence secretary Robert Gates has pointed out, foreign governments still have to work with the US. WikiLeaks may drive information out of diplomatic hands and into intelligence or other channels, but the job of governments working together will go on.