On Wikileaks

its interesting, right - that most of the information was public, but because it doesn't support the dominant narrative, it is considered threatening on a more technical basis - against protocol.

of course, any information that puts lives in danger should be treated differently, be protected. And its good to hear it reinforced, even in this murky debate - that human life is paramount.

But it seems like the administration is trying to have its cake and eat it too: saying its a massive breach with serious consequences, while at the same time saying the value of the information itself is low since it is in the public domain. So, to me, then, the breach is more about interpretation, emphasis and the use of narrative in political interaction than it is about actual data availability. A political breach, essentially. And that political breach is not illegal, but because it is so potentially harmful to our agenda, it is being interpreted as a protocol breach that is illegal and if it endangers lives, is also unethical. I doubt there would be much steam for prosecuting a protocol breach that for example revealed the dastardliness of the Iranian regime.

However, it speaks to the disconnect between big institutions and the actual behavior of increasingly greater numbers of people who have individual access. Big institutions, the fulcrums of our world, assume a high degree of control over information access. Individuals, regardless of nation state, institution, etc., also assume a high degree of control over information access.

other interesting effects seem to be: something like the Rorschach test effect for data - the more there is the more variance in interpretation; and, the observer effect, again, which is the effect the information has when it is observed by a third party vs. when it is delivered point to point.

but the whole thing doesn't bode well for our great institutions.