Slashdot Mirror
Former MI6 Chief Credits WikiLeaks With Helping Spark Revolutions
EnergyScholar writes "Sir Richard Dearlove, former Intelligence Chief of MI6, credits WikiLeaks with helping spark revolutions in the Middle East, in (what was supposed to be) an off-the-record speech. 'I would definitely draw parallels at the moment between the wave of political unrest which is sweeping through the Middle East in a very exciting and rather extraordinary fashion and also the WikiLeaks phenomenon. Really, what ties these two events together, and of course a number of other events, is the diffusion of power, away from the states and the empowerment of individuals, and small groups of individuals, by technology,' he said."
From the quotes in the article all the MI6 head said was that wikileaks and the revolutions both stem from the same empowerment of the public via technology, not that one caused the other.
I admit that I didn't watch the 20 minute video where it actual causality might be mentioned.
A real, actual (and retired) intelligence official, in private and off the record?
Sure, why not, he probably took an interest in the material they were releasing and realised there wasn't much that was actually a threat to national security. He's not interested in information control for its own sake and he's not a blowhard politician that interprets (or spins) everything as an attack.
If only it would have a similar effect in the USA.
~/ One man's opinions is a lifetime of pain.
But Wikileaks now is sick of the 'Vaporware Syndrome'. they are announcing their next leaks for month without releasing them.
It's a pity not many people have the balls to make such comments while they're in office. The saddest thing is that thinking is actually arguably impaired while people are in office. It's baffling, but people do the stupidest things when their level of assumed responsibility notches up. It's a paradox...
He said nothing about crediting Wikileaks with the wave of unrest in the Middle East. He said you could draw parallels between them. The rest is just the submitter's fantasy.
Technology in general facilitated the revolutions (but didn't cause them).
Economic policy probably had more to do with it.
First, the nations involved are effectively if not explicitly dollarized. Second, the dollar has been weakened due to US economic policy. When you consider that these people spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on food and other basic items that are heavily impacted by inflation, Ben Bernanke probably deserves more credit (or blame, depending on the outcome) for these changes.
Really though, even that is stretching it a bit. Dictatorships as heavy-handed as those are probably just unsustainable anyway. There was no WikiLeaks or global economic crisis impacting Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. They were all just sick and tired after a few decades of oppression, and did something about it.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
In case you haven't noticed, most revolutions suck. That's why the founders institutionalized revolution in the form of elections, and gave us cherished tools like freedom of speech and association with which to peacefully foment revolutions now and then.
So. Instead of just asking for revolution, why don't you name the shape and form of your desired change, broadcast it, and see if anybody else wants to associate with you.
Chances are, most don't. That's a major clue that your vision for revolution sucks.
Really, we got lucky to have the people in power that we had, when our revolution occured. Not only were these guys smart, they were wise and moral. It was the perfect combination that just doesn't come along often enough when things change like that.
In fact, there are already a lot of people working to bring about revolution in the USA, in the manner in which the founders envisioned. They're marching, they're blogging, they're voting. We already live in revolution. The revolution will not be revolutionized.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If you s/Algerian/Tunisian/g, then it may well have.
Pre-Wikileaks-Tunisian: "Our government sucks. And the Americans support it. So there's nothing we can do. It sucks to be us."
Post-Wikileaks-Tunisian: "Our government sucks. And the Americans know as well as we do that our leader is a total dickwad, but are only being polite when they pretend to support it. So if the Americans don't have the dictator's back when push comes to shove maybe there's something more than nothing we can do. It doesn't have to suck to be us."
Wikileaked cables were the tinder. The dude setting himself on fire was the match. The rest was history. And anything in italics is just some anonymous coward's opinion, based on news reports written by journalists who may or may not have read some things that were never confirmed as having been authentic diplomatic cables.
The quoted section is not crediting Wikileaks, but rather crediting a general movement and then citing Wikileaks as another EXAMPLE of the sort of things happening in said movement. He's pointing out correlation moreso than causation -- that is to say, they share the same causation.
we've got revolutions the like of which we haven't seen in 40 years. .
Did you miss the fall of the Berlin wall and the changes in the eastern europe at the end of the nineteeneighties?
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
For me, this is the first sensible thing said by anyone who has played a role in politics / warfare.
I, for one, welcome our new technology overlords
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
I can't understand the people who constantly chant "government by the people", yet at the same time, call for Assange to be jailed and Wikileaks to be destroyed. WAKE UP -- Wikileaks is EXACTLY what "government by the people" needs, since government by the people is impossible if government fails to disclose precisely what they did "for the people".
If a man claims to be serving your interests and charges you a fee for those services, but refuses to disclose exactly what services are provided and when, would you buy into it? Of course not. Logically, he isn't serving your interests at all -- he's ripping you off. Wikileaks is letting us know that we're being ripped off. Repeat: Wikileaks is letting us know that we're being ripped off. We should be THANKING them, not mindlessly parroting the words of career politicians.