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."

26 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Misstatement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't think that any causal relationship is being drawn by Richard Dearlove in the article: he merely says that they're driven by the same phenomena ("Diffusion of Power").

    1. Re:Misstatement by chrb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Several other high profile sources have drawn a causal relationship though: Foreign Policy magazine - The First WikiLeaks Revolution? NY Times - Qaddafi Sees WikiLeaks Plot in Tunisia and the Guardian:

      In a speech last night Gaddafi, an ally of the ousted president, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, said he was "pained" by the fall of the Tunisian government. He claimed protesters had been led astray by WikiLeaks disclosures detailing the corruption in Ben Ali's family and his repressive regime. The leaked cables were written by "ambassadors in order to create chaos", Deutsche Press-Agentur reported Gaddafi as saying.

      The Iranian government have claimed that Wikileaks is a U.S. plot to destabilise anti-colonislist governments.

      the release was an organized coordinated move, adding that such a huge volume of documents could not have been released without the cooperation of intelligence services of Western governments, in particular the US.

      A former Pakistanti General has also claimed Wikileaks is a CIA/Mossad plot:

      The US has a hand in this plot, and these reports (posted by the WikiLeaks website) are part of the US psychological warfare

      Disclaimer: Tunisia: Don't Call It a WikiLeaks Revolution

  2. Misrepresentation? by tal_mud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Misrepresentation? by Adambomb · · Score: 4, Informative

      No you're exactly correct. He's relating both phenomena as originating from recent changes in technology in how people can communicate and form groups, not that one caused the other

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    2. Re:Misrepresentation? by Oori · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the fault is of the original reporter at the Register who either did not understand what is said (text comprehension) or decided to use a bit of journalistic 'slight of hand' to pazzazz his rather dull story. In any case it's clear the article contains no content supporting its title. And slashdot? I've been reading it on/off for 14 years and there's clearly an exponential decay (with us being just at the beginning of the drop; who know where this site will be in 10 years).

    3. Re:Misrepresentation? by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Correct me if I'm wrong but I do recall that the protests in Tunesia were sparked by leaks (on WikiLeaks) about misbehaviour, corruption and self enrichment by their then-government. This sparked serious anger, and caused an uprising that quickly grew in strength when people realised that by standing together they were far stronger than their government.

      People in nearby countries saw the news - Internet helps to spread it quickly - and organised themselves to rise against their respective governments. Egypt started, they also found their government to be weak and overthrown quickly, and again the news spread.

      Many more countries see serious unrest, and I expect it's far from over. Especially Lybia where the government is stronger than expected and which is now descending into total chaos and civil war.

      It's not just coinciding, it's a direct relation. Easy spread of information, in part facilitated by WikiLeaks, and easy and fast communication between people.

    4. Re:Misrepresentation? by tal_mud · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whether you happen to be right or wrong in claiming that there is a causal relation, the head of MI6 did NOT make that claim. So the article is a misrepresentation of his statements.

    5. Re:Misrepresentation? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It seems like he is referring to something much more powerful than a causal relationship. He seems to be suggesting that Wikileaks and its ilk, and the recent revolutions and protests, are part of the same pattern.

      We really need to get a mathematician to take a serious look at human history. It appears to be fractal: it not only repeats itself, but the same patterns show up on different scales as if there were a great deal of self-similarity.

      --
      Will
    6. Re:Misrepresentation? by j_presper_eckert · · Score: 3, Informative

      We really need to get a mathematician to take a serious look at human history. It appears to be fractal: it not only repeats itself, but the same patterns show up on different scales as if there were a great deal of self-similarity.

      [pokerface]
      I heard that some math-and-history whiz named Hari Seldon has already got that covered. In spades. There's even a few books out there detailing some interesting things that happened when he published his findings. Any serious conversation about the subject really has to acknowledge his work as the foundation of the entire field.
      [/pokerface]

      --
      Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
  3. Re:wtf? by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. Vaporware Syndrome by Tuqui · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Wikileaks now is sick of the 'Vaporware Syndrome'. they are announcing their next leaks for month without releasing them.

    1. Re:Vaporware Syndrome by anti-pop-frustration · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why you don't "announce" leaks. You either release or don't release documents.

      This is one of the reasons why Daniel Domscheit-Berg (and several others) left Wikileaks. He thought it was wrong of Julian Assange to make threats about releasing specific leaks.

      Also: Since last year, Wikileaks doesn't have a working submission system. There's still no way to send wikileaks anything right now. Assange stated in several interviews that Wikileaks wasn't accepting documents anymore because they were overwhelmed with the Iraq war/Afghanistan/State cable leaks and that they didn't have the staff to process new submissions. That was only half of the story. The other half is that one of the Wikileaks members that left last year at the same time as Daniel Domscheit-Berg was the guy who coded the submission system. When the coder left, Wikileaks wasn't able to keep the submission system running because there was no one else capable of maintaining it and making sure it stayed secure (given that the submission system is probably the most sensitive part of the site).

      Check out this interview with Domscheit-Berg for more about why he left Wikileaks.

  5. Other factors by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"?
    1. Re:Other factors by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      here 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.

      I beg to differ. There was glasnost, which was mainly about being transparent about everything in the government and the industry. You could call (albeit with a stretch) glasnost a governmentally mandated WikiLeaks. But for the overly secret communist governments of the time, glasnost was a revolution. And there was a very low oil price causing the USSR to bleed because they couldn't earn enough for their crude oil to sustain the Afghan War, the overblown military in the satellite states and the social benefits which kept the soviet people mainly quiet.
      The same oil price low also hit East Germany, which made a fortune in the early 80ies by selling refined gasoil to Western countries, because the oil price within the COMECON was set as being the average oil price of the last five years. As long as the price was steadily climbing, this was a source of income for East Germany. But when the oil price started to tank, East Germany in average paid more for crude oil than the Western countries, and the business went sour.

      So your theory about transparency and economic turmoil not influencing the Change in 1989 has some problems with the facts.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  6. Re:USA next! by Degro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, that's it. Just like all this tripe about the country being broke. Life is good in the USA for the most part still (way too good for some). Far far above what the rebels in these countries had been facing everyday. Attempting to equate these situations is a joke.

  7. Oh, come on! by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The technology he's talking about has been wide spread since 2001 at least, and here we are a few years into their last major release and we've got revolutions the like of which we haven't seen in 40 years. If nothing else, wikileaks made our rulers look like idiots, and their army's stopped supporting them. Any revolution ends when the military starts shooting, and in a few cases the army said no. This despite they've done it before. So there.

    And besides, this is the former HEAD of British intelligence. He wouldn't bother making parallels for the sheer fun of it. He's trying to make a point.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oh, come on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er, I mean, Wikileaks really skewered the Algerian government...

      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.

    2. Re:Oh, come on! by tancque · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
  8. Re:wtf? by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Informative
    Or everyone can take another breath once they realize that he isn't saying Wikileaks is good. All he's doing is drawing a parallel to the decentralization of power due to decentralized communications technology. Wikileaks is an example of that. The revolutions / protests against various regimes are another. He did not say one caused the other. He did not say any particular example is "good" (although he notes the political unrest as "exciting" and "extraordinary"). The actual quote is:

    “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,” Dearlove said. “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.”

  9. Re:wtf? by Kagura · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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."

    He didn't say Wikileaks is responsible for the revolutions. The editor read that... In reality, the former MI6 chief says there are parallels between Wikileaks and the revolutions in the Middle East, where a small number of people are able to affect great change through technology.

    And all you have to read is the summary... now we will have "former MI6 chief said Wikileaks caused the Middle East revolutions!" posts in all Wikileaks stories from now on. :(

  10. The revolution will not be revolutionized. by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"?
  11. Re:USA next! by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wealth inequality without context is a bad measure of the quality of a civilization. For example, in America, there is a stark divide between the super-rich and the working poor, as they're called. But even the working poor are able to afford a roof over their heads, running water, in many cases cell phones and internet, and cable tv. And they're entitled to public services funded by taxes collected (somewhat disproportionatly) from the rich, as our taxation isn't a flat-fee per capita, but is progressive.

    In China or Africa, on the other hand, there is also a stark gap between the rich and poor. But while the rich Chinese businessman or African landowner may live a close approximation of the life of the rich American, the rural poor in these places don't have access to running water, or medicine, or in some cases even electricity. So I'll take my chances with American inequality any day, thank you.

  12. To be fair . . . by Cyberllama · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:USA next! by visualight · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course, just because they have running water and phones doesn't make it "okay" for this division to exist. In the long run, this inequality breeds crime and corruption, makes innovative businesses and ideas less likely, and is overall bad for the economy.

    In other words, wealth inequality with or without context is a fine measure of the quality of a civilization.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201102/how-economic-inequality-is-damaging-our-social-structure

    Income Inequality: Too Big to Ignore: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/business/17view.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1287314086-lFlE4a4AP+wkJ4dprPfTaw I keep saying it. The far right is working hard to make life miserable for their own grandchildren. There are only so many chairs at the big table and your name isn't on one of them.

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  15. Re:wtf? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No what is sad is that to be labeled evil now you simply don't support the status quo which is what our current corporatist state loves with all its little black heart. I mean if they hadn't fallen even though their regimes were truly evil I'm sure the US Gov would be happily sending billions of our dollars to monsters like the Shah and Mubarak just to "ensure stability" no matter how much blood and suffering that stability caused.

    So it is actually really simple: anyone who doesn't support the status quo and the top 1% no matter what is an evil socialist pinko terrorist scum. And as long as things tomorrow stay the same as today, so the top 1%ers can leach more money from the system and pad their already 60%+ take of the economy, no matter how much misery they bring? Well then it is all good because it brings "stability" to the system don't ya know?

    That is why as much as I hate to say this I agree with Glen Beck 110%. For the good of the US and the world it is time for the US to "Be Switzerland" and stay the hell out of everyone's business and tend to our own. Bring home the troops, shut down the piles of overseas bases, stop trying to be the world's policeman and let them take care of themselves. The past 80 years have seen the USA prop up one truly mad dog scumbag after another with the taxes of the American people all so some company can get bananas 10c cheaper and it is time to end. Take the billions we are blowing on the military and invest it in our own people and renewable energy and let the mid east sort itself out.

    Like the misery that has been the drug war the current path has been shown to be nothing but bloodshed and suffering for the masses for the enrichment of the few, and it is time for it to end. Any Tea partier or other third candidate that wants to be pres? Run on the "Be Switzerland" platform, as the American people are tired of being taxed to pay for monsters. It is time to stay home, it is time to "Be Switzerland".

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.