The Cyber Battlefield

     Is what you're reading on the Internet real information? The lecture about WikiLeaks highlighted a factor that will influence the landscape upon which the world is transitioning to. There is an information struggle that has existed for as long as people have been around. Back in the day, a smaller Internet had less volume of webpages from which to access. I remember it being a lot easier to sort through what was valid, what was misleading, etc. However today, you sometimes have to comb through pages and use multiple search filters to try to get anything of decent value. The liberalization of thought through the Web has caused an influx of bias that eclipses reputable sources. So, how exactly did WikiLeaks complicate or improve the reliable information process, and what are the consequences of Assange's deliberate mayhem?

     According to NetCraft, there were only a a few million sites at most back in 1996, but today that has inflated to over 506 million.

     This shows that not only is there more information, but also a lot more people on the field. That raises the potential of people who have the ability to penetrate systems or disrupt networks. Enter WikiLeaks, who has managed to open a jar of secrets about the government and people from all over. Crowley in his lecture advocated a "zone of accountability", but nonetheless stated that a level of secrecy is necessary to maintain a safe society. So what is better? An Internet with all the secrets inevitably exposed as more people attack systems, or a more regulated Internet that puts down groups like WikiLeaks in the future yet preserves safety? Crowley said that exposures like these can inhibit international relations, harm the people mentioned in those documents, and create more narrow communication channels in the government. Thus, you already see a former representative of our government advocating closing up information flow. Yet, you do not want to everyone to see everything that was said, especially if some of it was "in the heat of the moment".

    Nonetheless, WikiLeaks is a bastion of no-censorship but with the tact of a young kid. They could have freed the information, but withheld or at least blank out names of spies and the like. However, I think names of more influential people should be kept, especially if they are elected by people. Sites like these are the watchdogs of freedom of information and trying to keep the filters down. These tailored Internet searches already complicate an already arduous time finding facts that are true and reliable.

WikiLeaks has created a fork in the road where the Internet will either open more up, like Facebook, or create walls. Ultimately, I think WikiLeaks goes a little too far with the lack of discretion in what they release. Some trade secrets should be preserved such as our top secret research or opinions in critical negotiations. Although, what comes out of it and why the government pursues them should be noted to people. So,  between the U.S. and other countries and its own citizens should be clarified. The good thing about WikiLeaks is that they get the media and hence the general public more interested in Internet censorship. People should be able to express themselves, but the Internet has to become a tool of information sharing, not secrecy, filtering, and tracking.