WikiLeaks, RIM, and the Case for Information Control

Tony Wanless

| August 5, 2010

We generally believe in information being freely available. But as Wikileaks and RIM show us, maybe we should start thinking about controlling the flow of information.

I've been fascinated by the information wars that seem to have been emerging recently, because I think they signal a coming debate that's going to affect us all.

First we have WikiLeaks, which arrived on the general scene with a bang by releasing the Afghanistan War logs in the U.S. WikiLeaks is the ultimate whistleblower site, where anyone can anonymously post information on their organization, even if that organization would, ah, rather keep it private.

Of course whether anyone has the time or ability to understand this information (beyond the mere sloganeering that often passes for information these days), is still a matter of opinion.

Then we have Research in Motion (RIM) being battered around by governments that object to the BlackBerry system's ability to encrypt (and so keep private) communications. The governments complain that with BlackBerries, they can't monitor the sometimes dangerous information that's flowing around in their countries. Before that, it was Google in China.

Savour the irony RIM is dealing with. Its very business advantage – that its communications platform is secure, and therefore valuable to corporations and governments – is hurting its business in many parts of the world.

Here in North America, we may laugh at this emerging problem. After all, we generally believe in the torrent model. That is, that information – unfettered, ever growing, and broadly available – should cost nothing.

But I'm going to present the other side, because I think it's important.

First, we should recognize that there are different kinds of information. I can think of three: 1) general chatter, 2) vetted and checked information, and 3) the information that results from research or deep study and which, yes, sometimes comes from intelligence sources that we'd rather not know about.

None of it is truly free. Someone has to take the time to gather the information, which involves a cost. Then you have to take the time to find it, which also involves a cost to you (of time, which these days can be more valuable than money). Think about how long you spend on Google trying to sift through millions of pages, which is why most people only look at the top 10 or so search results, almost all of which are SEO-driven marketing or opinion messages.

Also, much of this information is misdirected. By that I mean that someone can release important information and it's misinterpreted because enough Twitter or Facebook followers or bloggers twist and sensationalize it to grab readers. Or they bend it to fit their own views and then disseminate it to followers who pass it on, no matter how bent it might be. Information becomes disinformation.

We're running into a situation in which information can be enlightening, or can create thinking based on conjecture or, worse, misunderstanding and groupthink. Often, the way we deal with the torrent of information iby choosing only that which reinforces a pre-established opinion (i.e., the end of the world is nigh, so start hoarding weapons).

So I wonder sometimes if the "censors" who don't like RIM's proprietary system are onto something simpler than Big Brother-style monitoring.

Perhaps they recognize that, sometimes, you can have too much information. And that maybe that torrent of information is making us dumber. And more argumentative, intolerant, and downright nasty.

Perhaps we in North America should consider whether it's time for some kind of system to monitor or edit it.