+1 862 207 3288 In a 15-20 page research paper, examine the explicit and implicit issues of the topic, starting
with the Alex Gibney documentary, and incorporate your answers to the following questions. This
assignment is structured so that parts of it can be done before seeing the Gibney film (and it is
highly recommended that some of the research be done first). You may re-arrange the questions to
facilitate the flow of your essay. And you may use extra pages as needed.
The sources you use should include print as well as online materials; and they should be from
legitimate publishers, organizations, or sites. Blogs should not be used as they tend to reflect the
owner’s biases; and some blogs reflect the “lunatic fringe” of public opinion.
When citing online sources for the bibliography/works-cited list, remember to give the full
<http : …> address of the work, as well as the author, title and other information usually provided
in such citations. And don’t forget to give the full publication citation for print sources in your
alphabetized bibliography.
(Reminder: Bibliographic entries are alphabetized by the author or editor’s last name. If
there’s no author, editor or compiler, then alphabetize by the title of the work, but not by the
definite article of “The” or the indefinite article of “A” or “An”; alphabetize by the second word in
the title.)
NOTE: Students are to approach this assignment as though they were journalists investigating the pros
and cons of this issue. Pretend that you are writing an informational piece for TIME magazine or THE
ECONOMIST, or some other periodical. This means that the essay is not to be an advocacy piece or an
editorial, arguing for or against a position. You may include your personal (and well-reasoned) views
at the end of the essay as an Op-Ed comment; but the bulk of the paper should elucidate the problems,
contradictions, complications, positive and negative potentials of a social contract for the Internet.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alex Gibney’s documentary, WE STEAL SECRETS: THE STORY OF WIKILEAKS, deals with the controversial
Internet organization. In addition to the creation of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, the
film also looks at the revelations by US “whistle-blowers”, and the complicated issues of America’s
First Amendment under the Bill of Rights on freedom of political expression and, by extension, freedom
of information. Underlying these issues are implied questions of social contract. (Check YouTube or
iTunes for the film.)
1. In the borderless world of the Internet, what should govern the behavior of individuals and entities
participating in cyberspace (i.e. persons & entities in both the private and public sectors)? Can
there be a social contract among “netizens” (citizens of the Internet) who transcend the boundaries and
authorities of nation-states? And can any social contract actually be enforced in such an
environment?
2. What are the pros and cons of transparency, i.e. revealing secret wrong-doing by private and public
sector elements? (“Public sector” refers to government.)
3. What is the background to WikiLeaks and its leading personalities?
4. Before the Internet, whistle-blowing had also existed: For example, Daniel Ellsberg and the
Pentagon Papers. (a) Who was Ellsberg? (b) Why, and what did he reveal about government policy? (c)
How did he “leak” his information without the advantages of our current technology? (d) How did the
government respond to Ellsberg and the N.Y. Times’ revelations (i.e. what actions did the government
take against him and the press in its damage control and spin)? (e) What were the results of this
pre-Internet leak?
5. There were various charges about Ellsberg, and later on, Assange, Manning, etc. (Note: the
documentary was made before Edward Snowden and his revelations; but you may discuss him). (a) How do
questions about the personalities or personal behavior of leakers complicate matters? (b) Do such
accusations invalidate the information revealed? Why or why not?
6. The problem of treason is always a vexing issue when national security is involved. Those who work
or serve in the civilian and military sectors of government take oaths of loyalty and/or sign
confidentiality contracts. (a) What do loyalty oaths actually say? What contradictions might there
be in such oaths, such as the US military oath? Are there multiple duties under such oaths creating
conflicts of obligations? (b) Are such oaths and confidentiality contracts absolutely binding? Or,
depending on the situation, can they be superseded by “a higher moral duty”? For example, does
wearing a uniform prevent an individual from acting according to his conscience? Or is he just to
“follow orders” all the time? And does “following orders” necessarily absolve one from all personal
moral responsibility (as in the Nuremburg defense)?
7. In America, there is the Espionage Act; and in Britain, there is the Official Secrets Act.
(a) Give the background to one of these two laws as to its origins. (b) How broadly or narrowly did the
law define “treason” & “disloyalty”? (c) What did the law say about how government can deal with
“treasonable” or “disloyal” acts (i.e. what was the scope of the government’s actions and discretionary
authority)? (d) Are the provisions of the law still in operation? If so, have they been changed, and
how? (E.g. do the changes now make it easier or harder for the government to act against perceived or
actual disloyalty/treason; and in what ways?)
8. Besides the problem of government secrets being leaked, there are other problems that involve the
“Deep Web”. (a) What is the Deep Web? (b) Who or what are involved in it? (c) What kinds of
activities are there so far? Are they legitimate or illegitimate, or even illegal? (d) What is being
done to deal with these activities? How effective are such actions?
9. News agencies are often part of leaks. Yet, they face conflicting needs, i.e. “getting the scoop”;
avoiding legal liability or prosecution; and being morally responsible (e.g. to protect informers by
blacking out their names in leaked documents). How do press organizations balance such needs; or does
one need trump the others, depending on the situation? [End]
