Diplomatic Source Code

For those seeking a reason as to why Wikileaks is important to us, and why it can't be allowed to be crushed by the elite I offer a different angle to the many points I've seen online. Wikileaks shows us some of the source code behind the compiled binary decisions and announcements we see and hear from our governments and companies. If that makes no sense, let me explain.

When you install an application on your PC, you install a compiled binary file. In Windows this is often a .exe file. In the Linux world we have .deb and .rpm to name just the main two. These files are simply 0's and 1's. This is the language a PC needs to run the application, each signal is either on or off / 1 or 0. This is how electricity works. This is not how developers and coders write applications. The languages they choose to use are human readable with various commands, flags, variables and syntax. The act of converting that human readable code into binary code the PC understands is called compiling.

The difference between open sourced and closed sourced, is that in the closed source model, all you have is the compiled binary; the final product. In the open sourced version you have both the compiled binary if that's all you want, but you also have access to the source code that created it. You are able to see how it works and modify it if you wish. The licensing for the code is a separate issue in regards to this post so I'll leave that aside.

When all you have to go on is the final compiled binary, you have to take on trust that what it does is what the company behind it claims it does. It's one of their main arguments for always buying genuine software from reputable vendors, so you can be assured there are no nasty surprises compiled in with the genuine article to harm you. If they supply the source code, people will inspect it and any nasties will be spotted and removed from the final compiled binary.

With that very basic primer done, we get back to the main point of this post. If an announcement from a government official, a law being proposed, a change to some terms and conditions or a product line availability is a compiled binary, it's a closed source model. By that I mean we see the decision, the end result only. What we do not see is the factors that ended up in that decision. We do not see which countries, companies or lobbyists influenced that decision, nor what claims they made to do it, nor what they promised if it was done, or what they threatened if it wasn't done. This is the source code for those decisions. Wikileaks shows us some of the source code behind those compiled announcements.

One of the leaks Wikileaks gave us was the fact that Hollywood wrote Spain's copyright laws to entrench their own interests and profits, criminalising Spaniards in the process. The announcement came from the Spanish government, who portrayed it as being conceived in Spain, without influence from outsiders.

This is the equivalent of malware inside the compiled binary, something that we weren't supposed to know, but which has a very definite effect on us. If the Spanish government were quite happy to have Hollywood write their laws, why didn't they give credit at the time to those who put in the time, money and effort to write them? "Spain's copyright laws were brought to you by our good friends in Hollywood". Why pass it off as an internal thing? The reason is that Spanish politicians know that the people who elected them, the people who pay the taxes that keep the country running would not be pleased to say the least.

Corporations like to keep their hands hidden in these decisions, which is why they hide behind front groups and lobbyists. They always have an army of people hounding and surrounding lawmakers pretending to represent themselves and coincidentally agree 100% with their undisclosed paymasters agenda. When their paymasters are exposed, they simply change names and carry on with a fresh slate to do the same thing as before.

This is just one example, everywhere you look in the diplomatic cables being leaked you see source code everywhere. When people only ever see the compiled binary announcement, distributed by a group of people who routinely lie to us, deceive us and manipulate us it's no wonder we get pissed when we see some of the source code that compiled those announcements. It's no wonder that those involved in manipulating us for their own aims are desperately trying to silence those who expose them and their parts in those announcements, potentially derailing their own gravy trains. It's no wonder that people are rebelling and showing support for Wikileaks in various ways, from refusing to be shushed and blogging, denting, tweeting, podcasting about it, or mirroring the site and the source code it contains, or providing financial help to Jullian Assange's legal defence in a blatant politically motivated prosecution.

What Wikileaks has done is provide us with plenty of examples where the political and corporate elite will do anything and everything to maintain the status quo. We see various suspicious compiled binary announcements from companies who claim to spot "Wikileaks broke the terms and conditions of our product or service". What we do not see is the source code, which many rightly suspect to include calls from US officials threatening everything from tax audits, blacklists from government circles and contracts, being painted as "unpatriotic" to lose them money from "patriotic" consumers and so on. Those same companies like to claim on one had that they do not judge their clients, while several have deemed Wikileaks guilty without any trial. Both Mastercard and Visa happily allow the KKK as customers, but not Wikileaks for example.

Given how governments and corporations are desperately trying to silence and smear Wikileaks, it simply adds fuel to the fire, it spreads the motivation of free thinking people around the world to stand up and defend what Wikileaks is doing against it's detractors. Whilst I do not agree 100% with everything Wikileaks put out, I am 100% behind the need for them and others like them to exist. They are playing the role that the news outlets are supposed to play and all too often fail miserably at.

News outlets in all their forms are reviews of the compiled binary decision, in the mainstream versions they seek to create the impression you have of the binary. If the paymasters are champions of the elected government they will seek to create the impression that the compiled binary is good news, or the opposite if their paymasters are the champions of the current opposition. This impression is also on whether the compiled binary is good for their overall corporate agenda or not. What they don't do is give you the source behind the decisions, they act like that exists behind closed doors and that you are not entitled to know or even question it. Why? They themselves are part of the source code. They also lobby governments for handouts, changes in laws etc to further their own profits and position. Only suicidal turkeys vote for Christmas.

When journalists have to grovel to get access to politicians for interviews, they will never be objective. When editors spin stories to their own paymasters agendas they will never be objective. When companies get their own people into the journalism chain they will never be objective. Journalists are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the public and hold our decision makers to account for their actions. For the most part they have failed. This is why Wikileaks is vital. Journalists failing has left a gap that desperately needs filled.

We may not like the compiled binary announcement but we deserve to see the source code that compiled it, specially considering it's us who are funding it through taxation. It's us who are providing the means for it to happen, whether in citizens joining the military to make a difference, or in consumers paying a premium on products because of some trade decision. We deserve to know why. Transparency is vital to trust.

The idea that these leaks "cost lives" is wrong too. They will cost "lifestyles" for some people who have been exposed in their actions and will have to get off that particular gravy train, affecting their own lavish lifestyles. The idea that it will make diplomacy harder is probably true, like planting a bug on a bully and having it play through the loudspeakers when he's thumping little kids for their lunch money shows him, his threats and taunts in a way he usually hides from onlooking teachers.

This is why open source software is important too. Look at the software our governments, schools etc mandate as the "only official way to do things". Its all closed source. You have to put your trust in various entities that they have your interests foremost in mind. Keep in mind those are the same companies who will be exposed as part of the source code in various Wikileaks releases. They are often a who's who of tax avoiders. If that wasn't enough, as publicly traded companies they are legally bound to make as much profit as they can for their shareholders. Profits will always come first, not you.

Do you know all the different ways these companies are monitoring you? All in the name of "preventing piracy" and "protecting our IP" of course. No? You may want to have a little peak behind the curtain sometime. All of those little functions are in the source code, which is one part of why they are closed source; you're not meant to see that. It's where the whole "DRM (Digital Rights Management) is a good thing" mantra comes in, which is just one of many. The "rights" in the name are not your rights just in case you were wondering.

The reaction to Wikileaks has shone a very bright light on the fact that it's "them and us", that it always has been, and that every attempt is being made to ensure that it always will be. It comes as no surprise that "they" are seeking to smear and destroy Wikileaks and what it represents, it baffles me when some of "us" are being fooled into thinking that joining in is actually in their best interests.

People want their elected officials to act in their collective interests, to play by the same fair play ethics they believe in. Americans are rightly proud of their constitution, and the freedoms it represents. They expect their government to act with those same ideals. Others around the world also believe in those ideals. It is important with all the vitriol being aimed at those who have been exposed, that the people are not their government. Our governments act in our names after all.