The incredible story unfolding this week about Wikileaks has at times been car-crash stuff. Today's news reads like a Cold War spy drama, with WikiLeaks playing a game of cat and mouse against authorities around the world and fighting off attempts by hackers to bring its site to its knees.

The publication of 600 or so (and counting) cables from US diplomats and officials has provoked a furious response from some politicians and - a little less predictably - newspaper leader writers (you might have thought they'd applaud revelations of duplicity at Government level).

The most interesting analyses have grappled not with the content of the leaks (as many have pointed out, there's nothing particularly revelatory in them) but with what they mean for confidentiality in a networked world. There's heated discussion over whether Wikileaks was right to proceed and debate over how to assess this episode in historical terms.

I'd recommend a couple of posts/articles that focus on this aspect. Academic and writer John Naughton sets out the major implications of the leaks, suggesting that freedom on the web is illusory and his confidence in it has been evaporating for a decade: http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2010/12/04/12387

Anne McElvoy, in the London Evening Standard argues (convincingly) that the long-term outcome of this breakdown of secrecy is good for everyone (apart from those fingered in the leaks): http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23902768-wikileaks-just-shows-...

And Daniel Finkelstein at The Times (behind a paywall) explored the historical impact of the dissemination of materials that destabilise the establishment. He likens it to Martin Luther's supposed posting of his 95 Theses on a church in Wittenberg in the 16th Century: very embarrassing to the establishment, but very important for human rights.

But what about normal people?

At dinner with some old friends, I found myself getting enthusiastic about the transformative power of the net, in the context of WikiLeaks. These are among my more progressive, open-minded friends, so I was surprised that they broadly disagreed with me that this marked an important historical milestone in the freedom of information (specifically, information I arguably own).

The main contention among them was that confidentiality is an important aspect of international Government relations. Most people, one friend argued, don't have the appropriate knowledge or training to handle the information held in the documents posted on WikiLeaks, and if this act turns out to be dangerous, it should then be considered wrong.

These may be sound points, but I couldn't help seeing in that attitude an unhealthy acceptance of 'the way things are', verging on apathy. The clearest point of disagreement we had was around whether it is OK for a diplomat or Government official to lie when it's in the interests of the State. Essentially, they were arguing that, if the ends justify the means, lying in that context is permissible. I suppose I could agree that lying in that context may be virtually unavoidable: pragmatism may dictate that it is the necessary thing to do.

But in that case, if we're arguing necessities rather than ethics; if we're sophisticated enough to accept that hypocrisy is just a normal part of life, why the outrage in some quarters about the 'revelation' that officials have said one thing in public and another in private? Isn't that just to be expected?

Assessing WikiLeaks' impact

It does seem short-sighted for US politicians (supported by Governments around the world, the media and large Internet businesses) to have responded in such an unsophisticated way. The US Government is leading a concerted effort to turn back the tide on this one, and WikiLeaks is close to being hung out to dry. But the US Government looks a little bit like the music industry did when it attempted to destroy Napster, without realising that it was actually millions of normal people (and potential customers) who were sharing music illegally, not Sean Parker. As with the distribution of music, something structural seems to have changed, and the US Government would do itself a favour if it started behaving accordingly. At present, it risks looking dictatorial.

The fight is on to scapegoat WikiLeaks' outspoken founder Julian Assange, but he's not having much success positioning himself as a modern-day Robin Hood taking a principled stand against the US Government's Sheriff of Nottingham.

Admittedly, his life isn't being made easy, with an international warrant out for his arrest for crimes [allegedly] committed earlier this year in Sweden meaning he can't very easily argue his case.

But nevertheless, he needlessly comes across as an arrogant, self-serving publicity-seeker, rather than the principled fighter for justice that Sean Parker (and Robin Hood) more or less successfully portrayed themselves as.

Perhaps that's why the mainstream media (and my friends) have found it difficult to empathise with WikiLeaks' cause. Either way, Assange could do with clearing his name in Sweden and stopping making this all about him.

Here's a thought: a wiki is a place where other people manage information. If he really wanted to change the world, he'd let the hive mind of the Internet take over running his 'wiki' and let the wisdom of the crowd be the arbiter of what's right in this case.

That would be a really principled thing to do.