Whistle blowing seems to present itself not only in our national politics but is also prevalent in the international scene and in the virtual world. A California court recently issued an order for Wikileaks.org, a website that allows the anonymous posting of government and corporate documents, to be taken off-line. The case was instituted by lawyers of a banking group regarding the posting of several hundred documents about the bank’s alleged off-shore activities. The court ordered Dynadot, the controller of the site’s domain name, to take it offline and to remove all traces from the server. The documents allegedly reveal the bank’s involvement in money laundering and tax evading activities. Wikileaks claim that such order was unconstitutional as they were forcibly censored. Even with the cutting off of Wikileaks, other similar sites are still available online in other countries, which pretty much are still accessible in the US in this global-virtual community.
With the anonymity feature of the website, people are free to post relevant and incriminating documents online without recourse to the poster. The threat and danger to the life and security of probable witnesses are obvious especially if the cases involve high-profile personalities i.e. high-ranking government officials. With the resources and power that they have, it would be easy to quash the voice of truth. They will find ways to ruin the credibility of the witness, even ruin his life. With this website, people who know something can post relevant documents online (leading to the truth) and at the same time, protect themselves from the possible retaliation of those involved.
However, a concomitant issue of the anonymous posting would be the integrity of the document. How can they verify that the contents of the documents posted on the website are genuine? What would regulate people from posting false documents in order to spur the people’s emotions on a certain issue? Plus, how will the right of the accused to cross examine the witness against him be protected? These are some of the points we have to consider should a similar issue come up in our national scene. How can the basic constitutional rights of the parties be protected in search for the truth?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7250916.stm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment