From Julian Assange's old blog:

http://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#The...

----

Sun 31 Dec 2006 : The non linear effects of leaks on unjust systems of governance

You may want to read The Road to Hanoi or Conspiracy as Governance ; an obscure motivational document, almost useless in light of its decontextualization and perhaps even then. But if you read this latter document while thinking about how different structures of power are differentially affected by leaks (the defection of the inner to the outer) its motivations may become clearer.

The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.

Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.

Only revealed injustice can be answered; for man to do anything intelligent he has to know what's actually going on.

Hmm... a corollary might be that startups (insecure due to their very nature) have a huge edge with regards to standard institutions, precisely because they don't have to deal with security problems.

So, as they grow bigger, they become more inefficient and customers more unhappy (see: Paypal). I hope there are ways to mitigate this.

It's not all bad for the powerful to have to work harder to use their power than might the meek.

If we take Schneier's example of the bank president and the ATM, you could easily argue that is a flawed philosophy. Every day I go to the ATM, money comes out. Like clockwork, very efficient.

Because bank's principal job has been running ATMs for 40 or 50 years and it is run-the-bank stuff. If you look at internet banking (and how out of date and clumbsy most of these systems are) you will see this effect. Change-the-bank stuff is what "suffers" from this.

Retail banks' ATM and overnight payments systems are often 25-year-old pieces of software and hardware.

Multi-party controls and generally complex technical controls add minimal overhead relative to benefit in large organizations working on static systems; they're horrible in small companies working on rapidly changing products. (Imagine a tiny startup where you have a 4 week change control process for every modification...)