I attended a very interesting session while at the RSA Conference. The session was called "WikiLeaks - The Aftermath," and consisted of a panel of journalists, security experts, and a legal advisor on cyber crime. They made some very interesting points and opinions about the WikiLeaks situation.
Not surprisingly, there was some disagreement about what should be done about WikiLeaks. One panel member argued that the breach put U.S. soldiers in direct harm's way, and therefore aggressive cyber attacks were justified. In fact, this panel member knew The Jester, an anonymous person who has attacked radical Islamic websites, as well as WikiLeaks, based on the same principle of protecting our troops. Another panel member leaned more towards the openness of the Internet, and felt that such a response was not justified.
Panel members felt that WikiLeaks was a serious problem, but the real problem was the imitators - small websites that have nothing to lose, and need to make a name for themselves by generating publicity at all costs. Ever since WikiLeaks has made leaking sensitive information "sexy," it has spawned a small but potentially very dangerous collection of sites that want to jump on the bandwagon and bask in the publicity that WikiLeaks has created.
WikiLeaks has brought a key ethical dilemma to the forefront. If a whistleblower at Enron had arranged to have documents posted online that would have highlighted the financial crimes that were ongoing. Would you have felt that this was a justified breach of privacy? What about the breach by WikiLeaks - was that justified? Where do you draw the line? Who draws it? Is it possible to allow some breaches (Enron) but punish others (WikiLeaks)?
A good way to avoid this ethical conundrum is for both companies and governmental agencies to clearly develop better information protection policies and enforcement mechanisms so that they can better protect their confidential information. This will help prevent this debate as each new breach and disclosure occurs.