Wiki-leaks, Facebook and Friends

The newspapers and TV Talking Heads are full of stories about over about a half million State Department cables written over the past year or so that disparage the honor, ability, motives or, in a few cases, the sanity of foreign heads of state. These are essentially email messages from our spokespersons to whom we trust the nuances of diplomacy; in many cases the individuals smeared are the very people we publically ask to join in common cause.

There are many substantive issues in play. First and foremost are the legal and ethical matters.

As a retired government employee, I was repeatedly warned that personal or frivolous use of government computers Subsequently, as an employee of a private company, there was no question that using the employer's computer system to send personal messages could also get one fired. There can be no serious question that "poking fun" at the head of a nuclear-capable state and suggesting that that person is unbalanced is not within the scope of one's employment.

In addition to the obvious legal, ethical and moral issues, there is the overriding issue of the consequences of disclosing the information. Obviously, the embarrassment will hinder diplomatic overtures to foreign governments. There may be benefit or harm of making the cables public. Generally, Florida's "Government in the Sunshine" policies promote public access to all public records and communications except in the most limited circumstances, while this policy is not always followed, indictments do often follow attempts at secrecy.

But there is another factor at play. Years ago, when computers and email were first introduced to the workplace, there were many, likely apocryphal, stories of a person receiving a scandalous piece of gossip concerning the top person in the company. The message had been forwarded and re-forwarded. The employee added a note of his own expressing glee over the stories and then clicked on "reply to all". Oops!

We, individually and as a society, talk too darn much. We discuss personal likes and dislikes, favorable and unfavorable opinions about others, and other matters that, in years long ago, were considered private or "family restricted".

We then wonder how or why "friends" get hurt or angry. This spewing forth of inappropriate material is endemic to the social networks such as Facebook.

I confess that I have a Facebook page and, at last count, just fewer than 200 "Facebook Friends". I also confess that I have an ulterior motive. I write for and on several websites and it is my fondest wish that each of the Facebook friends will "click" on my essays and articles and perhaps be inclined to purchase something from an advertiser. At the very least, perhaps someone will actually read my opinions and react. But these people are not really friends; that is a fiction too often believed by those who should know better.

Friends are special and unique. Joan and I know two couples with whom we have been friends for 30 or 35 years. We have watched their children grow, go off to college, get married and have children of their own. We faithfully attend each child's or grandchild's celebration, feel joy at the happy times and weep at a loss suffered by any of them.

Beyond these are friends made during employment. We have been retired for about eight years and arrange to have lunch or dinner with a group of former co-workers every few months. We have common memories of working for the state of Florida and thoroughly enjoy each other's company; but these are not friends with whom one would share intimate family matters and any attempt at such sharing would be met with embarrassment.

There are other friends, of course, each group having limits on the nature of private family matters that are shared. There is no hard and fast rule; it is just that our generation knew and recognized that everyone cannot be your "best friend forever" to use the terminology of teen age girls.

I read Facebook every few days to check out the pages for our children and grandchildren. Some of them live far away and this is a good opportunity for Grandpa to say "Hello" and participate in some small measure in their lives.

As I read many Facebook entries, I am amazed at the sheer banality of many, if not most, comments. A person will quote a fragment of a song lyric, with no comment or exposition. Someone else will post, "I just took a shower" or "I bought a red dress" or "I've been working for days and want to go fishing". Most of the entries are a grammatical abomination with spelling that makes a literate person quake.

The real harm is that, to many participants in the social networks, Facebook friends are thought of as really friends. Thus one may confide that, for example, Sally occasionally needs a shave or David doesn't shower often enough. Naturally these insights are transmitted eventually to Sally and David who are not pleased.

In this framework, the effect of the diplomatic cables being leaked is clearer. Most of the cables that have been publicized were not classified; they were just intended to be private'"in the same sense in which a person who disparages one of his friends to another would like and even expect the disparagement to be kept private from the person disparaged. This usually fails and there is embarrassment all around. We would like to believe that a diplomat representing the United States would possess a measure of discretion. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and important and sensitive information that disparages another should be transmitted to one's superior in person; such information should not be communicated by email or any other method that isn't secure.

Alas, the urge to talk and write with neither thought nor restraint is all too prevalent in our culture.

It's time for a return to the reticence of yesterday.