PinoyLeaks and the ethics of `leaking’

Thursday, 13 January 2011 02:46

Written by Danilo Araña Arao

Starting February 1, there’s a website I hope to visit, preferably more often than Facebook.

PinoyLeaks (www.pinoyleaks.org) starts publishing “leaks” on that day. Consider this article an indirect promotion of the website even if my objective is to analyze its raison d’etre this early in the context of ethics.

PinoyLeaks is obviously inspired by Wikileaks which hogged international headlines due to its disclosure of alleged state secrets of the United States and other countries, as well as other secrets from prominent personalities. According to PinoyLeaks, it is similar to the controversial website "except [that] the mission is specifically focused on exposing corruption only, the scope is limited to the Philippines, and [it] works with bloggers instead of traditional media."

In a press release I received last December 30, PinoyLeaks Spokesperson David Poarch said that the "[Philippine version of Wikileaks] aims to provide a secure, safe and efficient mechanism for concerned citizens to leak evidence of corruption, without fear of repercussions. Logs will not be kept by the server, and leaks are to be uploaded to the PinoyLeaks server via an encrypted connection."

Through "crowdsourcing," Poarch stressed that "baseless and irrelevant documents are to be filtered out by a community of bloggers who support the project." For those who may not know, crowdsourcing is defined as outsourcing of tasks to a crowd through a public announcement. In the context of journalism, however, the term refers to a situation where audiences provide a news media organization with information that could be used in reporting a story. Strictly speaking, crowdsourcing is different from "citizen journalism" which requires ordinary citizens not only to submit but also to process the information so that they themselves could write or produce the media content.

Based on the nature and orientation of the websites of Wikileaks and PinoyLeaks, they could be useful resources for journalists either as leads or actual data to be used in their stories, subject to the usual processes of data verification. The kind of outputs provided by these websites could hardly be called journalistic as the analyses of the "leaks" are lacking and it is up to the public (including interested researchers and journalists) to make sense of the "raw data."

Much as websites like PinoyLeaks is most welcome in any anti-corruption movement, there are two basic comments I have on the manner in which those behind the website plan to go about their advocacy.

1. Lack of effective vetting process. According to PinoyLeaks’ FAQ section, “[The website] does not have a large staff, and [it does not] have the manpower to check each leaked file. By sending it out to bloggers, [PinoyLeaks is] crowdsourcing the vetting procedure. The more important a file is, the more bloggers will republish it.” As in the case of journalism, the vetting process especially of sensitive data should be done by experienced researchers. That leaked data on corruption gets republished several times by bloggers does not necessarily mean that these are accurate, much less reliable. In the past, there had been instances where the blogosphere and social media got inundated with wrong information re-posted or retweeted by various bloggers and social media users. In order to avoid the spread of wrong information, PinoyLeaks’ vetting process needs to be firmly established, not loosely created.

2. Probable permanency of wrong information. As a policy, PinoyLeaks notes that “[it] does not reverse the publishing of information, under any circumstances.” (emphasis mine) The website provides a lengthy explanation for this: “This is because if information is removed, there will be suspicion that [PinoyLeaks was] paid to remove it. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of this website and public faith in [the] project, PinoyLeaks will never under any circumstances retract data, even if it has been proven to be fake or erroneous…Our supporters, bloggers who republish leaks, may post updates clarifying that a leak was incorrect.” (emphasis mine) As early as now, I should stress that this is a policy that could be exploited for black propaganda. Journalists sometimes encounter “white papers” against groups and individuals alleging involvement in graft and corruption, among other alleged crimes. The more responsible ones ignore such “information.” In the case of PinoyLeaks, unscrupulous individuals could use the privilege of anonymity to mislead the public by providing sensational and outrageous accusations in the hope that many bloggers would post such information. And even if such accusations get ignored, the fact remains that PinoyLeaks will be used, albeit unwittingly, as a conduit in spreading wrong information on the Web.

There are no established rules on leaking information because in a normal society, this should not be done in the first place. But Philippine society, as we all know, is far from normal and we live in a situation where those who are supposed to be accountable and transparent are the ones who are depriving the people of much-needed information.

PinoyLeaks would be most useful if the vetting process and its policy of uploading information were revised in such a way that the website adheres to the highest standards of ethics. Even if what the website does is hardly called journalism, there are certain standards of the profession that could be applied to ensure that PinoyLeaks helps in the shaping of public opinion.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites