Off the Map

The phrase “freedom of information,” as brought to my attention within the discussion of the Wikileaks drama, and the notion that “information wants to be free” trouble me a bit tonight.

Does information have rights?

Does information want?

These kinds of phrases seem to omit the human behind the information.

Humans usually have to do the gathering of information.  Sometimes they may intend for the information to have restricted freedom.  Bluntly, they want it private.  For other information, the gatherer may intend for it to have less restricted freedom.  They want it public.

The point is that the information doesn’t have a right to be free.  Instead, the person gathering the information has a right to dictate it “private” or “public.”

Think of your own life, and how you carve it up into “private” and “public.”

‘

Me: Tell me about your date last night!!
You: That’s private.

Or …

‘

Me: How about I tell you the juicy details of my bowel movement!
You: Not in public, please.

As for the notion of information wanting to be free, information does not want.  Instead, some people want some kinds of information to be freely accessed.  Sounds like a brilliant notion to describe tendencies of particular kinds of information.  But not all information goes that way.  Secrets go with people to the grave–did that information want to be free?  The TV shows I work on don’t want storylines to get out.  Maybe fans want the information to be freely accessed; sure as hell production-in-general doesn’t!

The storyline doesn’t want freedom.  It doesn’t want.  And it doesn’t have rights.

INFORMATION IS NOT A HUMAN.

So why anthropomorphize information?  It jeopardizes your own rights to keep your life private and your secrets withheld.

All in all, given the above, the arguments for freedom of information and that information wants to be free are unsound in the advocation of Wikileaks.

See also: anthropomorphism, freedom, information, intention, private, public, secrets, wikileaks