Mal Fletcher considers issues of regulation, repression, activism and anarchy

The WikiLeaks crew have demonstrated very little answerability except to their own internal culture and their individual consciences. In the present situation, it is not hard to see where they derived this taste for non-accountability.

As for their claims about crusading journalism, WikiLeaks has long presented itself as a clearing house for raw data provided by their whistleblowers. (Some might less charitably call them spies.) It takes on the journalistic mantle only when it suits its purpose - or the needs of Mr Assange.

Being seen as a journalistic body implies the presence of fact-checking mechanisms and some sort of recognised editorial oversight, neither of which are in place at WikiLeaks. It usually tries to disseminate raw data only - and as quickly, with as little editing, as possible.

Mr Assange and WikiLeaks have shown that whilst they're quick to demand that systems of governance should change in all manner of ways, they're usually loath - or unable - to specify what form those changes should take.

Activism is motivated by a clear and distinctive vision of the preferred future - usually, in one particular area of need. It takes the cards it has been dealt and strategically looks for ways to maximize their potential, in bringing about clear goals and specific changes.

Anarchism, on the other hand, throws the cards in the air, not knowing or much caring where they land, as long as the result differs from the status quo. Mr Assange seems to lean more toward the latter.

The sheer volume of the papers he and WikiLeaks have published online and the breadth of the subjects they cover, reveal a lack of any core, pragmatic goal on their part.

A body of true activists would take one or two areas of concern, set out an apologetic and strategy for change, and then seek to convince others about the rightness of the cause through the force of argument and moral example.

WikiLeaks simply pushes out screeds of data, like so many poorly-made sausages from a machine. There's no specific, strategic goal as to what needs to change first and what type of action is needed to promote that change.

And there's little opportunity for everyday people to buy into the process or join the cause in any way aside from giving money. It seems to revolve around Julian Assange and a few others sitting at their computers, largely doing as they see fit.

All of this is useful fodder for political bodies that would like to exercise greater control over our internet use.

Regulation not Repression

Of course, a certain level of regulation is vital to security, the maintenance of order and social cohesion. As more of our offline lives take on an online component, the internet needs to be subject to laws that promote accepted standards of decency and propriety.

Regulation must protect us from the unscrupulous use of the web in ways that invade what little privacy we have left, or turn our screen-fitted gadgets into invasive advertising billboards.