The basic question is not whether we think Julian Assange is a terrorist or a hero. The basic question certainly is not whether we think exposing the chatter of the diplomatic corps helps or hinders their efforts, and whether this is a good or bad thing. To continue to focus on these questions is to miss the forest for the texture of the bark on a single elm. If we take the inevitability of future large leaks for granted, then I think the debate must eventually centre on the things that will determine the supply of leakers and leaks.

For our purposes here, I’m not too interested in whether or not wikileaks is a good thing. The thing that strikes me about that quote, and the broader point that he is making in that post, is that the reaction of governments to wikileaks is almost identical to the most common reaction of incumbents to disruptive innovation: they invest all of their time and energy in fighting a battle that is already irrelevant.

The technology to share documents widely is here now – if something happens to Julian Assange, or if the wikileaks site is shut down by denial of service attacks, that capability remains. Trying to shut down this instance of whistleblowing is like the record companies suing twenty people that have shared files (or 100 or whatever). It doesn’t address the fundamental issue.

When you face a disruptive innovation, the worst thing you can do is try to fight to make sure that the world goes back to the way it used to be. It never does. Overall, this can be either good or bad (see the fights between internet pessimists and optimists, for example).

The thing that you have to do is figure out how to respond to the change. How can you compete in the new landscape?

This is a very difficult question to answer. However, you have to address it – otherwise you’ll keep arming yourself for the last battle, instead of the next one.