With exponentially growing advancements in technology, we have more access to information than ever. But moral struggles of how to handle this information remain the same. What happens, for instance, when we have comprehensive access to military secrets? This is why the Afghan War Diary published on the website Wikileaks.com is the most influential story of the year.

In 2006, Australian hacker Julian Assange was named editor in chief of a new website entitled WikiLeaks. The site steadily grew notoriety with each new release of exclusive federal information, culminating in their release of over 91,000 classified U.S. documents from 2004-2009 entitled “Afghan War Diary”.

Should citizens be entitled to explicit details of the military’s actions in the war? The military conceals a significant amount of information in the interest of public safety, though they are guilty of significant war crimes.

In addition to background info on several incidences of unnecessary civilian casualties, the documents include the names and villages of several Afghan informants. The leak sparked a huge controversy over the liability of the information. While Assange and other Wikileaks affiliates justify the release of these documents as beneficial anti war propaganda, the U.S. government disagrees. Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed the leaks were “morally guilty for putting lives at risk”.

Confident of the press’ agreement on the issue, Wikileaks sent this information to The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel. These publications have the power to circulate any information within the 91,000 plus documents to millions around the world. They could irresponsibly release the location of informants, or they could attempt to bring light on the U.S. military’s offenses if they so chose. The press has the ability to influence the entire world with the words they print.

Just because the media supplied the public with a more clear analysis of information doesn’t change the irresponsibility of the leak. Wikileaks.com still supplies all of this information to the entire world with a few clicks of the mouse. This includes enemies of the government seeking military information, as well as terrorist extremists that plan to pursue informants.

When asked about the repercussion of the leak and the possibility that it may endanger lives, Assange stated “We can’t guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it’s vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.”

Personally, I think Wikileaks needs to filter their information. It is a noble, yet naively romantic cause for Assange to disclose these documents in hopes of justice. The data contained in them has life threatening ramifications for some individuals.The the site fails to address this. In fact, Wikileaks does not even check for the authenticity of its sources. This apathy is completely avoidable, and someone from Wikileaks needs to take the initiative to censor these details, if nothing else. The truth can be a powerful tool to be used for justice, provided Wikileaks takes the time to clean up their own spill.