Mal Fletcher comments

Yet its most ardent supporters either can't see or won't acknowledge that by its actions Wikileaks may be making the case for even higher levels of internet regulation by governments. And this would be supported by groups outside of government, such as business groups, who fear that Wikileaks and its kind may turn on them next.

What would happen if a Wikileaks-inspired body decided to share proprietary information online, or to publish the secret conversations held at corporate board meetings? It is already threatening to do so with regard to certain banks.

The business world, under threat, would fight back - by lobbying government for control of the internet.

Sprouting largely unprocessed, proprietary or government material freely into cyberspace, where national governments have limited authority, also makes the argument for mechanisms of global governance.

If Wikileaks, or whatever follows it, becomes so threatening to governments that they look to establish supra-national governing bodies to deal with it, even more secrecy will result. And this time, it will be at a level of government unprecedented in human history.

Wikileaks is providing an apologetic for those political philosophers and economists who argue for global government.

As Daniel Finkelstein noted in The Times recently, the human story reveals that new systems of communication lead to wider and potentially more intrusive levels of government.

As new communications technologies extend the reach of human communities, power is passed from one group to a broader group. Taking in the sweep of change from the printing press, mailing systems, telegraphs and modern IT, says Finkelstein, 'The trend towards global government is unmistakable.'

For some, this may sound innocuous or even desirable, but new strata of government always lead to greater controls upon the citizenry, usually in the name of security or harmonisation. They also bring with them higher taxes, because new layers of government require even bigger layers of bureaucracy.

And the higher the level of government, the greater the power; with more power comes more deal-making behind closed doors and more resource devoted to keeping secrets hidden.

Some will argue that in an ideal world publishing secrets would not be a crime, especially if they reveal flaws in the process or personalities behind those in power. Yet in an ideal world secrets would not be needed at all.

In the real world we have now, populated as it is by sometimes noble and altruistic, sometimes myopic and self-interested human beings, secrets are sometimes needed.

Wikileaks may think it is nobly doing us all a favour by publishing its 'secrets'. In fact, in many ways Mr Assange and his colleagues are doing us no favours at all.