What is happening to WikiLeaks matters to all of us – to all of us who work on the internet, and who see the web as the last hope for freedom of speech in a world that gets more and more centralised and bureaucratic by the day.

The problem with defending free speech is that one must defend it even in undeserving cases, and WikiLeaks is not wholly deserving. Free speech, like any right, does not exempt from responsibility, but, on the contrary, depends on it, and WikiLeaks have sometimes been irresponsible – most notably when they published a list of potential terrorist targets.

Yet most of their work has been to the public good, exposing, or confirming, foolish or dishonest things that our rulers have been doing or saying in our name. In any case, the fact that freedom of speech, like any freedom, is sometimes abused should never be an excuse to restrict or abolish it.

WikiLeaks has been attacked systematically. Amazon ceased to host the site after the intervention of a powerful US Senator. PayPal, Visa, and Mastercard have stopped processing donations. It all looks very sinister.

Then there is the strange treatment of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, an Australian arrested in the UK on a warrant issued in France for a crimes allegedly committed in Sweden after offending the United States. Allegations that involve the word “rape” should always be taken seriously, but in this case the details of the charges suggest that it is the authorities who are trivialising it. No British jury would convict him on the charges as stated – so why is Mr Assange in a British prison?

Despite the fact that British law has a presumption that an accused man should be freed on bail until his trial – and the fact that several distinguished citizens offered to stand surety for Mr Assange – he was refused bail and sent immediately to jail. What has happened to the British tradition of offering asylum to political refugees?

Meanwhile, the Swiss have frozen his bank account – including the money he needs to pay his legal expenses – on the laughable pretext that he does not live at the Swiss address he gave. Does anyone?

Mr Assange might not be the poster boy we would have chosen for free speech, but we must defend him because what is happening to him could happen to any of us.

One of the more amusing snippets to be found on WikiLeaks is a memo from a rather humourless American career diplomat describing a jolly-sounding lunch with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, who was in Kyrgyzstan to promote British business interests.

The media tell us that the Prince has been “criticised” – for his remarks

...not by the business community! On the contrary, it is a pleasant change to see our business interests being represented by someone who sympathises with us and understands some of our problems. The American diplomat also refers to the Prince’s “unmitigated patriotic fervour” – which is just what any country would like to see in someone selling it abroad, and which one rarely sees in career diplomats. The Prince’s main points are summarised below in italics, followed by our comments.

1   “Doing business in Kyrgyzstan involves dealing with corruption.” Did anyone think any differently?

2   “...Just like France.” A bit unfair ... perhaps. France may not be quite that bad – but French officials certainly know how to make your life Hell if you do not play ball with them.

3   “Outsiders cannot change the culture of a country any more than they can cure someone of anorexia.” If only Western governments grasped this simple truth, a lot of unnecessary suffering could be avoided.

4   “Russia is playing the Great Game in Central Asia again and this time Western governments should win.” A brilliant analysis, putting current problems in their proper strategic and historical context, which has so far escaped the Western governments themselves.

5   “The media are not helpful when business deals are being negotiated.” You only have to look at England’s 2018 World Cup bid for proof.

6   “The British anti-corruption investigation of the Al-Yamama deal with Saudi Arabia was idiotic.” Self-evidently true.

7   “British and American governments plan for 10 years where people in Central Asia think in terms of centuries.” Another brilliantly perceptive observation.

8   “The British are better than the Americans at geography.” A generalisation to which there are numerous exceptions on both sides. However, British businessmen are generally pro-American and go to great lengths to find out about America, and are often shocked to find how little many American decision-makers know about the rest of the world. Our humourless American career diplomat seems to be a case in point.

We have no sympathy for all the governments who are complaining about WikiLeaks publishing the nasty things they said about each other. It is a lesson most of us learn – or should learn – as children: if you talk about others behind their backs, you have only yourself to blame if what you say gets back to them. 

Our sympathy is reserved for the founder of WikiLeaks who just happens to find himself at the top of Interpol’s most wanted list on the very day he offends the world political Establishment. Needless to say, the charges against him do not refer to that but to previously dismissed allegations of sexual misconduct – as any expert will tell you smears work best with a hint of sex.

An international arrest warrant was issued with astonishing speed. A small business which has suffered from cross-border fraud should not expect that level of service. Once again, it is one law for powerful governments and another law for the rest of us. The problem, bad enough at local and national level, is even worse at international level.

Meanwhile, there is a clear lesson that applies doubly to those of us without influence in the global Establishment...

No matter how expensive your security system, if you write secrets down and store them on computer, you must be prepared for the possibility that they will get out. E-mail has made it too easy to circulate sensitive documents, and therefore it has become more likely that they will end up, deliberately or accidently, in unauthorised hands.

It is at best futile, at worst counter-productive, to rely on nagging employees to limit the circulation of e-mails, or on investigations after the fact to limit leaks. Generating an atmosphere of distrust only makes leaks more likely.

The only safe option is to assume that anything that is written down will one day be read, and not to write anything down unless it is absolutely necessary and you are ready to live with the consequences.

Paranoia has become compulsory.