BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This ban would have a powerful signalling effect expressing disapproval of non-democracies' system of government

Is a minor ban really a good signal? The chances are the government will ignore it and those who it is meant to encourage will never hear about it. In the event that the regimes it is aimed at do take not far from weakening them, this policy serves only to alienate them. The lack of respect the policy is clearly aimed to show will galvanize the leaderships in undemocratic regimes to cut off various ties with democratic states, limiting the flow of ideas and democratic principles that natural adhere to activities like international trade. The result is non-democracies will be less willing to talk about reform in the international community because they see their very form of government as under threat by foreign agents seeking to discredit them. Ultimately, a boost in Western moral does little to promote democracy and human rights while a negative signal will result in regimes being more suspicious and obstinate.
Presuming democracy is the only legitimate or worthwhile form of government is both inaccurate and unproductive

Real politick is not the only consideration democracies should entertain when they engage in international relations. Indeed, the Western powers have sought since World War II to develop a system of international justice that recognizes the primacy of peoples’ rights irrespective of where they are born. This principle is constantly compromised as democracies jockey for influence with undemocratic regimes, bolstering those regimes and their repressive norms in the process. In order to be consistent, and to serve the true interests of justice, democracies must not aid undemocratic governments in the repression of their people.
It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others

While Western states are willing to use surveillance technology to restrict their citizens, they do so always with a democratic mandate. That is the key difference. Democracies use surveillance technology to provide their people with the safety and security they demand, a security over which the people always have the veto of the ballot box. The non-democracy is not checked by any such power, and thus its use of surveillance technology faces no constraint.
Unregulated health-care

Being part of a brand ensures investors maintain a standard, and ensure infrastructure, drugs, and medical practices are met. Building franchises for health-care ensures familiarity and is setting standards to follow. Blue Star is a case in point. The Blue Star Network has been rolled out across Africa, and the franchise provides family planning resources and training on sexual and reproductive health. Once the private clinics have completed training, Blue Star recognition is awarded[1]. Including the private sector in health care provision means a structural shift in the model of care: improved efficiency, quality and methods of care. [1] See further readings: Marie Stopes International, 2013.
Funding solutions to combat disease

Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 24% of the global disease burden; but only 1% of global health expenditure and 3% of the world’s health workers (McKinsey and Company, 2007). $25-30bn is required to invest in healthcare assets in the next decade to meet needs (McKinsey and Company, 2007). Public resources are not available, so the private-sector is critical. The private sector can help fill this funding gap; private-sector actors - including Actis - are planning to invest $1.2bn into Adcock Ingram to provide and supply drugs[1]. The investment will provide key funding to enable research; and the availability for ART[2] within Adcock Ingram’s Anti-Retroviral Portfolio. To combat HIV, and other diseases, investors are required for R&D and the distribution of drugs. In 2012, only 34% of the people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries had access to ART showing how necessary such investment is[3]. Furthermore, the private-sector have established partnerships to implement training programmes, improving qualified treatment for HIV, TB and malaria[4]. [1] See further readings: Private Equity Africa, 2013. [2] ART (Anti-Retroviral Treatment) involves drugs which prevent the progression of HIV; reduce transmission and mortality. [3] According to the WHO 2013 guidelines of people eligible for ART. See further readings: UNAID, 2013. [4] See further reading: AMREF USA, 2013; AMREF, 2013.
Improving health care for mother and child

Private-sector investment will provide crucial training for health professionals, infrastructure, and resources to improve maternal and child health care. Providing affordable maternal care acts as a means for promoting gender equality, and empowerment. Jacaranda Health[1] operate on a business model, meeting the demand, and need, for affordable and high-quality maternal care in East Africa. Through mobile clinics and new maternity hospitals Jacaranda Health is empowering women and children. Within the first year Jacaranda Health provided care for 4,000 women, and changed the lives of 20,000 families. Additionally, free maternal care holds negative side-effects. As Burundi shows, the social policy ideas implementing ‘free’ maternal health care resulted in overburdening the health resources and understaffed facilities; and putting vulnerable children at greater risk (IRIN, 2013). [1] See further reading: Jacaranda Health, 2013.
Alleviating rural-urban disparities

Private health is enabling improved access to health services in neglected areas and reducing disparities in access to health. In Sub-Saharan Africa rural-urban disparities in health-care have received increasing attention. Private investment is bringing services to remote locations. The potential role of technology companies bringing healthcare to areas without it is showcased in Samsung’s investment in mobile solar-powered clinics in rural South Africa[1]. Mobile technology is providing crucial innovations[2]; used as tools by private investors, mobiles mean individuals can be updated on health status and preventative practices without physical access to doctors, or nurses. [1] See further readings: All Africa, 2013. [2] See further readings: Deloitte, 2013, Graham, 2012; Knapp et al, 2010.
The missing MDG: inequality

Privatising health care cannot be discussed without raising concern over inequality. The privatisation of health care promotes exclusive health care, and is failing to bridge the gap between accessible care for low-income groups and the elite. The model remains unaffordable for many, and therefore ineffective. Even where affordable options are available the quality of care deteriorates. Quality assurance, and affordable care, is needed. For example, taking the case of South Africa. Health care is provided through both public and private systems. However, the pricing of private health care: whereby better facilities and speed of treatment are found, leaves a majority out-of-pocket and excluded (All Africa, 2013). Prices need to be controlled and affordable options made available. Although formal employers have been involved in supporting access and coverage to health insurance schemes, to prevent a two-tier health system, a majority work within formal employment. If everyone has a ‘right’ to adequate health care, privatisation neglects their rights to health[1]. [1] See further readings: War on Want (2013).
Unregulated health-care

With the incorporation of a diverse range of private actors, both formal and informal, can health-care still be regulated? Quality and staff need to be regulated, with standards and prices set, but who will enforce regulation and how can we ensure rules are followed? Just treatment is required. Public-sector delivery protects patients from poor, dangerous, treatment. When looking at regulation in health care, the relationship between private healthcare provision, efficiency and quality is variable. Outcomes depend on the institutional settings (economic, political, and social) and what private actors are involved. Private health providers have a profit incentive to cut corners and provide the cheapest care they can while charging high prices. The theory of a virtuous cycle is far from the reality.
Ideas and interests in a neoliberal model

The ideas driving private health need to be deconstructed. 65% of expenditure received for health care was from the for-profit sector (USAID, 2012). Health care is not a business or market - patients become customers and needs become sidelined by competition when in the private sector. Private health care involves adopting a neoliberal approach to care; competition is central and markets volatile. The market logic focuses on what is a good investment, will the elderly be included when they are a high risk population? This is why even in private systems like in the United States the elderly need public funding. The privatisation of basic services, across Sub-Saharan Africa, has been shown to be a failure[1]. Access to health care should be based on need, rather than ability to pay. [1] See further readings: UNDP (2007).
Funding solutions to combat disease

In order to combat disease equality needs to be a central component. Drug distribution, new training schemes, and facilities, targeting disease prevention and treatment are influenced by market economics and feasibility. Treatments by Anti-retrovirals should not just be for those who can afford private healthcare. Further, when considering health care private actors need to broaden horizons. Although funding remains uneven and below target, the specific inclusion of HIV, TB and Malaria within the MDG has distorted the focus on disease. Investment is required in neglected tropical diseases and non-communicable diseases something the private sector has yet to be willing to invest in.
Improving health care for mother and child

Quercioli et al (2012)’s study on the relationship between investing in private health care and mortality does not come to clear conclusions about the best course[1]. The results show investments in public sector health services is associated with a 1.47% reduction in ‘avoidable’ mortality. Investing in the public-sector is more cost-effective, and achieves faster results. The rate of return from private investment is slower. Privatisation is not necessarily best for maternal care. [1] The research was carried out in Italy.
Alleviating rural-urban disparities

Although mobile technology is introducing innovative approaches, location and physical access is still often required. Disparities cannot be alleviated until the private actors are willing to invest in remote areas. Not all health problems can be dealt with by a mobile conversation with a doctor. Further, it remains debatable as to whether rural environments receive worse health-care. Debates have been raised as to the extent of an urban bias - do urban populations hold an advantage or penalty in health[1]? Frequently neglected by private-investors, the urban poor have been identified as vulnerable groups. Investment, planning, and intervention, is required within slums and for the urban poor.   [1] See further readings: Goebel et al, 2010;
The missing MDG: inequality

In seeking to make private health care affordable new models are being introduced. The new models introduced tackle issues over affordability from a demand and supply perspective. First, multiple health financing schemes have been rolled-out across Sub-Saharan Africa. A range of financing and insurance options are being built, from investing in health providers[1] to including bottom-up approaches. Community based health insurance, as found in Rwanda and Ghana, are ensuring a move towards universal coverage (see USAID, 2012). Secondly, in tackling supply issues, low-cost private clinics models are being constructed. In Kenya, the Avenue Group provides a positive example working to provide affordable private health care. Risk-pooling, by members, is accepted as a method of payment. Costs are reduced by working with patients, whilst a regular payment source is provided for the caregiver (see Avenue Group, 2013). [1] The IFC recently announced a $4mn investment in AAR East Africa, expanding out-patient care (see AVCA, 2013).
It is a basic principle of journalism that sources should be checked and verified by another, independent, source.

The source material is at least open to scrutiny, and anyone can decide if it appears to be genuine. Equally many serious journalists take Assange and the rest of the Wikileaks team seriously enough and have no difficulty with trusting the stories put forward. If he is really a patsy of agents unknown then governments, notably the US, seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to silence him and the rest of the organisation. Presumably the banks blockading his site have reason to believe that he is a threat to their commercial interests, otherwise it would be a bit of a waste of time to give him the added credibility. The very fact that the people he attacks take him sufficiently seriously to have taken the actions they have would seem to add a lot of weight to his argument and suggest strongly that the sources are quite genuine.  The more likely explanation is that the political classes of many nations simply do not know how to respond to this new kind of journalism which can neither be bought nor bullied and, unlike the traditional media, can be based anywhere in the world. As a result they use frightening words like “Terrorist” and “Espionage” in an attempt to discredit him.
Wikileaks is not a news organisation, it exists exclusively to disseminate classified information, no genuine news organisation has such an agenda.

The fact that Wikileaks specialises in one form of news gathering is hardly revolutionary – a little like saying magazines specialise in features or blogs tend to be dominated by opinion pieces. The idea, however, that journalists should provide their source material so that readers can make a decision for themselves is one that constantly finds praise from audiences and many journalists regret they cannot provide because of the pressures of printable space or broadcast schedules. At the time of writing, the lead item on Wikileaks’s front page read; WikiLeaks: 542 days of banking blockade - no process   Assange: 539 days detainment - no charge   Manning: 737 days in jail - no trial   Grand Jury: 622 days US secret Grand Jury into WikiLeaks - no transparency If the purpose of a news organisation is to hold account the powerful and act as an independent check on the use of that power then Assange would certainly seem to be having an impact. By contrast, on the other side of the Atlantic, the Leveson Inquiry is now months into an investigation focussing on the largest media organisation in the world, which stands charged of breaking not so much the basic principles of good journalism but, rather, those of simple humanity. Surprisingly, the publisher of this group, Rupert Murdoch, remains at liberty on the basis that he had no idea what was going on in his empire. The first group pointed out the failings of the powerful, the latter invited them to parties. It is interesting to consider which one comes truer to the spirit of journalism.
The concept of what is a journalist needs to be clarified to deal with the reality of new forms of mass communication. Assange gathers, collates and disseminates information, ergo, he is a journalist.

Few industries have been changed more radically by the advent of the Internet than journalism. The traditional role of the journalist, disseminating information to which they had special or privileged access, has changed beyond recognition. Now readers and viewers have direct access to much of that information and can access it at their own convenience and through their own choice of media. Sales of newspapers are in freefall and the stranglehold of a handful of broadcasters on political access has been lost forever. There are still extraordinary journalists finding news and genuinely affecting the society around them. For the most part, however, journalists increasingly comment on the news rather than directly collecting it. In many ways, Assange has taken journalism back to basics – acquiring information to which most people do not have access and making it public. The very fact that the powerful and the privileged dislike what he is doing so much could even be taken to suggest that he has to be doing something right as one of the roles of the fourth estate is to act as a check on government.[1] At a time when much of the traditional media seems to have lost its sense of what its role is, Wikileaks is providing a timely reminder[2]. [1] Hume, Ellen, ‘Freedom of the Press’, Issues of Democracy, December 2005, http://usinfo.org/enus/media/pressfreedom/docs/freedomofpress.pdf [2] The Guardian. Julian Assange Wins Martha Gellhorn Journalism Prize. Jason Deans. 2 June 2011.
Governments have always struggled with the idea of press investigation and freedom of information, claiming Assange is not a journalist is simply a stunt.

We know that most governments struggle with the idea of not having control over information and are suspicious of the media. In a pre-Internet age working with a handful of proprietors made controlling information far easier. Since the creation of the Internet, the idea of controlling the media has become harder, now there are those who can broadcast themselves directly; a mass of information and opinion that doesn’t rely on the patronage of publishers or political favour. Assange has simply taken a journalistic position that makes sense for the new media age. In contrast to the opinion driven mainstream press and much of the blogosphere, Wikileaks actually breaks new stories[1]. New media requires new skills and attitudes of its journalists because the relationship with their readers has changed dramatically but the core of the role, speaking truth to power, remains the same.  Furthermore they do so in such a way as allows them to publish their source material and allow the reader themselves to make a judgement as to whether their story really reflects that material. This ability, reflecting effectively limitless capacity for providing textual information, meets the frequently heard desire for news without spin – routinely featured in research into people’s views on the press. This may be a new approach, just as Assange is a new type of Journalist but he is still a journalist. [1] John Pilger and Julian Assange discuss citizen journalism here.
There is a difference between actual journalists and those who like having their names published in newspapers. Assange has far more claim to the description than many of them.

One of the things that the Leveson Inquiry[1] has made all too apparent is that simply working for a newspaper or broadcaster is not a satisfactory definition of journalist. In terms of maintaining a professional ethic, the difference between those who hacked into phones – including that of murdered schoolgirl Millie Dowler – and the journalists who broke the story, Nick Davies and Amelia Hill[2] could not be starker. Equally many popular blogs that focus exclusively on opinion or areas of news far more specialist than has traditionally been considered the role of the daily media. A more useful definition, it would seem, relates more to the ethics and aims of the individual or organisation involved. This has the advantage of ruling out those organisations devoted to advertising (such as listings magazines or shopping channels) or those focused purely on entertainment. A Journalist should therefore have a commitment to revealing and disseminating information that is held by those with power to those over whom they wield that power. This means that the journalist gains access to information through various sources and then publicises that information as a story. Anonymous sources such as those used by Assange are a key part of journalism with many of the biggest stories such as Watergate only being published because of anonymity.[3] By such a definition, Assange would clearly qualify[4]. This was clearly felt to be the case by the New York Times, the Guardian, Le Monde and others who reprinted his original material and drew conclusions from it. It would come as something of a surprise to such publications to discover they were not staffed by journalists. [1] For a link to the inquiry’s website, click here [2] The Guardian. “Missing MIlly Dowler’s Voicemail was Hack by News of the World”. Nick Davies and Amelia Hill. 5 July 2011. [3] Myers, Steve, ‘Study: Use of anonymous sources peaked in 1970s, dropped by 2008’, Poynter.org, 9 August 2011, http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/142159/study-use-of-anonymous-sources-peaked-in-1970s-dropped-by-2008/ [4] The Spectator. “Yes, Julian Assange is a Journalist”. Alex Massie. 2 November 2010.
Assange is mostly interested in self-promotion, not being a serious journalist.

Journalists are judged by far more than their ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge or information. The quality of their writing, the skills and contacts developed to acquire it, the training used to enter the trade (which incidentally would have included the difference between the legitimate use of privileged information and espionage) and many other characteristics. Assange doesn’t seem to have taken any interest in any of this. He undertook no formal training – he studied but did not graduate in Physics – and worked as a computer programmer and hacker before founding Wikileaks. His interest in data seems to do with the technological side of the process rather than the ideas. Were a printer in the same situation to attempt the same defence, it would be ignored. Assange is an irresponsible geek, self-proclaimed hacker and someone who clearly has no interest in, or understanding of, the notion that there are occasions when a responsible journalist does not release information, frequently out of concern for those whose lives it might engender. His entire background has been in hacking, he is described as a cryptographer in articles written by or about him before the launch of Wikileaks. This sudden commitment to journalism seems awfully convenient in the event of the threat of a trial.