Collaborate with WikiLeaks at your own risk

Posted By Joshua Keating Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 2:54 PM Share

The original "About Us" page from the founding of WikiLeaks delares the site's intention to be of "assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations." And indeed, the idea that the decentralized operating model and online anonymity provided by WikiLeaks could protect whistleblowers was central to the site's original model:

Whistleblowers can face a great many risks, depending on their position, the nature of the information and other circumstances. Powerful institutions may use whatever methods are available to them to withhold damaging information, whether by legal means, political pressure or physical violence. The risk cannot be entirely removed (for instance, a government may know who had access to a document in the first place) but it can be lessened. Posting CD's in the mail combined with advanced cryptographic technology can help to make communications on and off the internet effectively anonymous and untraceable. Wikileaks applauds the courage of those who blow the whistle on injustice, and seeks to reduce the risks they face.

Our servers are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs. Hence these logs cannot be seized. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our organization and volunteers must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity. However, we will also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, by post and from netcafés and wireless hotspots, so even if Wikileaks is infiltrated by a government intelligence agency submitters cannot be traced.

Of course, a lot's changed since 2006. The site now relies more on cooperation with major news outlets like the Guardian and the New York Times rather than its own website, which can no longer really be described as a Wiki. WikiLeaks' primary adeversaries these days are global superpowers and the world's most powerful corporations, rather than the "oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East" who were its original stated targets. 

But perhaps most important for the WikiLeaks project, the site no longer seems very good at protecting its sources. Pfc. Bradley Manning, the U.S. soldier thought to be the source of the Afghan and Iraq war logs as well as the WikiLeaks cables, has been held a detention center in Quantico, Va. for the last five months without even a pre-trial hearing,  kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and prevented from excercising or sleeping during the day. WikiLeaks dragged its feet for months on a pledge to donate money to his defense fund.

Yesterday, Swiss banker Rudolf Elmer was arrested by Swiss authorities after handing over two CDs of client data to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Elmer had just avoided jail time related to a previous release of data to WikiLeaks in 2007.

Granted, Elmer's motives seem more than a little suspect and he had no interest in anonymity -- he handed over the data to Assange at a news conference. But the fact that the sources behind WikiLeaks' biggest revelations are winding up in jail -- contradicting the site's original stated purpose -- doesn't bode very well for its ability to continue attracting whistleblowers. 

BEN STANSALL/AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:WIKILEAKS
 

J-BENTHAM

3:29 PM ET

January 20, 2011

Misleading and Untrue

This piece contains elements that are misleading and untrue.

Wikileaks does rely on cooperation with the Times and the Guardian, but it alone hosts the entire document database, surely an arduous task.

Given the recent Tunisian revolt brought about by Wikileaks revelations, I think that it's difficult to say that Wikileaks has not done enough in the Middle Eastern realm.

Bradley Manning was responsible for his own arrest, revealing himself as the one responsible for the release of thousands of documents and the collateral murder video. To imply that the intolerable way in which he is being treated is the fault of Wikileaks as opposed to the U.S government is wrong.

Neither is Wikileaks responsible for the release of Elmer's name, as the author mentions. In fact, Wikileaks couldn't have been responsible due to the way its publishing system is set up. It does not know the identity of its sources. The author of this piece seems to know this at the beginning, and then apparently not.

The reason Wikileaks has not contributed to Manning's defence fund is because the organization itself is struggling to stay afloat. It is by no means "dragging its feat."

 

DR D

9:23 PM ET

January 20, 2011

I concur, just one correction

Yes, I concur on all three points. There are seriously flawed statements (flawed in their interpretation), and I am sure that saying that the author was not aware or has not done his research is presumptous; why - because, that is their role and job, and they understand their news well. So, I think there is far greater interpretation to be had: vis-a-vis, a slight manipulation of reasoning, whilst working with known facts, planting interpretation (inception).

the point that I do not agree with, simple because I have some local sources (people) is the line " wikileaks brought the tunisian revolt". Untrue. Tunisians were just getting through a small protest, that Bouaziz had died after self-immolation, and for quite an unjust state. The hard response from the security apparatus, that followed the protest, led to anger, and emotional boiling and soon it consumed the protesters, and turned that into a large enough mob, where the security apparatus did not help calm and quell with their continued heavy-handedness and this soon turned into revolution.

 

BEBOP

3:50 PM ET

January 20, 2011

Facts are in error

As far as I can tell this post suffers from a complete misunderstanding of facts. It's not clear whether this is due to a gross misinterpretation of how events unfolded or whether the author never knew the facts in the first place.

Regarding "the site no longer seems very good at protecting its sources"

Bradley Manning's arrest and exposure as the potential source came about from conversations he had with Adriane Lamo, this is very well documented. I have not read any press on a potential wikileaks connection in his exposure.

Regarding the Elmer stuff, the man handed over documents in a press conference! Obviously there is more to this story as he had contact with wikileaks before this, but there has been no suggestion that wikileaks in some way outed him.

I will give you that these high profile cases might cause some sources to think twice about passing off material. However, your post is completely misguided in thinking that this is somehow wikileaks fault. I think more factual argument is needed here, and less opinion.

 

VONRYANSEXPRESS

10:37 PM ET

January 20, 2011

Lie down with Bacillus, get up with ...

The company one keeps.

It isn't when and how those that purloin information are revealed; it's that they do it and that a bad purpose such as Assange and Wikileaks participate in the outcome of theft.

All this, 'mechanisms are in place', 'defenses might be provided' is just the exhale of carrions breath-the death rattle of the tort and fruadfeasor's pre-morbid lament.
It's the contextual vs. literal truth discussion. We didn't "out" you because we couldn't have known you when we were seeking you out!

Align with Wikileaks, slither or scratch with Assange and be assured your life is scotched as you knew it. Some marginals will laud you; others will give you grandiose standing in small communities but your residence will be behind bars or on the forever lam.

Take a good look at Assange and ask if that isn't the soft countenance of a pudding faced and soulless wretch? Do you consort there? If so, buy a bag of marshmallows and sit by the fire for surely now you begin to melt.

The citizens of Tunisia couldn't care less about Wikileaks and their story had energy beyond the prattle of a gossipy Aussie that stands before theft and pronounces it good.

 

BFSCR

3:36 PM ET

January 21, 2011

Better Spin, Please

Look, I know Foreign Policy has multiple institutional reasons to hate-on Wikileaks, but this is some mighty weak sauce.

As has already been pointed out your two "examples" are terrible. You have one that is self-refuting (the banker & his publicity stunt) & the other is Pfc Manning who (as Wired documented for us) was busted because he was boasting to a non-Wikieaks hacker who then narced on him.

It saddens me that you seem to be relying upon the strength of repetition alone to persuade.

 

Passport, FP’s flagship blog, brings you news and hidden angles on the biggest stories of the day, as well as insights and under-the-radar gems from around the world.

Read More