WikiLeaks is an international, online, self-described not-for-profit[2] organisation publishing submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers. Its website, launched in 2006 under the Sunshine Press organisation,[5] claimed a database of more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch.[6] Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editor-in-chief, and director.[7] Kristinn Hrafnssonis the only other publicly known acknowledged associate of WikiLeaks as of 2011. Hrafnsson is also a member of the company Sunshine Press Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason and Gavin MacFadyen.[8][9]
The group has released a number of significant documents which have become front-page news items. Early releases included documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war and corruption in Kenya.[10] In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gunsight footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were among those killed by an Apache helicopter, known as theCollateral Murder video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public.[11] In October 2010, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. This allowed every death in Iraq, and across the border in Iran, to be mapped.[12] In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[13]
In November 2010, WikiLeaks collaborated with major global media organisations to release U.S. State department diplomatic cables in redacted format. On 1 September 2011, it became public that an encrypted version of WikiLeaks' huge archive of unredacted U.S. State Department cables had been available via Bittorrent for months, and that the decryption key (similar to a password) was available to those who knew where to look. WikiLeaks blamed the breach on its former partner, The Guardian, and that newspaper's journalist David Leigh, who revealed the key in a book published in February 2011;[14] The Guardian argued that WikiLeaks was to blame since they gave the impression that the decryption key was temporal (something not possible for a file decryption key).[15] Der Spiegel reported a more complex story[16] involving errors on both sides. Widely expressed fears that the CableGate release could endanger innocent lives[17][18] have not been supported with evidence.
Contents[hide] |
[edit]History
[edit]Founding
The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006.[3] The website was unveiled, and published its first document, in December 2006.[19][20] WikiLeaks has been predominantly represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assange, who is now generally recognised as the "founder of WikiLeaks."[21] According to Wired magazine, a volunteer said that Assange described himself in a private conversation as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest."[22]
WikiLeaks relies heavily on volunteers and previously described its founders as a mix of Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[23] The site was originally launched as a user-editable wiki (hence its name), but has progressively moved toward a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits. As of June 2009, the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[23] and listed an advisory board comprising Assange, his deputy Jash Vora and seven other people, some of which denied any association with the organisation.[24][25]
Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website is no longer wiki-based as of May 2010.[26] Also, despite some popular confusion[27] due to both having the term "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other ("wiki" is not a brand name);[28][29] Wikia, a for-profit corporation loosely affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.[30]
[edit]Purpose
The WikiLeaks website says their goal is "to bring important news and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth."
Another of the organisation's goals is to ensure that whistleblowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents. The online "drop box" (currently not functioning) was designed to "provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists."
In an interview on The Colbert Report, Assange discussed the limit to the freedom of speech, saying, "[it is] not an ultimate freedom, however free speech is what regulates government and regulates law. That is why in the US Constitution the Bill of Rights says that Congress is to make no such law abridging the freedom of the press. It is to take the rights of the press outside the rights of the law because those rights are superior to the law because in fact they create the law. Every constitution, every bit of legislation is derived from the flow of information. Similarly every government is elected as a result of people understanding things".[31]
The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.[32] In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.[32] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting that "Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East."[33]
[edit]Administration
According to a January 2010 interview, the WikiLeaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[34] WikiLeaks has no official headquarters.
[edit]Hosting
WikiLeaks describes itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking".[35] The site is available on multiple servers and different domain names following a number of denial-of-service attacks and its severance from different Domain Name System (DNS) providers.[36][37]
Until August 2010, WikiLeaks was hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs".[38] Currently, WikiLeaks is mainly hosted by Bahnhof in a facility that used to be a nuclear bunker.[39][40] Other servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden.[41] Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site". He talks about theSwedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection.[41] It is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[42] These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult for any authorities to take WikiLeaks offline; they place an onus of proof upon any complainant whose suit would circumscribe WikiLeaks' liberty, e.g. its rights to exercise free speech online. Furthermore, "WikiLeaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."[38][43]
On 17 August 2010, it was announced that the Swedish Pirate Party would be hosting and managing many of WikiLeaks' new servers. The party donates servers and bandwidth to WikiLeaks without charge. Technicians of the party would make sure that the servers are maintained and working.[44][45]
After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon's servers.[46]Later, however, the website was "ousted" from the Amazon servers.[46] In a public statement, Amazon said that WikiLeaks was not following its terms of service. The company further explained, "There were several parts they were violating. For example, our terms of service state that 'you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content... that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.' It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content."[47] WikiLeaks then decided to install itself on the servers of OVH in France.[48] After criticism from the French government, the company sought two court rulings about the legality of hosting WikiLeaks. While the court in Lille immediately declined to force OVH to shut down the WikiLeaks site, the court in Paris stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical issue.[49][50]
WikiLeaks is based on several software packages, including Tor[51] and PGP.[citation needed] WikiLeaks was implemented onMediaWiki software between 2006 and October 2010.[52] WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor because of the strong privacy needs of its users.[53]
On 4 November 2010, Julian Assange told Swiss public television TSR that he is seriously considering seeking political asylum in neutral Switzerland and setting up a WikiLeaks foundation to move the operation there.[54][55] According to Assange, Switzerland and Iceland are the only countries where WikiLeaks would feel safe to operate.[56][57]
[edit]Name servers
WikiLeaks had been using EveryDNS's services, which led to DDoS attacks on the host.[clarification needed] The attacks affected the quality of service at EveryDNS, so the company withdrew its service from WikiLeaks. Pro-WikiLeaks supporters retaliated by launching a DDoS attack against EveryDNS. Because of mistakes in the blogosphere, some supporters accidentally mistook EasyDNS for EveryDNS and a sizable internet backlash against EasyDNS ensued. Afterwards EasyDNS decided to provide WikiLeaks its name server service.[58]
[edit]Verification of submissions
WikiLeaks states that it has never released a misattributed document. Documents are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media. WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[59] The FAQ states that: "The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and discuss leaked documents."[60]
According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as language or programming, who also investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[61] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[61]
[edit]Legal status
[edit]Legal background
The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex. Assange considers WikiLeaks a whistleblower protection intermediary. Rather than leaking directly to the press, and fearing exposure and retribution, whistleblowers can leak to WikiLeaks, which then leaks to the press for them.[62] Its servers are located throughout Europe and are accessible from any uncensored web connection. The group located its headquarters in Sweden because it has one of the world’s strongest shield laws to protect confidential source-journalist relationships.[63][64] WikiLeaks has stated it does not solicit any information.[63] However, Assange used his speech during the Hack In The Box conference in Malaysia to ask the crowd of hackers and security researchers to help find documents on its "Most Wanted Leaks of 2009" list.[65]
[edit]Potential criminal prosecution
The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange shortly after the leak of diplomatic cables began.[66][67] Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed the probe was "not sabre-rattling", but was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."[67] The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[66][68] Several Supreme Court cases have previously established that the American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.[69] Federal prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces hurdles.[70] Any prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United States, a step made more complicated and potentially delayed by any preceding extradition to Sweden.[71] One of Assange's lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to Sweden because it might lead to his extradition to the United States.[72] Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empanelled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]" meeting to consider criminal charges in the WikiLeaks case.[73]
In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian laws may have been broken by WikiLeaks, but Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is illegal in foreign countries.[74] Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[75] Spencer Zifcak, President of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties group, notes that with no charge, and no trial completed, it is inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[76]
On threats by various governments toward Assange, legal expert Ben Saul argues that founder Julian Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to demonise him as a criminal or as a terrorist, without any legal basis.[77] The U.S. Center for Constitutional Rights has issued a statement highlighting its alarm at the "multiple examples of legal overreach and irregularities" in his arrest.[78]
[edit]Insurance file
On 29 July 2010, WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB "Insurance file" to the Afghan War Diary page. The file is AES encrypted and has aSHA1 checksum of "cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c".[79] There has been speculation that it was intended to serve as insurance in case the WikiLeaks website or its spokesman Julian Assange are incapacitated, upon which the passphrase could be published, similar to the concept of a dead man's switch.[80][81] Following the first few days' release of the US diplomatic cablesstarting 28 November 2010, the US television broadcaster CBS predicted that "If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have copies."[82] CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh stated, "What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released."[82]
[edit]Financing
WikiLeaks is a non-profit organisation, largely supported by volunteers, and it is dependent on public donations. Its main financing methods include conventional bank transfers and online payment systems. Annual expenses have been estimated at about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but might reportedly reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were paid for.[34]
WikiLeaks lawyers often work pro bono, and in some cases legal support has been donated by media organisations such as theAssociated Press, Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[34] WikiLeaks only revenue stream is donations, but it has considered other options including an auction model to sell early access to documents.[34] In September 2011, Wikileaks began auctioning items on Ebay to raise funds, and Assange told an audience at Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas that the organisation might not be able to survive.
[edit]Funding model
The Wau Holland Foundation helps to process donations to WikiLeaks. In July 2010, the Foundation stated that WikiLeaks was receiving no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[83] An article in TechEye stated:
As a charity accountable under German law, donations for WikiLeaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to WikiLeaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [sic] to WikiLeaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's former German representative Daniel Schmitt [real name Daniel Domscheit-Berg][84] on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[83]
However, in December 2010 the Wau Holland Foundation stated that 4 permanent employees, including Julian Assange, had begun to receive salaries.[85]
On 24 December 2009, WikiLeaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[86] and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[87] Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirrors.[88] WikiLeaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were covered.[87] WikiLeaks saw this as a kind of strike "to ensure that everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue".[34] While the organisation initially planned for funds to be secured by 6 January 2010,[89] it was not until 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[90]
On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks' donation account and froze its assets. WikiLeaks said that this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason".[91] The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[92] On 18 May 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were back up.[93]
In June 2010, WikiLeaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[20] but did not make the cut.[94] WikiLeaks commented via Twitter, "WikiLeaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure."[95] WikiLeaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award to "'12 Grantees who will impact future of news' – but not WikiLeaks" and questioned whether Knight foundation was "really looking for impact".[94] A spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks' statement, saying "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board."[95] However, he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking sites.[95]
In 2010, WikiLeaks received €635,772.73 in PayPal donations, less €30,000 in PayPal fees, and €695,925.46 in bank transfers. €500,988.89 of the sum was received in the month of December, primarily as bank transfers as PayPal suspended payments December 4. €298,057.38 of the remainder was received in April.[96]
The Wau Holland Foundation, one of the WikiLeaks' main funding channels, stated that they received more than €900,000 in public donations between October 2009 and December 2010, out of which €370,000 has been passed on to WikiLeaks. Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Wau Holland Foundation, mentioned that the Foundation had been receiving twice as many donations throughPayPal as through normal banks, before PayPal's decision to suspend WikiLeaks' account. He also noted that every new WikiLeaks publication brought "a wave of support", and that donations were strongest in the weeks after WikiLeaks started publishing leaked diplomatic cables.[97][98]
[edit]Leaks
Main article: Information published by WikiLeaks
[edit]2006–08
WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys."[20] In August 2007, The Guardian published a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi based on information provided via WikiLeaks.[102] In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[103] The document revealed that some prisoners were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military had in the past repeatedly denied.[104] In February 2008, WikiLeaks released allegations of illegal activities at the Cayman Islands branch of the Swiss Bank Julius Baer, which led to the bank suing WikiLeaks and obtaining an injunction which temporarily shut down wikileaks.org.[105] The California judge had the service provider of WikiLeaks block the site's domain (wikileaks.org) on 18 February 2008, although the bank only wanted the documents to be removed but WikiLeaks had failed to name a contact. The site was instantly mirrored by supporters, and later that month the judge overturned his previous decision citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[106][107] In March 2008, WikiLeaks published what they referred to as "the collected secret 'bibles' of Scientology," and three days later received letters threatening to sue them for breach of copyright.[108] In September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members ofAnonymous.[109] In November 2008, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to WikiLeaks, after briefly appearing on a blog.[110] A year later, on October 2009, another list of BNP members was leaked.[111]
[edit]2009
In January 2009, WikiLeaks released 86 telephone intercept recordings of Peruvian politicians and businessmen involved in the 2008 Peru oil scandal.[112] In February, WikiLeaks released 6,780 Congressional Research Service reports[113] followed in March, by a list of contributors to the Norm Coleman senatorial campaign[114][115] and a set of documents belonging to Barclays Bank that had been ordered removed from the website of The Guardian.[116] In July, it released a report relating to a serious nuclear accident that had occurred at the Iranian Natanz nuclear facility in 2009.[117] Later media reports have suggested that the accident was related to the Stuxnet computer worm.[118][119] In September, internal documents from Kaupthing Bank were leaked, from shortly before the collapse of Iceland's banking sector, which led to the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis. The document shows that suspiciously large sums of money were loaned to various owners of the bank, and large debts written off.[120] In October, Joint Services Protocol 440, a British document advising the security services on how to avoid documents being leaked was published by WikiLeaks.[121]Later that month, it announced that a super-injunction was being used by the commodities company Trafigura to gag The Guardian(London) from reporting on a leaked internal document regarding a toxic dumping incident in the Ivory Coast.[122][123] In November, it hosted copies of e-mail correspondence between climate scientists, although they were not originally leaked to WikiLeaks.[124][125]It also released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the 11 September attacks.[126] During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published the alleged lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for Australia, Denmark and Thailand. These were originally created to prevent access to child pornography and terrorism, but the leaks revealed that other sites covering unrelated subjects were also listed.[127][128][129]
[edit]2010
In mid-February 2010, WikiLeaks received a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Reykjavik relating to the Icesave scandal, which they published on 18 February.[130] The cable, known as Reykjavik 13 was the first of the classified documents WikiLeaks published among those allegedly provided to them by US Army Private Bradley Manning. In March 2010, WikiLeaks released a secret 32-page U.S. Department of Defense Counterintelligence Analysis Report written in March 2008 discussing the leaking of material by WikiLeaks and how it could be deterred.[131][132][133] In April, a classified video of the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrikewas released, showing two Reuters employees being fired at, after the pilots mistakenly thought the men were carrying weapons, which were in fact cameras.[134] In the week following the release, "wikileaks" was the search term with the most significant growth worldwide in the last seven days as measured by Google Insights.[135] In June 2010, Manning was arrested after alleged chat logs were turned in to the authorities by former hacker Adrian Lamo, in whom he had confided. Manning reportedly told Lamo he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video, in addition to a video of the Granai airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[136] In July, WikiLeaks released 92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan between 2004 and the end of 2009 to The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. The documents detail individual incidents including friendly fire and civilian casualties.[137] At the end of July, a 1.4 GB "insurance file" was added to the Afghan War Diary page, whose decryption details would be released if WikiLeaks or Assange were harmed.[80] About 15,000 of the 92,000 documents have not yet been released on WikiLeaks, as the group is currently reviewing the documents to remove some of the sources of the information. WikiLeaks asked the Pentagon and human-rights groups to help remove names from the documents to reduce the potential harm caused by their release, but did not receive assistance.[138] Following the Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany, on 24 July 2010, a local resident published internal documents of the city administration regarding the planning of Love Parade. The city government reacted by securing a court order on 16 August forcing the removal of the documents from the site on which it was hosted.[139] On 20 August 2010, WikiLeaks released a publication entitled Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010, which comprised 43 internal documents regarding the Love Parade 2010.[140][141] Following on from the leak of information from the Afghan War, in October 2010, around 400,000 documents relating to the Iraq War were released in October. The BBC quoted The Pentagonreferring to the Iraq War Logs as "the largest leak of classified documents in its history." Media coverage of the leaked documents focused on claims that the U.S. government had ignored reports of torture by the Iraqi authorities during the period after the 2003 war.[142]
[edit]Diplomatic cables release
On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from Spain (El País), France (Le Monde), Germany (Der Spiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian), and the United States (The New York Times) started to simultaneously publish the first 220 of 251,287 leaked confidential—but not top-secret—diplomatic cables from 274 US embassies around the world, dated from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010.[143][144] WikiLeaks plans to release the entirety of the cables in phases over several months.[144]
The contents of the diplomatic cables include numerous unguarded comments and revelations regarding: critiques and praises about the host countries of various US embassies; political manoeuvring regarding climate change; discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East; efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament; actions in the War on Terror; assessments of other threats around the world; dealings between various countries; US intelligence and counterintelligence efforts; and other diplomatic actions. Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak include stark criticism, anticipation, commendation, and quiescence. Consequent reactions to the US government include ridicule, sympathy, bewilderment and dismay. On 14 December 2010 the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena directing Twitter to provide information for accounts registered to or associated with WikiLeaks.[145] Twitter decided to notify its users.[146] The overthrow of the presidency in Tunisia has been attributed in part to reaction against the corruption revealed by leaked cables.[147][148][149]
[edit]2011–12
Main articles: Guantanamo Bay files leak and Global Intelligence Files leak
In late April 2011, files related to the Guantanamo prison were released.[150] In December 2011, WikiLeaks started to release theSpy Files.[151] On 27 February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing more than five million emails from the Texas-headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor.[152]
[edit]Upcoming leaks
In May 2010, WikiLeaks said it had video footage of a massacre of civilians in Afghanistan by the US military which they were preparing to release.[153][154]
In an interview with Chris Anderson on 19 July 2010, Assange showed a document WikiLeaks had on an Albanian oil-well blowout, and said they also had material from inside BP,[155] and that they were "getting enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of a very high calibre" but added that they had not been able to verify and release the material because they did not have enough volunteer journalists.[156]
In October 2010, Assange told a leading Moscow newspaper that "The Kremlin had better brace itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia".[157][158] Assange later clarified: "we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It's not right to say there's going to be a particular focus on Russia".[159]
In a 2009 Computerworld interview, Assange claimed to be in possession of "5GB from Bank of America". In 2010 he told Forbesmagazine that WikiLeaks was planning another "megaleak" early in 2011, from inside the private sector, involving "a big U.S. bank" and revealing an "ecosystem of corruption". Bank of America's stock price fell by 3% as a result of this announcement.[160][161]Assange commented on the possible impact of the release that "it could take down a bank or two."[162][163]
In December 2010, Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, told The Andrew Marr Show on BBC Television that WikiLeaks had information it considered to be a "thermo-nuclear device" which it would release if the organisation needs to defend itself.[164]
In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[165]
[edit]Backlash and pressure
[edit]Operational challenges
Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the website to have "blood on our hands."[20][166]He expressed the view that the potential to save lives, however, outweighs the danger to innocents.[167] Furthermore, WikiLeaks has highlighted independent investigations which have failed to find any evidence of civilians harmed as a result of WikiLeaks' activities.[168][169]
[edit]Response from media
Chinese journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[170] An article in The New Yorker said:
One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site's foundation, and Assange was able to say, "[w]e have received over one million documents from thirteen countries."[20][171]
Assange responded to the suggestion that eavesdropping on Chinese hackers played a crucial part in the early days of WikiLeaks by saying "the imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a 2006 investigation into Chinese espionage one of our contacts was involved in. Somewhere between none and handful of those documents were ever released on WikiLeaks. Non-government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as Tibetan associations were informed (by us)".[172]
[edit]Response from governments
[edit]Australia
On 16 March 2009, the Australian Communications and Media Authority added WikiLeaks to their proposed blacklist of sites that will be blocked for all Australians if the mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme is implemented as planned.[173][174] The blacklisting had been removed by 29 November 2010.[175]
[edit]People's Republic of China
The WikiLeaks website claims that the government of the People's Republic of China has attempted to block all traffic to web sites with "wikileaks" in the URL since 2007, but that this can be bypassed through encrypted connections or by using one of WikiLeaks' many covert URLs.[176]
[edit]Germany
The home of Theodor Reppe, registrant of the German WikiLeaks domain name, wikileaks.de, was raided on 24 March 2009 after WikiLeaks released the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) censorship blacklist.[177] The site was not affected.[178][179]
[edit]Iceland
After the release of the 2007 airstrikes video and as they prepared to release film of the Granai airstrike, Julian Assange has said that his group of volunteers came under intense surveillance. In an interview and Twitter posts he said that a restaurant in Reykjavíkwhere his group of volunteers met came under surveillance in March; that there was "covert following and hidden photography" by police and foreign intelligence services; that an apparent British intelligence agent made thinly veiled threats in a Luxembourg car park; and that one of the volunteers was detained by police for 21 hours. Another volunteer posted that computers were seized, saying "If anything happens to us, you know why ... and you know who is responsible."[180] According to the Columbia Journalism Review, "the Icelandic press took a look at Assange’s charges of being surveilled in Iceland [...] and, at best, have found nothing to substantiate them."[181]
In August 2009, Kaupthing Bank secured a court order preventing Iceland's national broadcaster, RÚV, from broadcasting a risk analysis report showing the bank's substantial exposure to debt default risk. This information had been leaked by a whistleblower to WikiLeaks and remained available on the WikiLeaks site; faced with an injunction minutes before broadcast, the channel ran with a screen grab of the WikiLeaks site instead of the scheduled piece on the bank. Citizens of Iceland were reported to be outraged that RÚV was prevented from broadcasting news of relevance.[182] Therefore, WikiLeaks has been credited with inspiring the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a bill meant to reclaim Iceland's 2007 Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières) ranking as first in the world for free speech. It aims to enact a range of protections for sources, journalists, and publishers.[183][184] Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former WikiLeaks volunteer and member of the Icelandic parliament, is the chief sponsor of the proposal.
[edit]Thailand
The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) is currently censoring the WikiLeaks website in Thailand[185] and more than 40,000 other webpages[186] because of the emergency decree declared in Thailand at the beginning of April 2010 as a result of political instabilities.[187]
[edit]United States
On 17 July 2010, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange because of the presence of federal agents at the conference.[188][189] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[188][190][191] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that the site had begun accepting submissions again.[155]
Upon returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was detained for three hours at the airport by US agents, according to anonymous sources.[192] The sources told Cnet that Appelbaum's bag was searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop was inspected, although in what manner was unclear.[192] Appelbaum reportedly refused to answer questions without a lawyer present, and was not allowed to make a phone call. His three mobile phones were reportedly taken and not returned.[192] On 31 July, he spoke at a Defcon conference and mentioned his phone being "seized". After speaking, he was approached by two FBI agents and questioned.[192]
Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress.[193] On 3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[194] The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",[195] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[68] According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany, and Australia among others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.[196] Columbia University students have been warned by their Office of Career Services that the U.S. State Department had contacted the office in an email saying that the diplomatic cables which were released by WikiLeaks were "still considered classified" and that "online discourse about the documents 'would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information.'"[197]
All U.S. federal government staff have been blocked from viewing WikiLeaks.[198]
As in individual responses, government officials had mixed feelings. Although Hillary Clinton refused to comment on specific reports, she claimed that the leaks "put people's lives in danger" and "threatens national security."[19] Former United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates commented, "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."[19]
[edit]Response from corporations
[edit]Facebook
WikiLeaks claimed in April 2010 that Facebook deleted its fan page, which had 30,000 fans.[199][200][201] However, as of 7 December 2010 the group's Facebook fan page was available and had grown by 100,000 fans daily since 1 December,[202] to more than 1.6 million fans. It was also the largest growth of the week.[203] Regarding the presence of WikiLeaks on Facebook, Andrew Noyes, the company's D.C.-based Manager of Public Policy Communications, has stated "the Wikileaks Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we encountered any material posted on the page that violates our policies."[204]
[edit]U.S. diplomatic cables leak responses
According to The Times (London), WikiLeaks and its members have complained about continuing harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organisations, including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, "covert following and hidden photography."[153] Two lawyers for Julian Assange in the United Kingdom told The Guardian that they believed they were being watched by the security services after the U.S. cables leak, which started on 28 November 2010.[205]
Furthermore, several companies severed ties with WikiLeaks. After providing 24-hour notification, American-owned EveryDNSdropped WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December 2010, citing DDoS attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".[36][206] The site's 'info' DNS lookup remained operational at alternative addresses for direct access respectively to the WikiLeaks and Cablegate websites.[207] On the same day, Amazon.com severed its ties with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services, after an intervention by an aide of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman.[208][209][210] Amazon denied acting under political pressure, citing a violation of its terms of service.[211] Citing indirect pressure from the U.S. Government, Tableau Softwarealso dropped WikiLeaks' data from its site for people to use for data visualisation.[212][213]
In the days following, hundreds of (and eventually more than a thousand)[214] mirrors of the WikiLeaks site appeared, and theAnonymous group of Internet activists called on supporters to attack the websites of companies which opposed WikiLeaks,[215]under the banner of Operation Payback, previously aimed at anti-piracy organisations.[216] AFP reported that attempts to shut down the wikileaks.org address had led to the site surviving via the so-called Streisand effect, whereby attempts to censor information online leads to it being replicated in many places.[217]
On 3 December, PayPal, the payment processor owned by eBay, permanently cut off the account of the Wau Holland Foundationthat had been redirecting donations to WikiLeaks. PayPal alleged that the account violated its "Acceptable Use Policy", specifically that the account was used for "activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity."[218][219]The Vice President of PayPal later stated that they stopped accepting payments after the "State Department told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward." Later the same day, he said that his previous statement was incorrect, and that it was in fact based on a letter from the State Department to WikiLeaks.[220] On 8 December 2010, the Wau Holland Foundation released a press statement, saying it has filed a legal action against PayPal for blocking its account used for WikiLeaks payments and for libel due to PayPal's allegations of "illegal activity".[221]
On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange that it holds, totalling €31,000. In a statement on its website, it stated that this was because Assange "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when opening the account.[222] WikiLeaks released a statement saying this was because Assange, "as a homeless refugee attempting to gain residency in Switzerland, had used his lawyer's address in Geneva for the bank's correspondence".[223]
On the same day, MasterCard announced that it was "taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept MasterCard-branded products", adding "MasterCard rules prohibit customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal."[224] The next day, Visa Inc. announced it was suspending payments to WikiLeaks, pending "further investigations".[225] In a move of support for WikiLeaks, XIPWIRE established a way to donate to WikiLeaks, and waived their fees.[226] Datacell, the Swiss-based IT company that enabled WikiLeaks to accept credit card donations, announced that it would take legal action againstVisa Europe and Mastercard, in order to resume allowing payments to the website.[227]
On 7 December 2010, The Guardian stated that people could donate to WikiLeaks via Commerzbank in Kassel, Germany, orLandsbanki in Iceland, or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at the wikileaks.ch domain.[228]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated that Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon may be "violating WikiLeaks' right to freedom of expression" by withdrawing their services.[229]
On 21 December, media reported that Apple had removed an application from its App Store, which provided access to the embassy cable leaks.[230]
As part of its 'Initial Assessments Pursuant to ... WikiLeaks', the US Presidential Executive Office has issued a memorandum to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies asking whether they have an 'insider threat program'.[231][232]
On 14 July 2011 WikiLeaks and DataCell Ltd. of Iceland filed a complaint against the international card companies, VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe, for infringement of the antitrust rules of the EU, in response to their withdrawal of financial services to the organisation. In a joint press release, the organisations stated: "The closure by VISA Europe and MasterCard of Datcell‘s access to the payment card networks in order to stop donations to WikiLeaks violates the competition rules of the European Community."[233]
[edit]Response from financial industry
Since the publications of CableGate, WikiLeaks has faced an unprecedented global financial blockade by major finance companies including Mastercard, Visa and PayPal.
In October 2010, it was reported that Moneybookers, which collected donations for WikiLeaks, had ended its relationship with the site. Moneybookers stated that its decision had been made "to comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities, agencies or commissions."[234]
On 18 December 2010, Bank of America announced it would "not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for Wikileaks," citing "Wikileaks might be engaged in activities ... inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments". WikiLeaks responded in a tweet by encouraging their supporters who were BoA customers to close their accounts. Bank of America has long been believed to be the target of WikiLeaks' next major release.[235]
Late in 2010, Bank of America approached the law firm of Hunton & Williams to put a stop to WikiLeaks. Hunton & Williams assembled a group of security specialists, HBGary Federal, Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies. They decided upon a campaign that included the use of "false documents, disinformation, and sabotage."[citation needed]
During 5 and 6 February 2011, Anonymous hacked HBGary's web site, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks' planned release of the bank's internal documents. Emails detailed a supposed business proposal by HBGary to assist Bank of America's law firm, Hunton & Williams, and revealed that the companies were willing to break the law to bring down WikiLeaks and Anonymous.
"CEO Aaron Barr thought he'd uncovered the hackers' identities and like rats, they'd scurry for cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned, bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong."[236]
In October 2011 Julian Assange said the financial blockade had destroyed 95% of WikiLeaks' revenues and announced that it was suspending publishing operations in order to focus on fighting the blockade and raising new funds.[237]
[edit]Internal conflicts
[edit]Restructuring
Some supporters were unhappy[citation needed] when WikiLeaks moved from a community-based Wiki model to a more centralised organisational structure. The "about" page originally read:[238]
To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.
However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" (and excluded "material that is already publicly available").[239] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of confidential records."[240] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, in any country, as the original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it. [...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity."[241] After the 2010 relaunch, posting new comments on leaks was no longer possible.[26]
[edit]Defections
Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the site's former German representative who was suspended by Assange. Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the site.[84][242][243]
On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "disloyalty, insubordination and destabilization", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for WikiLeaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project".[244][245][246] Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information toNewsweek, claiming the WikiLeaks team was unhappy with Assange's leadership and handling of the Afghan war document releases.[246] Domscheit-Berg left with a small group to start OpenLeaks.com, a new leak organisation and website with a different management and distribution philosophy.[244][247]
While leaving, Daniel Domscheit-Berg copied and then deleted roughly 3,500 unpublished documents from the WikiLeaks servers,[248] including information on the US government's 'no-fly list' and inside information from 20 right wing organizations, and accordingly to a WikiLeaks statement, 5 gigabytes of data relating to Bank of America, the internal communications of 20 neo-Nazi organisations and US intercept information for "over a hundred internet companies."[249] In Domscheit-Berg's book he wrote: "To this day, we are waiting for Julian to restore security, so that we can return the material to him, which was on the submission platform".[250] In August 2011, Domscheit-Berg permanently deleted the files for which he claimed "in order to ensure that the sources are not compromised".[251]
Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year old Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.[246] Iceland MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir also left WikiLeaks, citing lack of transparency, lack of structure, and poor communication flow in the organisation.[252] According to The Independent (London), at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left the website in 2010.[253]
[edit]Reception
Main article: Reception of WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks has received praise as well as criticism. The organisation has won a number of awards, including The Economist's New Media Award in 2008 at the Index on Censorship Awards[254] and Amnesty International's UK Media Award in 2009.[255][256] In 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first among websites "that could totally change the news",[257] and Julian Assange received the Sam Adams Award[258] and was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year in 2010.[259] The UKInformation Commissioner has stated that "WikiLeaks is part of the phenomenon of the online, empowered citizen".[260] In its first days, an Internet petition calling for the cessation of extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks attracted over six hundred thousand signatures.[261] Supporters of WikiLeaks in the media and academia have commended it for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, supporting freedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions.[262][263][264][265][266][267][268]
At the same time, several U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing classified information and claimed that the leaks harm national security and compromise international diplomacy.[269][270][271][272][273] Several human rights organisations requested with respect to earlier document releases that WikiLeaks adequately redact the names of civilians working with international forces, in order to prevent repercussions.[274] Some journalists have likewise criticised a perceived lack of editorial discretion when releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient analysis.[275] In response to some of the negative reaction, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed her concern over the "cyber war" against WikiLeaks,[276] and in a joint statement with the Organization of American States the UN Special Rapporteur has called on states and other actors to keep international legal principles in mind
No comments:
Post a Comment