How WikiLeaks Gags Its Own Staff

robbyyy writes "The New Statesman has just revealed the extent of the legal eccentricity and paranoia that exists at the WikiLeaks organization. The magazine published a leaked copy of the draconian and extraordinary legal gag which WikiLeaks imposes on its own staff. Clause 5 of the Confidentiality Agreement (PDF) imposes a penalty of £12,000,000 (approximately $20,000,000) on anyone who breaches this legal gag. Sounds like they don't trust their own staff."

Comments

I like it!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

I wonder how they like their documents being leaked. It would make my year if they sued over this.

Re:I like it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, there are people out there who want to leak documents, but want to be sure that wikileaks will properly redact it so as to protect members of the armed services, etc. This policy is probably in place for their peace of mind. If leakers just wanted to dump stuff onto the internet, anyone could do that. This policy is to make sure that the leak is done right.

Re:I like it!

[sjames]

EXACTLY. Wikileaks can't seem to win. If they ever leak anything, people scream about how they are "endangering lives". If they do anything to control the level of detail in the leaking to address that issue, people (possibly the very same people) scream about how they limit leaking.

Re:I like it!

[_Sprocket_]

So what you're saying is that Wikileaks is immune to criticism - above all, accusations of hypocrisy.

Re:I like it!

[sjames]

No, I'm saying that much of the criticism they get is of limited merit and that they are unlikely to be able to do anything at all (including disband) that will satisfy all critics.

Re:I like it!

[tnk1]

I'll agree with the "unable to satisfy all critics" part. If you're not pissing someone off, you're doing it wrong.

However, the criticism that they tend to get is actually rather important. It comes down to much larger questions of what happens when you have someone freely leaking information who are not even tangentially responsible to the greater community.

On one hand, there's no doubt that stuff gets hidden as classified for unacceptable reasons.

On the other hand, just because people haven't been hurt yet, doesn't mean it can't happen. Half the data that an intelligence analyst looks at would be considered to be mundane, boring, or even pointless by untrained and uninformed people. A detail that seems unimportant and not dangerous to you may actually be extremely important. Having that information thrown to a group of volunteer outsiders who have no responsibility to anyone but themselves means that there is a higher chance that adequate care will not be taken, or even *cannot* be taken with that data.

Don't get me wrong, I like seeing stuff like this, and I am not against seeing more leaks, but some of the criticism of what they have been doing is very spot on. The question is, can the leakers control themselves to a degree where the fact that people haven't been killed isn't just good luck, because that's what the low level of review of previously reviewed material has meant so far. As it stands, I imagine that some intelligence agencies are already quietly capitalizing on some of the things that came out in the diplomatic messages. You know that at least a few subjects of the candid reports are probably more than a little pissed at the US right now, and when world leaders get pissed, bad things happen.

Re:I like it!

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY. Wikileaks can't seem to win. If they ever leak anything, people scream about how they are "endangering lives". If they do anything to control the level of detail in the leaking to address that issue, people (possibly the very same people) scream about how they limit leaking.

Welcome to Real Life!

You can't win, you can't breakeven and you can't quit the game!

Re:I like it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They should be pissed if that happens. Because you don't pay them taxes at the penalty of jail time if you don't, because they don't corrode your privacy. It's a fundamental difference you failed to grab.

Re:I like it!

[Idbar]

Well, they seem also to handle pretty interesting stuff, you don't want your own people leaking information that was leaked to them. On that side, it's not about trust, it's about ensuring that your contacts/whistle-blowers will trust you because of that. And they're also supposed to help their whistle blowers censor proper parts so they won't be incriminated in further legal battles of stuff such as treason. There's a lot of legal concern in any part of their business and I think they're right to be concerned.

Re:I like it!

[_Sprocket_]

I have a contrary viewpoint. I believe the fact that they are making changes that are counter to their initial statements validate much of the criticism. But at the same time, it opens them up to additional criticism from those who got behind some of the initial ideals Wikileaks no longer practices. Meanwhile, some of the behavior from WikiLeaks simply adds fuel to other controversies like financial interests / claims (which seems to be the angle of this article).

Re:I like it!

[mug funky]

i'd be surprised if diplomats from other countries don't talk about each other in as bitchy a manner as the americans do. it seems a bit naive to think having bitchings aired could spark an international incident - if anything it can help communication, now that both parties have a little bit less pretense they can talk more openly and productively.

if diplomats are prone to hurt feelings, they're REALLY in the wrong game.

of course, feigning offense and hurt can be good from a propaganda perspective.

on redaction, observations so far have shown that wikileaks have redacted more information than their traditional press counterparts.

aside from the sheer volume leaked, it seems safety per-leak has actually increased.

Re:I like it!

[mug funky]

you can expect big changes from a group that are working it all out as they go along...

Re:I like it!

[sjames]

They have harmed nobody, and have clearly taken steps meant to keep it that way including getting respected media outlets to help them in screening the information released.

I see no evidence for the idea that the lack of deaths so far is just lucky. It's like saying that (pick any average person) just hasn't happened to go on a multi-state killing spree.

TFA itself shows that they are working to mitigate any unacceptable leaks.

Re:I like it!

[_Sprocket_]

you can expect big changes from a group that are working it all out as they go along...

Well, sure. There's growing pains. But it should be noted that what WikiLeaks is doing isn't without historical precedent. And growing pains doesn't negate criticism. Wikileaks wants to operate on a big stage and get lots of attention - both of which rightfully draws a critical eye.

Re:I like it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the real point is to protect the documents that were leaked _to_ them. Remember, everything they leak is combed through by hand before it's published (ie. they're not just dumped on the interwebs like the HBGary emails). So, I think, it's to protect anyone who may come to harm as the result of a "re-leak" (considering the nature of the documents that are given to them).

Imagine crucial details from a US cable that could lead to a Chinese informant being leaked. Then him actually being captured. Wouldn't look too good for ol' Julian.

Re:I like it!

[Requiem18th]

I've always found people like you kinda funny, I can't really understand where you are coming from.
Some group exposes abuses from US Government by exposing secret documents. This somehow earns your hate, so what is it?

Is it just plain old blind nationalism? My country right or wrong?
Or are you just misguided, drank some fox news koolaid about how every paper leaked murders 50 billion people some how?
Or is it just some pathological contrarianism? You see them being popular so you hate them?
Or is it some psychopathic sense of rule bounding, as in, if you see someone who claims to be vegetarian to spare innocent animals, you want to see them eaten by worms without taking anti-parasites because "that the logical end" you see?

I mean really how exactly does this hate work?

Re:I like it!

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, right. The very first thing that stood out to me from that wonderful document:

E. By reason of the matters set out in A-D above herein any breach by you likely to cause loss and damage to WikiLeaks including without limitation loss and damage in the nature of:
- Loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers;

So much for the image of selfless anarchists righting the wrongs...

Re:I like it!

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Wow, wrong on every assumption. First of all not American. Secondly, don't hate wikileaks, or anyone for that matter.
The reason I love this is that I enjoy when self appointed guardians of right and wrong are proven to be less than the paragons of virtue they like to have everyone believe they are. Nothing more.
One last time. Not hate. I get a great laugh from hypocrisy.

Re:I like it!

[JAlexoi]

FYI: Diplomats found nothing new in the diplomatic cables. What they found is mentions of people they know. But nothing really new. The impact of these cables is more making it visible to broader public what lies behind diplomatic facade. Because a diplomat can insult you and your whole family and you will thank him for his compliments afterwards.
I have some diplomats in the family and boy do they tell some dirty stories about "the people in power". Presidents, prime ministers, ambassadors, military attaches and the other "cultural attaches"...

Re:I like it!

[datsa]

Why should Wikileaks mind this leak? The CIA doesn't trust its staff, either, and they're not ashamed to admit it, either. Very few large institutions trust their entire staff. That's why very few employees have root access to their machines or the company database.

Re:I like it!

[metacell]

Have they actually sold anything to news broadcasters and publisher?

The paragraph may be there to legally justify the damages when someone breaks confidentiality.

Re:I like it!

[RockDoctor]

so as to protect members of the armed services,

They volunteered ; why should they expect additional protection?

(And FYI I have a close relative who has recently been stupid enough to sign up and is currently in Afghanistan getting shot at. None of which changes the fact that he's been a bloody idiot and that he may die for it. And as an adult he's chosen to do something dangerous and unproductive, which is his choice. I'd understand it better if he was doing something fun like driving excessively fast or parachuting (for fun, not for pay), but it's his choice. I'm not obliged to support him though.)

Re:I like it!

[robsku]

Even that would not bother me if they would also leak the information to the public un-delayed - if they would sell and delay leaking for a day or two so the buyer could get into news with it before them it would start to bother me a bit but still only so slightly... but once started such policy might well escalate further.

Re:I like it!

[Requiem18th]

So the virtuous thing to do here would be releasing uncensored leaks? At least wikileaks censors the leaks to protect innocents/sources.

Unless you think that since whistle-blowing groups release information they HAVE to leak everything in it's entirety, in which case I would be right on the "psychopathic sense of rule bounding" i suspected before.

Re:I like it!

[drinkypoo]

Non-profit doesn't mean no money.

How Ironic

[bky1701]

You'd almost think they're the ones getting leaked...

Re:How Ironic

[Beerdood]

Oh great, here we go with the "Ironic" or "Hypocritical" comments again, another poster fails to realize the difference here.

I'll try to explain secrecy within wikileaks once more, hopefully before a hundred other comments spout the same nonsense. Wikileaks gets information from people within the organizations. These documents or memos they receive may have the submitters information on there. Maybe they have an IP, or email address, or mailing address or something that the submitter didn't hide. So wikileaks goes to the trouble of redacting this information from these documents so the submitter doesn't get identified.

Lets say Company A offers to bribe Country B's corrupt government to allow some dumping of chemical waste near some poor neighborhood in that country, but someone gets wind of this information floating around and submits it to wikileaks.

Now when these two entities find out their plan was leaked, they're going to be very pissed off. There may not be that many suspects for this leak, so they might start investigating to see who sent this information. Well guess who has this information? The wikileaks staff! Company A and Country B probably have deep deep pockets and wouldn't mind getting to the bottom of this, and who knows what the hell they'll do to the guy if they ever found out who it is (see : Bradley Manning detainment conditions).

Well the wikileaks staff are still human, and despite whatever moral integrity they have, maybe one of them can be tempted by large sums of money (as my dad used to say, Everyone has their price). So the best solution for the wikileaks organization at this point is to enforce a confidentiality agreement with an astronomical sum of money, as to potentially discourage any of their staff from leaking sensitive information that governments and organizations would love to get their hands on. Make it so whatever they might receive clearly isn't worth the 20M they'd have to pay back (assuming it was enforceable). This agreement isn't there to prevent the staff from disclosing the wikileaks budget, or to hide the fact that Julian assange uses Rogaine, or stays in 5 star hotels for conference visits. This is prevent the leakers from "mysteriously disappearing" because someone at their organization found out what they leaked.

Re:How Ironic

[NoAkai]

Whilst I agree (and I'd mod you up if I could), I think it is also important to be cautious that the measures taken to "prevent the leakers from "mysteriously disappearing" because someone at their organization found out what they leaked." is not also used to cover up Mr. Assange's hotel expenses and other luxuries. Donators have a right to know if their money is being used to combat wrongdoings and expose corruption, or if it's being used to give Mr. Assange a yacuzzi in his hotel room.

Re:How Ironic

[bky1701]

Funny how that's the same argument, almost word for word, used by the people they're leaking files of. I'm going to have to extend it from "ironic" to "hypocritical".

Re:How Ironic

[drb226]

While that makes perfect sense, you still can't deny that the whole idea of a "leak" is to expose information that someone wants secret. So it's a mind-bender to think that in order to promote "good" leaks (exposing scandals, scams, etc) Wikileaks must suppress "bad" leaks (info on who leaked). Us sheeple like things simple, so "Wikileaks loves leaks" works for us until we realize that Wikileaks does not, in fact, support all kinds of leaks.

Re:How Ironic

[Runaway1956]

Nice summary, and I mostly agree with you. However - you seem to sympathize with Private Manning, and I do not. More, Manning's detention has been characterized as for his self protection. I'm not real sure how much I believe that, but it's out there, and it's reasonable.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I support Wikileaks, and I also support Assange. Some people might not understand, but I detest manning for violating his oaths, general orders, and a myriad of orders from his superiors. On the other hand, Wikileaks is not subject to US law, they have no reason to display any kind of loyalty to the US. Wikileaks is doing what they are supposed to do, while Manning did not do what he is supposed to do.

But, again, nice summary.

Re:How Ironic

[Beerdood]

Touche, good point

Re:How Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

The wording of the confidentiality agreement does not agree with your theory. It is all about the monetary value of the leaked information. That's how I read it. Wikileaks wants to be compensated for the loss of a document that could be worth millions on the open market.

Re:How Ironic

[Lunix Nutcase]

(see : Bradley Manning detainment conditions).

Boohoo. Bradley Manning made an agreement with the government to not expose secret information lest he receive rather severe punishment. It's rather hard to feel sorry for him when he voluntarily signed the contract.

Re:How Ironic

[poetmatt]

There is no proof that manning has done anything.

where is his trial, where are the proof of facts?

Maybe you should think about that before you play this "manning is bad" shit.

Re:How Ironic

[blakecraw]

yacuzzi? Is that like when the Yakuza kill Mr. Assange in his jacuzzi for exposing their dealings?

Re:How Ironic

[TapeCutter]

Boohoo. Bradley Manning made an agreement with the government to not expose secret information lest he receive rather severe punishment. It's rather hard to feel sorry for him when he voluntarily signed the contract.

Or to paraphrase Q from STNG - "Guilty until proven innocent, since it would be unfair to subject an innocent man to a trial."

Re:How Ironic

[Neil Boekend]

Sometimes you simply have to bend your principles a bit to have them. If they didn't protect the identity of their leaks they would not get any new leaks and they would not be able to expose true corruption.
The details should have been better written. Now it includes Assange's potential "5 star hotel bills and the scores of hookers on Wikileak's costs" (because leaking it would constitute "loss of reputation") . It shouldn't. It should only protect the information that could identify the leakers.

Re:How Ironic

[furbearntrout]

yacuzzi: n. a jacuzzi big enough to drown a yak
Usage: Steve Balmer had a yacuzzi installed on his yacht.
also spelled: yaccuzi, yakuzzi, yakkuzzi
Is this not a perfectly cromulent word?

Re:How Ironic

[WATist]

On top of that they need to keep employees from hurting not just their business but their reputation if the information is misleading. Say, the information is wrong they're still checking it and it gets leaked and attributed them.

Re:How Ironic

[metacell]

Well, it remains to be seen if Wikileaks will use the contract to cover up things they shouldn't.

Re:How Ironic

[JosKarith]

"Manning's detention has been characterized as for his self protection"
Because detaining someone for their own good is not a concept that has been misused throughout history. As soon as someone says "We're doing this for your own good." my suspicions are raised. Unfortunately, in the current world this means I spend most of my time suspicious of everyone with any degree of power as it seems to be the control mantra of choice nowadays.

Re:How Ironic

[silanea]

I see this as similar to how we outfit our police: We give them guns, batons, tear gas and so on so that they can, in turn, protect us from bad people with guns, knives etc. But we only give them limited weapons, ie. the cop on the beat does not run around with an AK47 or a bazooka. And we give them rules as to when, how and how much they may use those weapons. Enough to protect us but not enough to turn them into an army. (Yeah, yeah, call me a dreamer. But that is the basic idea.)

Wikileaks protects leakers by applying a measure of secrecy themselves. Nothing mind-bending to me. Besides, did not Wikileaks once publish a list of its donators that was submitted to them as a leak?

As opposed to the armed forces..

[black3d]

Which threaten court martial and execution for breaching confidentiality, or a lifetime in prison. I'd take a $12 million fine which I can default on, any day of the week.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Wyatt Earp]

The Armed Forces, where one takes an legally binding oath after volunteering, then volunteers again for the security clearance while taking another legally binding oath.

Dude knew what he was getting into

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Servaas]

Ofcourse in the military you are part of a unit. You have brothers that can get hurt, so it's not just about your own life. Playing with other people's lives VS leaking info that could bankrupt some shady organization of it self. Ill take door number 3 hans!

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[MightyMartian]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the US armed forces should return to conscription?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I joined the military after graduating college and I had plenty of other options.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[mjwalshe]

Well that's more enforceable and is a criminal offense - this one isn't (its breach of contract which is a civil offense) and as the NS journalist points out. it would be impossible to enforce.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. So I guess you would be opposed to student loan debt offered by our welfare state that you can't default on.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[black3d]

As I noted later on (http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2146120&cid=36100472) it appears New Statesman made up the entire angle that staff would be fined £12,000,000. Read the entire agreement start to finish, and the only penality implied by the confidentiality agreement for a breach is employment termination. Employment termination IS enforceable. The £12,000,000 fine never existed. All smoke and mirrors from folks trying to muddy Wikileaks.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

For how long have you been suffering from comprehension problems ?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[memyselfandeye]

For how long have you been suffering from comprehension problems ?

Apparently for 7 minutes minus the few seconds it took to read your post? How does an all volunteer military create desperate young men with no other option?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[moonbender]

You know what you're getting into in legal terms, but you can't possibly know if you can justify keeping quiet before seeing the confidential information. I can easily imagine someone signing a confidentiality agreement in good faith only to find out that the information does warrant whistleblowing, despite the possibility of dire personal consequences.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[krizoitz]

You're right, the military and government should just let anyone leak whatever confidential information they want without consequence, no matter how much that information harms anyone else. Anyone who thinks that governments don't have legitimate reasons to limit who knows what information is out of touch with reality. What if all the intel about tracking bin Laden had been made public? Would kind of defeat the purpose of hunting someone down if you were basically broadcasting how you were doing it so they could find out. There is an old saying, knowledge is power. Well giving away all your knowledge for free puts you in the position of being exploited and powerless. Do governments sometimes take secrecy too far? Absolutely. But indiscriminate leaking of information ala WikiLeaks isn't the solution. It undermines those times when information is legitimately leakworthy, such as the Watergate scandal.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Disinformation Wants to be FREE!"

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[realityimpaired]

I suspect he's complaining about the socio-economic pressures that lead to lower class/poor people having a much higher representation rate in the armed forces.

Of course, the military still does have standards. Even the US military won't take *everyone*, and if you're going to do anything that actually requires clearance, there's a skills and IQ test you need to pass before they'll even consider you for it.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Runaway1956]

That's not terribly unfair a description. Yes, a lot of people join the military because they don't see any better options in life. No job, no scholarship, join the military, or go hungry, or stay in Mama's basement? And, corporate America is perfectly happy to push youngsters into that position, because the military, in almost all instances, is "protecting" corporate interests abroad.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[shentino]

The 12M pounds would qualify as liquidated damages.

It's a contract issue. It's not a fine, but you could be liable for it and in theory Wikileaks could sue you over it.

However, since Wikileaks is almost universally deemed a criminal enterprise owing to the stuff they are usually involved in leaking, they would probably not have standing.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[LordLucless]

Really? Can you list one nation which has listed Wikileaks as a criminal enterprise? (including the US).

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Isaac-1]

I have never served in the military however, I live near an army base, a number of my co-workers are either ex-military or military spouses, my ex-wife and all of her siblings and parents have served in the military, many of my friends growing up choose to join the military. Out of all of these people I don't know of any that had no other option, they may have seen the military as their best option (in retrospect for many it probably was) a way to learn a trade, something to belong to, etc. I am sure your desperate young man poster child does exist, but it is not the face of the army, instead the face of the army includes people with technical degrees, bright young people that graduated high school at the top of their class and choose military service over college scholarships, as well as many young people with no direction in their life that are searching for something.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Oligonicella]

Then you accept the consequences without whining, right?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Sepodati]

Whistleblowing is something I support, but the data dump that someone exposed is not whistleblowing.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Yvanhoe]

We are not saying the army's clauses are bad. We are saying that they are stronger than wikileak's. I personally think it is ok to be that paranoid.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[moonbender]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time? That's a fairly simpleminded way to look at it. You need to be aware of the consequences your actions might have, but you don't have to accept them, you're well within your rights to complain about treatment you perceive as unjust and fight for better treatment (even violently, I suppose, and I don't say this lightly). Dissidents in corrupt countries almost always run afoul of some kind of law. Whether or not this applies to Manning or other Wikileaks-related people is another matter.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes, if you make an agreement that says you will agree not to do something lest you face consequences and you choose to break it you have little or nothing to complain about. If the guy truly believes in what he did, he should be more than willing to face what is coming.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[ToasterMonkey]

"Disinformation Wants to be FREE!"

Information, Anonymity, Anarchy, please meet Veracity, Authenticity, and Perception.

Have fun!

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[JAlexoi]

Oh... Manning deserves to be found guilty of treason, he did break his oath. I just don't think that Assange should be charged with espionage.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[moonbender]

You're missing the point. Confidentiality agreements necessarily involve agreeing to something the nature and scale of which you can't know at the time you agree to them. The point isn't whether or not you should have to face the consequences -- whatever, maybe you should, maybe you shouldn't, I don't really care to discuss it -- but rather that by it's very nature it's not an agreement any ethical person can agree to with complete confidence. That's very, very different from a typical contract involving, say, the exchange of goods and services.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree with your premise, but just to engage you...

We have seen a lot of what Bradley Manning leaked. After having taken two sworn oaths and being briefed many, many times over about how you are swearing to not release this information, can you say that every single confidential, NOFORN, and Secret document that he released was a moral necessity?

If even one of those documents was not an absolute moral necessity to release, then Mr. Manning was not just breaking his oaths on legal grounds, but also on moral grounds.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know this from your extensive exposure to military members?

Or are you just saying words because you like the way they sound?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it amazes me how many people assume, "he broke his oath". Did you ever read the oath?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ..."

That is the part that comes before obey the orders of the president and your superior officers. That is because it is the most important part of the oath and his first and foremost duty. So while Manning may have broken his oath I do not see how it is a given. If the transcript that lamo claims is from a conversation with Manning is factual it seems that Manning felt that the violations of the constitution were so entrenched that there was no other way to uphold his oath other than to show the American people and the world how routine the violations had become. You can accept or reject his reasoning, but it is in no way cut and dried that he is an oath breaker.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically he swore to uphold the Constitution of The United States of America. Revealing anyone who violates the principles of the Constitution of the U.S.A. is not treason. Far from it...the young man is a hero and a true patriot.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Martin Blank]

I'm not sure how many people get this kind of talk, but I recently spoke with someone regarding possible work at a TLA. I asked about a number of things that could not be answered for reasons of operational security, but I also asked about the clearances and what they bring. I was told quite clearly that the information one gets to see after the clearance is granted is enough to change one's world-view rapidly, drastically, and irrevocably. I was also told that I would almost certainly be disturbed by a number of things that I would learn. The upshot is that I would have a better idea of what is going on in the world; the downside is that I would not be able to discuss it with anyone without a clearance, and because Top Secret/SCI is involved for almost everyone, that would make it a little trickier to find someone who is briefed in on whatever it is that's on my mind.

I don't think I'm ready for it yet (and I'm not really near any of the locations anyway), but it's something that I may pursue in a few years. If I do, I will not be going in completely blind.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[cold fjord]

Really? Can you list one nation which has listed Wikileaks as a criminal enterprise? (including the US).

I certainly wouldn't rule it out, after all.... investigations take time, don't they?

WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[cold fjord]

What if all the intel about tracking bin Laden had been made public? Would kind of defeat the purpose of hunting someone down if you were basically broadcasting how you were doing it so they could find out.

In fairness to Wikileaks, they tried.

It is a miracle that al-Qaeda leaders did not read this classified document before bin Laden was killed. If they had, they would have been alerted to the fact that the CIA was on the trail of bin Laden's courier, and they would had made the connection between the courier, bin Laden and Abbottabad -- which could have blown the bin Laden operation.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Dude knew what he was getting into

But the Wikileaks folks didn't?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[LordLucless]

Well if they're investigating, then they haven't "deemed [Wikileaks] a criminal enterprise" then have they? If the parent had said "might someday be deemed a criminal enterprise by some nation, somewhere" then that might be relevant.

And Young's been ripping on Wikileaks and puffing up his own site from the moment Wikileaks got any media attention. An ex-employee who also happens to be a "competitor" is hardly the most unbiased source. And as far as I've heard, none of his claims have been substantiated - despite certain governments searching high and low for dirt to discredit Wikileaks with.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... Manning deserves to be found guilty of treason, he did break his oath. I just don't think that Assange should be charged with espionage.

Does he deserve to be imprisoned without a trial and tortured, like he is now? There is still no proof that he was the one that leaked the information.

As a Swede, the actions of the US government and how US people actually can support those actions always baffles me.

In Sweden:
* All the pieces of information that I've read, that Bradley Manning might have leaked to WikiLeaks would have been public information (unless confidentiality was specifically requested by the head of government of another country, even Sweden have to do some deals with the devil regarding openness when it comes to cooperation between states).
* If the Swedish army, or a subdivision of the Swedish army, or any other government body, do something legally dubious, then anyone that have knowledge about it have a legal obligation to report to people higher up in command, or if the people higher upo in command don't react or can be suspected of being involved, make the information available to the Swedish public (via the news media, which by Swedish law would include wikileaks if they had an "ansvarig utgivare"). Note that this is an legal obligation, in some (hypothetical) situations it could even be considered treason not to leak classified military information. The first obligation of a Swedish citizen is always towards humanity, the second obligation is to the Swedish people, only then come other obligations i.e. to the Swedish government, military, your employer or other entities you have legal obligations to.
* In Sweden it would also be against the law for any part of the government to investigate who leaked the information to the public ("meddelandeskydd"/"meddelarfrihet", a superset to the protection of sources laws in English speaking countries and international laws).

If someone leaked information about the Swedish military, similar to what Bradley Manning might have leaked, to any other then the public, people higher up in the chain of command that had been kept in the dark, or representatives of the public (government, national assembly, government officials), then it would have been treason and espionage. But making legally or morally dubious government practices public knowledge is not.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what you're getting into in legal terms, but you can't possibly know if you can justify keeping quiet before seeing the confidential information. I can easily imagine someone signing a confidentiality agreement in good faith only to find out that the information does warrant whistleblowing, despite the possibility of dire personal consequences.

That argument doesn't hold water- he made a wholesale release of data, not just the bits which he felt needed to be exposed.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Eivind]

If they're unlimited, yes. Ethical agreements aren't. For example, I handle patient-records for a health-institution which requires a confidentiality-agreement that prohibits me from spreading any personal information I learn about a person trough this work.

However, the agreement is not limitless. It covers their personal health-situation, and social situation and other personal information, but there's explicit exceptions even there for gross criminal conduct. (it's specified too)

The best you can ethically promise is: "I won't talk about what I learn, unless talking is more important to me than this agreement is. I can't know that before I know what I'll learn."

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[clickety6]

The Armed Forces, where one takes an legally binding oath after volunteering, then volunteers again for the security clearance while taking another legally binding oath.

Yep, just like the legally binding oath the president swears to and then seems to forget as soon as convenient...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

There is an old saying, knowledge is power. Well giving away all your knowledge for free puts you in the position of being exploited and powerless. Do governments sometimes take secrecy too far? Absolutely. But indiscriminate leaking of information ala WikiLeaks isn't the solution. It undermines those times when information is legitimately leakworthy, such as the Watergate scandal.

It is not indiscriminate. Before Manning's files were released the U.S Government was invited to flag information that could put innocents or certain operations at risks. Additionally, the Guardian, NY Times and several other large newspapers helped Wikileaks scrub information that could put legitimate interests at risk. This information was not released.

That does not mean that no inappropriate information was leaked, but it was not indiscriminate. To suggest Wikileaks dumped the files as were on the public is a clearly and demonstratively untrue.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Vintermann]

No, he did not. There are some obligations you can't sign away, among them the obligation to not perform human rights abuses or war crimes.

According to Lamo's logs (a known liar who has every reason to demonize Manning, by the way), Manning was asked to assist in a human rights abuse - rounding up peaceful dissidents who merely published a scholarly article criticizing the Iraqi government. You are not allowed to obey an illegal order, so he tried to alert his superiors. When they told him to shut up and get back to work, rather than blowing the whistle on them, he concluded that the whole system was rotten and needed to be exposed.

Now you may disagree about that (though if you have never been in such a situation, I don't value your opinion much) but it was not done "[out of loyalty to] to [the nations's] enemies, to give them aid and comfort" - which is the ONLY definition of treason the US constitution permits short of declaring war. Manning did what he thought was necessary to uphold his obligations to the US constitution and binding international agreements on human rights, and action taken for that reason, no matter how misguided, can never consitute treason in the US.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Vintermann]

Not at all. It would not have been feasible for him to read through everything and release only what a government lawyer would have deemed acceptable. If you find that the person you're doing confidential work for is a murdering mafia boss, do you release everything you have as quickly as possible, or do you comb through everything to ensure the mafia boss' right to confidentiality about e.g. his dental records isn't breached?

Thing is, if you're a mafia boss, you have to accept the risk that your irrelevant dental records are released along with evidence of your crimes. You can no longer expect that level of confidentiality of someone, once the good faith assumption is broken - for obvious reasons.

The trigger in Manning's case was that he was told to assist in the rounding up of peaceful political dissidents. When his attempt at alerting about this through the proper channels failed, he decided that the system as a whole was corrupt, and that as much as possible about it needed to be exposed.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Vintermann]

Wooorld neeet dailyyyyyy! Wohooo! The newspaper still devoted to the idea that Obama was born in Kenya!

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you've taken an 'oath' to do as you're told, you still have the responsibility as a human being to bring crimes against humanity into the light. In most armies orders that result in crimes against humanity can be disobeyed. I *know* this is the case in the Israeli army, officers who makes such orders are (supposed to be) kicked out.

If that's not the case in the US army, then there's something VERY wrong and the more reason for people who do still find that their sense of humanity is more important than upholding an oath.

Would a guard in Auschwitz have been breaking their oath if one of them would have disclosed what happened there to the public, if they'd taken an oath to keep that quiet? Sure. Would he be more of a human being for breaking that oath? From my point of view that would be a definite yes (not that I know of any WW2 german whistle blowers though).

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[nosferatu1001]

Being held in conditions described as torturous does merit "whining"

Given the USG was too scared to even allow the UN Torture commisioner the access required to assess Pvt Mannings holding conditions, it tells you this really isnt "whining" but legitimate criticism of inhuman conditions.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[metacell]

In my country we have conscription, but the jobs which are tough, hard and require long training are filled with volunteers. People take those jobs for reasons such as the ones you describe: They want adventure, a place to belong, or feel they are the best of the best. And that's also who the military wants; they don't want someone who doesn't care to pilot an airplane or guard a border in Afghanistan.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

The Armed Forces, where one takes an legally binding oath after volunteering, then volunteers again for the security clearance while taking another legally binding oath.

Ah, yes. A fine variant of the Nuremberg defense: not quite "I was only following orders, so I had no choice", but "I took an oath, so I had no choice". Meanwhile, in the real world, the Nuremberg trials established once and for all that a) orders, oaths, "honor" and so on don't absolve you of the responsibility to act ethically, and b) might doesn't make right. The latter also applies to the Armed Forces, BTW.

Dude knew what he was getting into

As opposed to Wikileaks staff members?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that. He swore to uphold the constitution, and his leaks have done just that.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[cas2000]

Anyone who thinks that governments don't have legitimate reasons to limit who knows what information is out of touch with reality

Certainly, governements have legitimate reasons to want to keep things secret. I don't think anyone really disputes that.

What some people seem to forget is that a government's desire to keep secrets doesn't make it a crime for citizens - or even third parties - to want to find out or even try to find out....and as long as they commit no actual crimes like trespass or espionage while trying to find out, doing so is perfectly legal, legitimate, and moral

FWIW, I think citizens have an absolute, inalienable right to find out through any and all legal means what their government is up to if they want (and i don't think it's particularly wrong if they're willing to commit and bear the consequences of committing *minor* non-violent crimes in the process). remember, a democratic government - or even one that pretends to democratic processes - is the servant of the people, not the master.

any laws that attempt to criminalise the exercise of that right are bad laws, deserving contempt and civil disobedience

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[jgtg32a]

You really see this as a valid analogy? You are comparing an organization whose mission statement and name is all about getting information out to the public, to an organization(s) who have operated under need-to-know for all of human history?

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[drinkypoo]

I was told quite clearly that the information one gets to see after the clearance is granted is enough to change one's world-view rapidly, drastically, and irrevocably.

All they really have to tell you is that if you betray them they really will kill you for that to be true; it's one thing to believe that to be true and another to be faced with it. And once that's true, from a certain viewpoint, you might as well be in all the way, because you will forever after be a person of interest and if you're going to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life, then you might as well derive some benefit from it.

We absorb the medium in which we operate.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[drinkypoo]

Thank you for saying eloquently what I have bumbled through repeatedly.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Jaysyn]

I consider quite a few things that Wikileaks has exposed to be much, much worse than the Watergate scandal. YMMV.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[MightyMartian]

Conscripts are good when you've got a big war to fight and you need lots of cannon fodder. A volunteer army could never have pulled off D-Day, for instance.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[Martin Blank]

No one has been convicted of, let alone executed for, treason in decades. Aldrich Ames provided enough information to Russia to almost reset the CIA's HUMINT operations and he just got life in prison after pleading guilty to espionage.

Getting a clearance involves no threat of execution. For most people, the threat of having the clearance yanked is plenty to keep their mouths shut. If you think that it's just the threat of punishment that changes one's world, consider the different views that have come about due to what Wikileaks has published. Sure, much of it was pedestrian, but there are those which switch up how countries were believed to be acting, and the information is even more detailed in the world of the TLA.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[mjwalshe]

It is redacted who the parties where - but the author (legal corespondent ) did say it was an employment related contract not that it is enforceable in the UK.

Do you have any knowledge of UK employment law ? I do - I can even represent people at an industrial tribunal.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[mjwalshe]

um certainly breaks the Official Secrets act.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[LordLucless]

And so is every newspaper in the world that published Wikileaks material. And everybody on Slashdot who's mentioned them. Or discussed it around the water cooler. It rather debases the claim that wikileaks is a "criminal enterprise" when that label can be applied with equal accuracy to a large proportion of the western world.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[mjwalshe]

not according to the Guardian - looks like they did try and get employees to sign it.

"Julian arrived with a copy of this document for everyone in the room, and asked all to sign it there and then, to demonstrate to all present they were trustworthy and decent. Unlike everyone else present – who were largely young activists with little or no professional training – I read the document first."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/12/wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement-julian-assange

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[black3d]

Not according to the Guardian what? I fail to see what you're disagreeing with in my statement. I never claimed Julian didn't try to get people to sign it.

Oh - unless you're arguing the £12,000,000 does exist.. in which case you misunderstand, and still haven't RTFPDF. I'm not claiming the confidentiality agreement doesn't exist. Of course it does. This is genuine. What I'm saying is there is no "£12,000,000 penalty". The agreement never says any staff member will be fined (although of course, all legal options are open to them).

[i]"Clause 5 of this "Confidentiality Agreement" (PDF) imposes a penalty of "£12,000,000 – twelve million pounds sterling" on anyone who breaches this legal gag."[/i]
This, and any similar statements by the author are false. The agreement never does anything of the sort, which is the basis for the entire article. Please actually read the contract before commenting any further on it.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[mjwalshe]

Your willfully misunderstanding the article the author who was pressured to sign it says it is
"WikiLeaks staffers face a £12m penalty if they reveal any information about WikiLeaks' day-to-day operations, let alone any documents given to the whistleblowing organisation."

Non competes and NDA's are signed by individuals that is why it doesn't mention staff its an agreement between the employer and an individual.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[black3d]

OK.. you're still not getting it. Please go and quote from the Agreement where it says ANYBODY will be fined £12m, or penalized at all, in fact. Not from THE ARTICLE. The article is what's wrong. Go and read the actual agreement. The agreement says that damages for a signifcant breach are estimated at a £12m value. It does NOT "impose a penalty of £12,000,000 – twelve million pounds sterling on anyone who breaches this legal gag".

Do you understand yet? The article claims that there is a clause in the agreement saying anyone who breaches it will be liable for a £12m fine. The article then mocks this, saying that such a clause in unenforceable. What you're still failing to understand is - THE AGREEMENT NEVER SAYS THAT. Actually read it, instead of continuing to quote from the article.

Re:As opposed to the armed forces..

[JAlexoi]

Well... Under those conditions, he may not have committed a treason and he might just win that case. Just a note, that military is a very, very, very special case. So his actions are not as easy to judge right or wrong, but what is clear - Assange did not perform an act of espionage.

duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[Anonymous Coward]

if the STAFF leaks the names of any contributors wikileaks will cease to exist. its fairly obvious why they would have that.
the other things they dont want leaked are also private crypto keys and the like which could compromise their security.

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[somersault]

Yet all other confidential info in the world is fair game?

*facepalm*

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[xMrFishx]

Also allows them to retain some form of business model based on advanced previews to the media - probably their major source of funding to operate at all. The number is probably double the cost of an advanced preview or so, making it not financially viable sell off information on the side. There's also the element of making sure no pre-screened information slips out which could compromise integrity of the business and informants identities as stated above.

That's my take anyway.

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[geekpowa]

If Wikileaks positioned themselves as a whistleblower safe harbour; then there would be no contradiction.

But if people in Wikileaks and within the institution's orbit get preachy about the necessity of an open and free society then yeah; they are hypocrites.

I guess they could say their ultimate goal is open and free society and whistleblower support is a first tentative step along the way. (whether this is actually achievable is beyond my capacity to visualise, I suspect that it is impossible to construct a broad community that is completely open and transparent. Human institutions are inherently imperfect and there are some conditions, that seem to me at least, that they will never be able satisfy with any stability or longevity.)

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[moonbender]

No. Not sure what gave you that idea. Wikileaks doesn't indiscriminately release confidential information, they release information in order to uncover injustices, or information that should have been freely available in the first place. That's a judgement call, no doubt, and I assume you don't agree with their politics, but it's hardly unprecedented; basically, it's journalism.

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[sangreal66]

The only criteria for what WikiLeaks will and will not release is their politics. Uncovering injustices certainly is not a criteria -- they have released thousands of documents that do no such thing. Should have been freely available in the first place? You could argue that many of the Government documents should have been freely available (while I wouldn't necessarily agree). How do you justify the release of personal, hacked e-mail dumps of people they don't like?

Re:duh, no kidding you IDIOT.

[somersault]

I don't think open and free is always the best approach. If even wikileaks themselves want such privacy, I do think it's pretty hypocritical to expect governments and business to make every single communication public.

I don't really have any problem with wikileaks releasing private government docs and such, I just think it would be funny if the same happened to them. Who watches the watchers?

Apparently the old adage

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the old adage "What's good for the goose..." doesn't hold water with them.

I DEMAND to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

...who leaked out highly confidential employment terms???
--Julian

Re:I DEMAND to know...

[Opportunist]

This posting from Anonymous Coward makes the whole joke even better.

Wow

[CCarrot]

How, er, ironic.

Well, I guess it's actually just hypocritical, but it sure smells like irony to me...

Re:Wow

[hedwards]

It's neither hypocritical nor ironic. They've never said that they would provide all the documents without redaction, in fact they've gone to great lengths to redact information that's not necessary and would be likely to reveal the sources.

But, given all the people around here that can't imagine that Wikileaks is anything other than a terrorist organization, I would think those sorts of idiots something to crow about.

Re:Wow

[black3d]

Actually, it's just a standard confidentiality agreement. It nowhere states that anyone will be fined. The New Statesman just made that up. Sorry to disappoint. It does have a clause stating the agreed value of a significant breach, but the only penalty inferred in the agreement is employment termination.

Re:Wow

[Colourspace]

Oh you have one of those old ironics. Use distilled water.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. Smells of the CIA spreading another round of disinformation to break them apart, just as they officially announced. (It was even here on Slashdot. Their goal, as they said, is to stir up shit, and start fights between members, while making them look so noncredible, that they break apart.)

I don't trust anything I hear in the "press" about them.
I only trust what I sense with my own senses, or get from people I personally trust on this issue. (And that's pretty much nobody.)

Still trust the press? Or wanna know why you instinctively don't? Read this: http://www.zpub.com/un/chomsky.html

But of course, the cattle gobble it up like it's the hottest shit. Even here on /. How quickly they forget...

Re:Wow

[CCarrot]

It's neither hypocritical nor ironic. They've never said that they would provide all the documents without redaction, in fact they've gone to great lengths to redact information that's not necessary and would be likely to reveal the sources.

Sounds like they want to be the only ones who determine when information is 'necessary'. Redaction to prevent source identification, that I can understand, but if one of their employees feels the redaction marker has been applied a bit too liberally? What recourse then...release it to Wikileaks? Oh, wait...

Re:Wow

[CCarrot]

Sorry, didn't read TFA. Just tickled my funny bone, is all.

It's nice to know that the leaker can 'only' be fired, if we infer correctly...leaving it up to whomever the leaked information was about to take it up in civil court with that handy 'value of a significant breach' number.

Why would they have a dollar value assigned if it weren't intended to be used somewhere? IA*definitely*NAL, so I'm honestly curious here.

Re:Wow

[tomhudson]

It does have a clause stating the agreed value of a significant breach

Not even that - "The parties agree that a genuine and reasonable pre-estimate of the loss to WikiLeaks from a breach of this agreement based on a typical open market valuation for the information for a significant breach of the agreement is in the region of 12,000,000 pounds (12 million pounds sterling)."

So, it's just a "pre-estimate" - useless.

And "based on a typical open market valuation for the information" - good luck with that - especially since WikiLeaks doesn't sell information on the open market, but a CLOSED market. After all, only people and organizations invited to bid can buy the info.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, I guess it's actually just hypocritical, but it sure smells like irony to me..."

You are just too stupid to understand why Wikileaks needs such protections
in place. Read some of the other comments written by people who are smarter
than you are, for an explanation.

Re:Wow

[drb226]

At least their identity would be kept secret if they release it to Wikileaks. Until another Wikileaks employee decides to leak that. And the circle of leaks continues...

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

How, er, ironic.

Well, I guess it's actually just hypocritical, but it sure smells like irony to me...

It's ironic that it was leaked; hypocritical of them to want their organizational members to not leak such documents.

Re:Wow

[black3d]

Oh, it definitely is so that they can sue, both the leaker (who leaked information with known x value) and whomever is purchasing it. This is primarily to stop staff who recieve leaks from selling information to news organisations themselves, for personal gain.

The point here is that "Clause 5 of this "Confidentiality Agreement" (PDF) imposes a penalty of "£12,000,000 – twelve million pounds sterling" on anyone who breaches this legal gag." in the linked article is not true. There are several similar claims that the agreement says Wikileaks will penalize. The entire article is making the claim that WikiLeak's NDA says it can sue staff, ergo they must not trust their staff. But it's not the case. The agreement only makes the immediate remedy of an injunction against publication (ie, to stop a newspaper who bought the information from a staff member from publishing it) with the possibility of other legal remedies outside of what's laid out in the agreement.

It's a standard NDA, with the addition of an estimated value of leaked information. Folks working in R&D departments at major corporations have similar clauses.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I support wikileaks because I appreciate the work they do, not because they set the benchmark for organizational transparency.

Anyway, If wikileaks ever becomes too self-serving they will simply lose supporters to openleaks, or some other group that is more open.
But what happens when a government, or say the US military becomes self-serving?, are you going to pick another one?

It's also worth noting that the document the article refers to was in fact LEAKED!, so although wikileaks facilitates leaking, they do not have a monopoly over it, nor do I see how they ever could.

Re:Wow

[JAlexoi]

They don't work alone BTW. They asked a lot of organisations to help them in redacting things. It's just Wikileaks employees have access to the most confidential information of them all. And US should have a law that has the same penalties for banks and other confidential and personal information holders when they "leak" their customer overwhelming information.

Re:Wow

[NoOneInParticular]

Pfah, Chomsky is a loony. How do I know? All newspapers say so.

Re:Wow

[CCarrot]

I support wikileaks because I appreciate the work they do, not because they set the benchmark for organizational transparency.

Anyway, If wikileaks ever becomes too self-serving they will simply lose supporters to openleaks, or some other group that is more open.
But what happens when a government, or say the US military becomes self-serving?, are you going to pick another one?

Very good points, there. As for picking another government, well, yes I would, it just takes longer than running down the street to a different Tim Hortons ;) And I must admit, it's getting difficult to find one that's not self-serving these days...governments, I mean, not Timmy's...

It's also worth noting that the document the article refers to was in fact LEAKED!, so although wikileaks facilitates leaking, they do not have a monopoly over it, nor do I see how they ever could.

Okay, so perhaps the purest irony in all of this is that this particular document, which defines the consequences of breaching Wikileaks security policies, was leaked. I like that.

Re:Wow

[CCarrot]

Thanks for the clarification! I guess I've never had to sign an NDA before, so I had no real frame of reference.

Well, I guess we'll find out one way or the other here soon, since the leaking of this document in and of itself seems to breach the agreement, according to Clause 1, Section B: "The information shall also include the fact and content of this agreement and all newsworthy information relating to the workings of Wikileaks"

Although...this single document probably doesn't qualify as a 'significant breach', so then again, maybe not. Will be interesting to see their response.

Do thieves trust other thieves?

[pro151]

Seems like normal business for them. I love the fact that they have been leaked themselves. Karma. Ain't it a bitch!

Smear Job

[Anonymous Coward]

Smells like it.

Is this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this to prevent the names of the informants being leaked? Just curious...

If I worked at wikileaks

[cpu6502]

and found something damning (like Assange is a paid lackey of Putin), I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to leak it to the press. Confidentiality agreement be damned.

Why do these groups think these things hold any power? It's just words on a page.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[geekoid]

words on a page backed by men with a guns.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[Surt]

Their confidentiality agreement is backed by guns only if they can find a country who will enforce it for them. They don't currently seem to have a lot of countries in such a mood.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[Loomismeister]

This is a great way to owe someone 20 million dollars. Just agree to shit on paper because you think it doesn't mean anything.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[rsborg]

and found something damning (like Assange is a paid lackey of Putin), I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to leak it to the press. Confidentiality agreement be damned.

Why do these groups think these things hold any power? It's just words on a page.

It isn't meant to stop really damning truth.
It's to stop "volunteers" from profiting immensely by pre-leaking the documents for a price.

A monetary fine is not a a deterrent for someone "doing the right thing".

It does deter people from profiting off the compromising of valuable data and the organization itself by altering the reward calculation.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[cpu6502]

>>>words on a page backed by men with a guns.

i.e. Fear the government men with the guns.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

and found something damning (like Assange is a paid lackey of Putin), I sure as hell wouldn't hesitate to leak it to the press. Confidentiality agreement be damned.

Why do these groups think these things hold any power? It's just words on a page.

It apparently works well for apple, microsoft, google, coca cola, and EVERY FUCKING AMERICAN COMPANY AND CORPORATION AND GOVERNMENT ENTITY IN EXISTENCE. It's called an NDA. I guess I thought it would be a little "irresponsible" if journalists go around publishing unedited information under my company's name without anyone's approval.

Holy FUD slashdot, what has happened to your intelligence?

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also look at it from the perspective of the person who provided the documents to wikileaks. Does clause 5 make the leaker more confident that wikileaks can keep something quiet?

The leaker may have negotiated certain conditions regarding release of the documents.
For example not to be released when it would expose the leaker's identity.
Not to be released until the leaker has fled country X, resigned from position Y, leaker has died, Z months have passed, a certain individual does/doesn't win an election.
There could be a condition that the same documents be obtained from a second source so the two could be compared for watermarks that would identify the leakers.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[MORB]

It's also a matter of trust, I think.

Wikileaks works because its sources trust it to keep their identity secret. If there was a breach of confidentiality, this trust would evaporate and people would stop leaking confidential material through wikileaks.

Re:If I worked at wikileaks

[Anonymous Coward]

Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a WikiLeaks volunteer, left the organisation after a disagreement with assange. He apparently took a complete copy of the leaks with him. He gave a presentation at a Davos session (entrance fees $30,000?) outlining a wikileaks alternative. FYI, Davos is the sort of event where heads of government and big industry hang out. The Guardian and NYT are being fed with wikileaks material from sources other than WIkiLeaks. 1+1=$ alledgedly.

Well

[Haedrian]

Given that WL 'clean up' the documents before they leak them to the media, don't you think someone who'd leak the top secret information to the media, or the entire batch of uncleaned files... would be both dangerous and would ruin WL's credibility?

Re:Well

[hedwards]

That's a point that a lot of people here have missed completely. Wikileaks doesn't release material complete without redactions, the redactions might not be sufficient, but it's hard to say how much should be released when the party that doesn't want them released at all refuses to negotiate or participate.

The measures there are primarily to ensure that they are finished before they make it to the press. I doubt very much that it'll ever get to the point of legal proceedings.

Re:Well

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually collaborate with the media before the leak and work with them to see what they should and shouldn't release.

Their legal team go over it to make sure they don't put lives at risk etc etc.

Re:Well

[Requiem18th]

Probably they aren't missing it at all and are just a bunch of CIA agents trying to astroturf on /.

The idiocy I see in wikileaks deterrents is not something that I would expect form a nerd gathering like this.

Re:Well

[c6gunner]

Given that WL 'clean up' the documents before they leak them to the media, don't you think someone who'd leak the top secret information to the media, or the entire batch of uncleaned files... would be both dangerous and would ruin WL's credibility?

Someone like, say .... Bradley Manning?

And how do they plan

[SquirrelDeth]

on enforcing their fine? Take them to court? Ha.

Re:And how do they plan

[Luckyo]

Yes? It's a standard confidentiality agreement, upheld by courts worldwide.

Considering the value, and danger related to the documents they handle, 12 million seems like a reasonable sum.

Protecting sources?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would presume that, in part, it's both for protecting their sources and the content they deem it would be unwise to leak.

Actually, that's not what it says...

[black3d]

It appears nobody RTFPDF.

It nowhere states that anybody is going to be fined any amount of money.

E ... any breach by you is likely to cause loss and damage to Wikileaks including..
  d. loss of value of information
5. The parties agree that a genuine and reasonable pre-estimate loss to WikiLeaks from a breach of this agreement based on a typical open market valuation for the information for a significant breach of the agreement is in the region of £12,000,000.

Nowhere does it state that the signee will be liable to that value. Only that they agree they'll be terminated for a breach thereof. Agreeing to that value of a breach may open the path TO be sued for a figure in that region, however the summation that anyone who breaches will be fined £12,000,000 is a blatant falsehood.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[Democritus the Minor]

I'm REALLY not a lawyer, but I can't really see the penalty definied! This is all bullshit?

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[black3d]

Indeed, the section E he refers to as saying that folks can be sued, never says anyone can be sued. Just that the parties agree as to what damages Wikileaks may suffer as a result of a breach. David Green simply made up the entire angle of staff being fined. Indeed, it is all bullshit. Thats why he stops 'quoting' directly, and starts saying stuff like:

The fifth recital paragraph, "E", is just as astonishing. It purports to extend what WikiLeaks can sue for beyond any direct loss that it might suffer if the gag is breached. WikiLeaks says it can sue for both "loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers" and "loss of value of the information".

Well, if the agreement actually said that - he could quote it. Instead he puts his own words, and then inserts random quotations as to what folks can be "sued for". It's all a lie.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[MarkvW]

It does say that. It's not a lie, it's the truth.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[Nemyst]

And we can't downvote stories anymore... Great.

So basically the entire submission is bullshit and there isn't a whole lot to be seen.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[black3d]

No it doesn't.

8. You agree and accept that the information disclosed, or to be disclosed to you pursuant to this agreement is, by its nature, valuable proprietary information, the misuse or unauthorised disclosure of which would be likely to cause us considerable damage, and accordingly you concede that, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies that may be available to us in respect of Breach of this agreement, we are entitled to relief by way of injunction including any interim order available from any competent court having jurisdiction over its terms.

An injunction is not a £12,000,000 fine. It's an injunction. The injunction is the only legal remedy offered directly by the agreement. David Allen's (and New Stateman's claim) that "It purports to extend what WikiLeaks can sue for beyond any direct loss that it might suffer if the gag is breached." is completely false.

Re:Actually, that's not what it says...

[FriendlyLurker]

Nobody RTFPDF before stuffing the /. submission system with this crap because (A) Wikileaks just won a prestigious, rarely awarded Australian peace prize (see video here full of stuff to rile up the establishment) and (B) A US Grand jury into busting up transparency supporters, whistleblowers and Wikileaks is just warming up and calling people in to testify in secret. To negate these big-news headlines (on the world stage that is - not so much in the US it seems), the anti-whistleblower spin machine has had to invent extra negative stuff about WIkileaks today - hence this £12M "gag on it" spin. (BTW - Notice how the two factual stores on Wikileaks never made it even close to getting onto Slashdot submission. I agree with Nemyst post below - the Slashdot submission system appears to be all but owned).

Fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for "wikileaks itc ltd" and you will find... nothing. I say its part of the smear campaign.

Re:Fake?

[black3d]

If it is, it's a bad one. The agreement never says anyone will be fined. New Statesman made that up.

Too bad

[Vinegar Joe]

Assange didn't gag those women he raped.

Re:Too bad

[geekoid]

allegedly raped. Just because someone says a crime was committed doesn't mean it was.

Hypocrites

[mattack2]

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like to elaborate on that, or you just decided today to post something totally devoid of any content?

Protip: Wikileaks doesn't advocate the leaking of ALL information; just information it thinks is relevant to the general public.

Re:Hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

How much effort does it take you to be that dense?

It would be kinda funny

[thewils]

if the quoted figure of 12,000,000 was slightly different for each employee. Makes it easier to find out which one leaked the document then.

Re:It would be kinda funny

[asvravi]

What makes you think it wasn't? :P

Like it or not

[iamacat]

This is probably the only way for wikileaks to a. survive and b. get exposure through mainstream media. If information is not filtered to avoid imminent damage to life and limb of people on the ground, wikileaks and its sources will be subject to aggressive prosecution, not to mention seriously bad karma. And no newspaper will run a story without some kind of exclusive access agreement. If you truly want uncensored publication, there are millions of way to do so on Internet. You just will not get the same mainstream exposure and, if found, may find yourself a target of extradition or even covert ops.

Honor among thieves

[Anonymous Coward]

These isn't any.

Psychological Warfare

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Discredit WikiLeaks, Shoot the Messenger, Covert Operation Game Plan - as we were warned.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[moonbender]

For what it's worth, I don't have a fundamental problem with the confidentiality agreement: There is no real conflict with Wikileak's mission here, despite what many other people might claim in a kneejerk reaction. Wikileaks doesn't advocate the indiscriminate release of all information, and with any organisation dedicated to releasing confidential resources while protecting whistleblowers, secrecy is obviously a central fact of live. More so with an organisation that must be under tremendous, even violent, pressure from the US. And while I found the commercial aspects of the agreement a bit odious -- they talk about the financial damages caused by breaking the agreement -- it makes sense since, even though Wikileaks is not for profit, their media partners (e.g. the NYT, the Guardian, der Spiegel) are.

All that said, Wikileaks is more secretive of their own organisation than is good for them, and it would not have hurt to simply be open about this confidentiality agreement: they could have posted it on their websites for potential volunteers to see, for instance. Of coure, if they had done that, everybody would have started shouting about the supposed paradoxical situation of a whistleblowing organisation having secrets themselves (hurr durr) -- ie. what's happening now.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[mug funky]

12000 pound is a bit out of reach for your average basement-dwelling hacktivist.

it smacks of L Ron Hubbard's billion year sea org contracts... a really large number just to guarantee people don't defy you.

Assange really does need to get his paranoia and narcissism sorted out though - they are the two biggest forces working against Wikileaks right now.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[mug funky]

(oops, missed 3 zeroes)

Re:Psychological Warfare

[rtb61]

Why exactly would this document hurt Wikileaks image. For people who wish their identities to remain confidential when they release information, this penalty would be very reassuring.

So you have, the 'New Statesman' and a junk journalist DAG, trying to put a negative spin on what many whistle blowers would find very comforting.

So how great is the penalty that many whistle blowers suffer, well you need look no further than the psychological abuse suffered by Bradley E. Manning. So what value does that rag New Stateman and DAG, put on that, apparently nothing.

Obviously the term 'confidential source' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidential_source means absolutely nothing to that hack DAG or the New Statesman.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Luckyo]

12000 pound is a bit out of reach for your average basement-dwelling hacktivist.

Hence the point of it. Don't break confidentiality agreement.

Think of it like a doctor breaking patient confidentiality. Only in wikileaks case, fallout for "patient" is far more dramatic.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[phantomfive]

If only Wikileaks didn't make it so easy.......

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please, wikileaks doesn't need any help discrediting themselves.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[GameboyRMH]

The point still stands :P

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

But wikileaks has revealed CIA operatives!!! People who can easily die because they publish this information.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Internetuser1248]

Think of it like a doctor breaking patient confidentiality. Only in wikileaks case, fallout for "patient" is far more dramatic.

Exactly, if a doctor breaks his confidentiality agreement the patient usually doesn't end up in a cia black hole prison being tortured for the rest of their life.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[cyberchondriac]

For what it's worth, I don't have a fundamental problem with the confidentiality agreement: There is no real conflict with Wikileak's mission here, despite what many other people might claim in a kneejerk reaction. Wikileaks doesn't advocate the indiscriminate release of all information...

This is as good a spot as any to interject that "slippery slope" argument one sees daily on slashdot.
Who there gets to choose exactly what is "safe" to release and what isn't, and how are they qualified to judge what repercussions may result from released information? I don't think it's that simple to figure out where to draw that line.
So, this sounds a bit hypocritical to me, kneejerk or not.

I'd be curious to see whether they or not they'd release the photos of bin Laden's corpse, if they get a hold of them.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[moonbender]

Who there gets to choose exactly what is "safe" to release and what isn't, and how are they qualified to judge what repercussions may result from released information?

Well, obiously, they get to decide. Broken down, Wikileaks mission is to publish the information they think should be published. Surely you can see that there's a logical difference between that and non-discriminately releasing all information.

You could argue that it amounts to the same thing, but I don't think that's reasonable: if you "leak" the PSN credit card information to them, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't post that stuff, the same goes for all kinds of other things, it's unlikely that they'd post celebrity porn videos, for instance. So, obviously, they do have some kind of editorial process.

Of course, you can make fairly sound arguments that their stated (or unstated) rules for releasing documents aren't good. You could also argue that their process is flawed, and as a result of that they release stuff (or fail to release stuff) without conforming with those rules. Not being able to judge the repercussions could be part of a flawed process, for instance.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

How come every single time we find out about something from WikiLeaks, somebody hops into conspiracy theory mode and says that no matter what is said, that it is all part of some master plan to discredit WikiLeaks? Sure, some of it may be, but not everything. This is like people swearing the government is hiding information about life on Mars. How can you honestly think that every single item that is negative about WikiLeaks is part of some conspiracy theory to discredit the place? The Dude who used to work there that even wrote a book saying how insane it is to work there talked about the crazy paranoia of the place. I can see why there is alot of trust issues based upon their line of work, but seriously, not everything is part of some massive plot to discredit WikiLeaks

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, that's about the size of it. Where's the comparison with other media organisations' NDAs?

Re:Psychological Warfare

[Phasma Felis]

Julian Assange is our savior and can do no wrong, therefore any flaw he demonstrates must actually be fabricated by a sinister conspiracy - in accordance with the prophecy.

Re:Psychological Warfare

[KingBenny]

care not, as in : nothing not expected;consequence;what's next?

GNU is Not Unix?

[Roskolnikov]

a legal document that states leaking our documents will subject you to a fine is leaked.....

please show me which regulation

[decora]

provides for execution for 'breaching confidentiality'.

my impression is that there are only a few things that get you executed, including

Aiding the enemy

Treason

Misprison of treason

bradley manning isnt even charged with treason, he is only charged with aiding the enemy.

every other charge against him about giving out information only provides for jail or fines. not death.

Re:please show me which regulation

[realityimpaired]

Leaking classified information *is* aiding the enemy. Depending on what information is leaked, and when, it can also be Treason.

If I were to leak to them..

[amanicdroid]

knowing that legal framework is in place should one of their own rat me out would feel like added insurance.

Ohh come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

They deal with very sensitive information that they filter to protect people. It's not about trust it's about making sure some idiot doesn't release information that could get people killed.

I espect that this agreement exists...

[John Hasler]

...to be shown to whistleblowers who ask "How can I be sure one of your staff won't sell me out"?

Good thing they do

[mykos]

If I had information I wanted to leak, I'd want them legally bound to secrecy too.

If it's true

[Toby The Economist]

That's if the story is true.

It could be a plant. The FBI/CIA historically have planted stories in the US press. They were a year or two ago castigated for doing so in Iraq - purely fabricated stories making out things are improving, etc (which is a bit different, it's Iraq rather than the USA, but it's still flat out no-nonsense *lies* to the population, which we're supposed not to do) - so it's not like they can't.

Seems a bit odd, I think, that Wikileaks should have such a policy. Would be entirely against everything they stand for. Makes me think - hmm, I wonder... who'd like to make Wikileaks look real bad and who do I know who has the capability to plant stories in the press?

Basically, keep that little voice in your head going - the one which questions everything. Not paranoia, just making sure you're not falling prey to your own assumptions. Including the ones which say it's always the Gov, because the story *could* be true.

Re:If it's true

[Sepodati]

Just curious if you apply the same skepticism to each leaked cable and Iraq/Afg document? Couldn't some of those be plants? Either by the US or even by Wikileaks?

Re:If it's true

[Toby The Economist]

In principle, yes. In the particular case of Wikileaks, I'm reasonably inclined towards believing them - they've not shown themselves untrustworthy. I can't say the same of the any Government in the world. (I'm inclined not to think any of the cables are US plants, because probably Wikileaks obtained the cables prior to the US Government knowing; if the US Government *did* know, I think they'd be more interesting in stopping the leak than using it to plant some fake cables, because the costs of the leak are much higher than the benefits of the fake cables).

Ok, let the discussion begin

[Opportunist]

Is Wikileaks hypocritical? Is it a false flag op to discredit them? If it's real, why is it there? If it's not, who would benefit from such a (pretty dumb, I have to add) attempt to destroy their credibility?

Personally, I won't make up my mind 'til I hear the other side. What does WL say 'bout it? I don't put one-sided trust into publications from a paper owned by a politician.

Wikileaks is no diff than evil multi-nationals

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks plays the same games "evil" multi-nationals and corrupt gov's play. They do it on purpose, but with a different intent. This is why they are effective; It is also why i support them. There is a reason they have this sort of agreement. Beyond that this is Wired. They are so pro weapons technology it is creepy. I would wager they are paid to promote the "coolness" of military weapons. Why? So many smart/informed people have ethical issue with working on military equip. I'm a soft. engineer and I wouldn't even think about working for Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon... i'm not the only one. Sure net-centric warfare is a cool problem, but it isn't for me. It isn't for me because of wikileaks and the internets in general

Wikileaks wants to retain the OPTION TO SELL

[MarkvW]

Wikileaks expressly discusses the value of the leaked material as material to be sold to news organizations.

Assange's organization is EVIL.
Support open and free alternatives.

Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that expected and article about corporate masturbation?

They can gag on their own bag of COCKS

[Anonymous Coward]

F them!

uhm so if i told you Qadafi has a hot nurse

[decora]

would that be treason?

because that information is classified.

i mean, technically, im breaking the law RIGHT NOW telling it to you.

and unless you 'deliver' that information to a government agent 'entitled to receive it', you are breaking the law just by having this information in your computer memory.

i cannot get a foreign service job because of my discussing this fact with you... should i also be in prison?

Has anybody verified the source of the PDF...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Further to black3d's comment I would add that there is no way to check where this PDF came from. I've searched and cannot find the source of this document, so it may not even be a real document, just something somebody typed up. And even if it is a real document, from WL, how do we know that is the actual CA that employees sign? A bit more research is needed on this before we go calling this 'news'...

Goddamn hypocrites

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks is just a vehicle for Assange's ego.

He enjoys the notoriety, and it doesn't surprise me at all that the rules for confidentiality can be broken by him, but no-one else.

He's the biggest shit-stirrer of all time so far, but I'm pretty sure some-one bigger and better than him will surface eventually, and he will just be forgotten. In the meantime he's enjoying his moment in the spotlight immensely.

Leaked information is the property of WikiLeaks???

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone explain to me how they think that leaked information can possibly be the legal property of WikiLeaks? That is the same as saying that a fence who receives stolen property is the rightful owner. I think that the originators of the leaked document would probably dispute the ownership of the leaked information. Why would anyone respect the confidentiality of WikiLeaks when they don't respect the confidentiality of other organisations? I guess Assange and WikiLeaks never heard the quote "Information wants to be free..." Maybe their slogan should be "Information wants to be free for us, everyone else has to pay us for it."

Perfect example of hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't trust their own staff. Look at what they do to others. They don't want their secrets leaked but are happy to disseminate the secrets of others. Hypocrisy to the max. Oh, and talk about irony. A group dedicated to revealing secrets which cries foul when its sources are punished has a clause that punishes people who leak their secrets.

Bad precedent for them

[poity]

So essentially they're operating under the supposition that breaches in information security can weaken or even destroy the organization, that is if the communication system appears insecure then people will fear cooperating with you, endangering your ability to operate effectively, ultimately leading to you being outmaneuvered. This is the same excuse governments give for secrecy -- if the diplomatic communication system appears insecure, foreign nationals will fear cooperating with them, endangering their ability to operate effectively, ultimately leading to them being outmaneuvered by adversaries. What WL is doing lends credence to the idea that some secrets must be kept secret, and weakens one of the most popular arguments in their support.

Do you *want* them to be trusting?

[lawpoop]

sounds like they don't trust their employees

Yeah -- you think there aren't attempts to infiltrate them left and right? How dumb and naive would they be if they *did* trust their employees? Would you want to turn over documents to them if the person to whom you did turned out to be a secret agent?

Or maybe they're just going to happen upon trustworthy employee by an extensive screening process and three rounds of interviews.

Re:Do you *want* them to be trusting?

[lennier]

How dumb and naive would they be if they *did* trust their employees?

Well, they'd be consistent with the ideology of openness if they did. As it is, Wikileaks appears to be morphing from an open-source intelligence collective into something midway between an independent journalism organisation and a private intelligence agency in the style of "Global Frequency". While either of those are possibly not a bad thing to have, it is a bit depressing to see that the desire for openness evaporates when it faces real secrets with real consequences.

As a musician, I can tell you...

[Anonymous Coward]

People WILL screw you, get it in writing or it didn't happen!

www.happyshopping100.com

[irisxxx]

our website: http://www.happyshopping100.com/ watches price 75$ Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30 Nike sh ox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Hndbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $15 New era cap $10 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 FREE SHIPPING,accept paypal free shipping accept paypal credit card lower price fast shippment with higher quality BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!! SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!! FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!! **** http://www.happyshopping100.com/ ***

Trust their staff or fear prosecution/persecution?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is it a trust of their staff issue or is it due to the fact that staff need some anonymity to stop themselves being prosecuted, persecuted, illegally detained or targetted? $20 million is just a disincentive.

morons

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone reading this thinks this is not obvious disinformation to discredit wikileaks, then I'm sorry ... you are a moron. It's ok to be a moron. Please just don't vote or procreate

Thank YOU

Almost...

[Anonymous Coward]

Contract law allows the non-breaching party to recover consequential damages. See, e.g., Wikipedia's "Consequential Damages" page, Restatement (Contracts) 347. If the court agrees that £12m is a reasonable estimate of WL's consequential damages, then the breaching party will be liable for £12m if WL so demands.

It's like angering a mob boss - the boss could let you off easy, or the boss could introduce you to some new subterranean living arrangements. Because he has power to do both.

Re:Almost...

[black3d]

Agreed. I noted that it opens the party up to being sued for that amount, but this is not the claim the article or summary are making. Here's some choice quotes:

Clause 5 of this "Confidentiality Agreement" (PDF) imposes a penalty of "£12,000,000 – twelve million pounds sterling" on anyone who breaches this legal gag.

It does no such thing.

This ludicrous – and undoubtedly unenforceable

Wikileaks mocking. Of course it's unenforceable - which is why it's not in the agreement. It's like claiming "the agreement says the signee will hand over their first born child" and then claming "that's ludicrous and unenforceable!". The fact the agreement never says any such thing doesn't seem to disuade him from mocking WL over it.

The fifth recital paragraph, "E", is just as astonishing. It purports to extend what WikiLeaks can sue for beyond any direct loss that it might suffer if the gag is breached.

No it doesn't. It says the damage Wikileaks suffers may be beyond any direct loss. It says nothing about suing, or lawsuits, or legal action. And this is fairly normal in contracts. If a drug researcher hands over a formula (which company A has spent $2million researching) over to a rival firm (company B), then the direct loss to company A is $2million. However, if company B starts manufacturing and selling the drug, then the additional losses are potentially in the billions. The author is relying on people's ignorance of common law practice to try and pretend that Wikileaks is doing something extraordinary.

WikiLeaks says it can sue for both "loss of opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers" and "loss of value of the information".

Again, the agreement never says this. While it declares that other legal options remain open to it, the ONLY legal remedy offered directly in the agreement is the right to an injunction against publication.

All this legalese can only mean that WikiLeaks takes the commercial aspect of selling "its" information seriously: there would be no other reason for this document to have such precise, onerous and unusual provisions.

Again, the author is relying on ignorance of the reader to pretend these are unusal provisions. The only difference between this and most NDAs, is most don't provide a specific estimated value for damages. Provisions preventing staff members from selling company information doesn't imply at all that the company itself wants to sell that information. Merely that it doesn't want it's staff members selling it. If a person leaks a treasure trove of documentation to Wikileaks, they don't want an individual staff member stealing that information and selling it to The New York Times.

On the basis of this legal gag alone, it would be fair to take the view that WikiLeaks is nothing other a highly commercially charged enterprise, seeking to protect and maximise its earnings from selling information that has been leaked to it. If so, WikiLeaks is nothing other than a business.

And this relies on the sum-total of the previous misinformation. It too, is not true. It's funny how most other NDAs aren't referred to as "legal gags" but as NDAs. As this is.

If Sony doesn't want their signing keys released, and makes folks who work with the keys sign an NDA that says they won't sell the keys privately to a third party (and in this example, they COULD estimate how much monetary damage that would cause), does this imply that Sony themselves want to sell the keys to a third party? No. Yet that's the stretch in logic with David Green is hoping folks won't notice when he says it about Wikileaks. It's WL bashing band-wagon all the way.

Re:Almost...

[TheCarp]

> It's like angering a mob boss - the boss could let you off easy, or the boss could introduce you to some new subterranean living arrangements. Because
> he has power to do both.

Its funny, my first thought on seeing this article was "It sounds like Omerta". Sure, they are a leaking organization but, it also means they need to vette information and act accordingly. If I make shit up about someone and send it to wikileaks, that is their reputation if they print it... if its real,. then my identity could put me at risk if it were known, there are many reasons to ask for silence from wikileaks members based on what they are handling.

My penis is in your vagina

[Anonymous Coward]

and you like it, oh yeah

Identity of leakers must be kept secret.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks must protect internal information such as the identity of leakers; the life of these people might depend on it. There is no hypocrisy here, simply common sense.

Ruin their reputation

[lanner]

I am not saying this isn't true, but the US government, and others, are certainly trying to damage the reputation of Wikileaks.

What I see is a whole lot of reaction here, not a lot of critical thought. Hell, people have not even read the crap. I'm not sure that the document has even been validated?

Julian is a weird doucebag and probably a control freak, which is understandable given his background, but he's still a saint compared to 90% of all of the United States federally elected officials.

It's a check/balance

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a monetarily significant penalty to inflict upon breach of the trust of the organism...

I see this as a feature.

I wonder....

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this is legit or just another, albeit more covert, attack on WikiLeaks...

It looks and sounds just like the thing someone smarter than the first guys the US government used against WikiLeaks would turn up with. The clever part is that it is plausible, which is just what is needed. Assange or anyone else in the organization can't fight this, if they deny it "they are covering up" and by not denying it, they accept... Fox news tactics.

The whole "Paranoid maniac" smearing against Assange have had it's time to work while Assange himself is caught in a strange legal battle where the US government had a lucky break with him being in the wrong country at the wrong time to let himself be exposed to such a case. (Had he been in almost any other country in the world, going home after a party with a pretty girl and having sex with or without a condom is not considered a crime worth an international arrest order... But since Sweden "owe one" due to the Pirate Bay and Pirate party and there are these laws that can be turned to make consensual sex into rape by the word of the girl...)

Utah Jazz basketball player contract is better.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read about how a basketball player employed in Utah Jazz would be terminated in the contract if (s)he either:
(a)drugs,
(b)alcoholic beverage,
(c)chocolate,
(d)sexual affairs,
(e)cussing,
(f)not arriving for practice or games, ...

and a few others.

Long story short, I jus thought long and hard about that, and I've concluded that it would rock if the only way to get out of some kind of government contract would be to get a hooker and beer and smokes and cuss up a storm while smokin the mepherjuana on the front lawn of the office headquarters.

Yet what really makes me laugh is how many African Americans simply can't "into" such contract to begin with while practically every other race is defined on such principals in all practicallity. It's like that Basketball contract creates a race of Basketballmen-topia on Mormon land just to intentionally exclude Africans.

Confiential - Fake & Gay

[lixns21]

I normally do not comment here normally. But did *anyone* even click on the PDF?. Confidential is spelt as "confiential" (below the bolded 2010). A real life legal document that is not spell checked? Doh?

Re:Confiential - Fake & Gay

[illtud]

OK, it wasn't spellchecked, but out of interest, 'confience' is the french for 'confidence'. A clue to the author, or a contributor, at least.

So making money is EVIL now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whither capitalism?

Depends on Who You Trust

[thebian]

Wikileaks does the same thing that the police and the intelligence agencies do.

They all sit around and wait for someone to wander in and tell them some juicy but dangerous secrets. Whistleblowers, snitches and spies all do the same thing.

They have something they want to say, but they don't want to take the risk in saying it. They can all be plants, hustlers and even double agents.

The means are the same; it's the ends that are different.

"Sounds like they don't trust their own staff."

[gatkinso]

Sort of like the NSA.

How would you call it?

[Anonymous Coward]

A site that leaks wikileaks documents?

Wikileaksleaks? Leakswikileaks? Leaksleakswiki? Metawikileaks? WikileaksMeta?

trust who?

[cas2000]

"Sounds like they don't trust their own staff.

or they don't trust the new and enthusiastic "volunteers" with secret agendas due to the inevitable infiltration attempts from journalists, spook agencies, agent provocateurs, reactionaries with some kind of point to prove, and the occasional random lunatic.

a $20M penalty clause probably doesn't mean much to a real spook or even to a journo with a legal team, but it probably discourages the independent infiltrators

Why would one expect...

[johnlcallaway]

.. an organization that believes in transparency practice transparency themselves??

And here I just thought Assange was an egotistical, self indulgent child. Now I see he is a hypocrite too.

It makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine you work at wikileaks, and you have the IP address of the guy that posted some top secret US Government documents.. that means the US Government would have to pay over $20,000,000 to that person to make it financially viable for him to betray the company.. if they didnt have that governments would just make a million dollar bounty on the information every time a leak happened.. SOMEONE would take it.

£12,000,000

[netflusher]

£12,000,000 They are smart