Slashdot Mirror
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."
I wonder how they like their documents being leaked. It would make my year if they sued over this.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
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.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
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.
...who leaked out highly confidential employment terms???
--Julian
How, er, ironic.
Well, I guess it's actually just hypocritical, but it sure smells like irony to me...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Seems like normal business for them. I love the fact that they have been leaked themselves. Karma. Ain't it a bitch!
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.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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?
on enforcing their fine? Take them to court? Ha.
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.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
What a bunch of hypocrites.
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.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
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.
Discredit WikiLeaks, Shoot the Messenger, Covert Operation Game Plan - as we were warned.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
a legal document that states leaking our documents will subject you to a fine is leaked.....
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
If it is, it's a bad one. The agreement never says anyone will be fined. New Statesman made that up.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
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.
knowing that legal framework is in place should one of their own rat me out would feel like added insurance.
...to be shown to whistleblowers who ask "How can I be sure one of your staff won't sell me out"?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If I had information I wanted to leak, I'd want them legally bound to secrecy too.
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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.
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.
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".
Great Intellect...
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.
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Touche, good point
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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?
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.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
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.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
(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.
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.
yacuzzi? Is that like when the Yakuza kill Mr. Assange in his jacuzzi for exposing their dealings?
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.
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
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."
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
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?
Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
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.
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?
Well, it remains to be seen if Wikileaks will use the contract to cover up things they shouldn't.
"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.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
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.
Sort of like the NSA.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
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
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?
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
.. 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.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
> 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.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
£12,000,000 They are smart