The WikiLeaks rival

A so-called rival for the WikiLeaks site has been launched called ‘SafeHouse’. The SafeHouse organisation is similar to WikiLeaks in that it is a ‘whistle-blowing’ website, which publishes ‘online submissions to help uncover fraud and abuse in business and politics’ (Independent, 2011). The site also suggests that it follows similar file encryptions and/ or ‘the possibility for a contributor or whistleblower to remain anonymous’ (Independent, 2011), this is very similar to WikiLeaks itself.

WikiLeaks prides itself on its anonymous dropbox, which boasts ‘combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles’ (WikiLeaks, 2011). Robert Thomson, a journal managing editor for SafeHouse, said that; "SafeHouse will enable the collection of information and documents that could be used in the generation of trustworthy news stories" (Independent, 2011).

The site is clearly comparable to WikiLeaks, but whether it actually achieves similar success as WikiLeaks has remains to be seen. Having studied WikiLeaks for the past nine months this is the first time I have stumbled across any kind of rival for the site. However, even The New York Times have considered ‘the creation of a site for leakers’ (Independent, 2011), which shows just how much of an impact WikiLeaks has had on the media landscape.

An article which has remained with me since I began blogging states that; ‘the whistleblowing site has created a new media landscape’ (Guardian, 2011), which essentially means that the site has created a publishing trend that cannot be stopped. I believe this to be significant because it summarises the sheer scale and/or impact WikiLeaks has had on the media world.

Sites may try to imitate what it is that WikiLeaks has achieved, but they will always be the trend-setter, an organisation that cannot be tamed.

http://www.wikileaks.ch/About.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/wall-street-journal-launches-wikileaks-rival-2280144.html

The Independent recently sent one of their journalists (during May 2011) for a job interview with Julian Assange himself. Julian asked rather intimidating questions, including: “What would you do if you had to kill one man to save a hundred?" (Independent, 2011). The interviewee wondered if he, perhaps, was ‘glimpsing the fringes of Assange's philosophy’ (Independent, 2011).

The article defines that WikiLeaks was ‘involved in big, interesting movements – cultural shifts, imperious challenging of authority for the notion of complete transparency’ (Independent, 2011). The notion of transparency (as mentioned in previous blog entries) is something WikiLeaks holds in high regards, in fact the website itself actually states that;

‘Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media’ (WikiLeaks, 2011)

This is how WikiLeaks defines itself; it believes that ‘transparency’ leads to a better society, a society where people are not kept in the dark about the governments decisions. Whilst, to a certain extent, I agree with this idea of transparency, I also believe that in some instances it fails to ‘reduce corruption’. With reference to previous blog entries concerning the Guantanamo Bay cables, this is one example where WikiLeaks has failed in making democracies stronger. The files released names of people detained in the prison, which meant that the prisoners could be found, and potentially put in danger by the general public.

Another factor that has negatively affected the WikiLeaks site concerns Assange and the sexual assault charges being made against him. The Independent recognised this, and wrote; ‘I suggest that Assange's profile and ego, compounded by his notorious court case, have overshadowed the work they do’ (Independent, 2011).

Obviously the site has had many triumphs and is clearly becoming more and more familiar as newer cables are released, but often it is better to look at what WikiLeaks is doing, distinct from what the press claim it is doing. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/a-wikileaks-job-interview-julian-will-see-you-now-2281114.html

The gagging injunction.

The press has exploded recently in light of recent super injunctions being carried out by celebrities. The Guardian, Observer (2011) published an article called Twitter and WikiLeaks have made a mockery of the courts, which suggests that the two organisations have published documents against court orders.

Peter Preston (the article’s writer) argues that because technology is ‘moving faster year by year’ it has made the ‘ultimate confrontation inevitable’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011). With relation to WikiLeaks this could connote that due to advances in technology it has made things increasingly easy for the site to distribute highly classified information. The article posits that WikiLeaks is an unstoppable force by writing; ‘But stop the leaks? There was – and still is – no way’ (Guardian, Observer, 2011).

An essay written by Professor Geoffrey Stone picks up on the notion that;

"Just as the law can no longer effectively deal with obscenity because of social and technological change, so too can it no longer deal with non-newsworthy invasions of privacy," he writes. "For all practical purposes", the defences of privacy "have been gobbled up completely." So, whether in Seattle or the Strand, we had "better learn to live with it". (Guardian, Observer, 2011)

This conveys that there is no longer any privacy within the media, and this is due to sites such as Twitter and/ or WikiLeaks who publish whatever they please. In light of the recent super-injunctions, concerning celebrities covering up their infidelity, one should ask whether this is really fair? Sites like WikiLeaks are just sticking to their basic human rights, which entitles them to freedom of speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/22/twitter-wikileaks-mockery-of-the-courts?INTCMP=SRCH

WikiLeaks, a new form of journalism?

I found an online article published today (Sunday the 22^nd of May, 2011) that discussed, with relation to WikiLeaks, the idea that journalists often manipulate stories in order to convey their perception.

The article raises issues of objectivity and subjectivity in reporting, as well as asking the ‘fundamental’ question: ‘what is truth’ (Guardian, 2011) in journalism? One reason why I find this article particularly interesting, is because WikiLeaks have described themselves as a ‘new model of journalism’ (WikiLeaks, 2011), a new model which believes in transparency in the media. This means that WikiLeaks believe that what it is doing is distinct from anything else. The articles writer, Stephen Pritchard, endeavours to explain what it is that WikiLeaks is/ does, by writing;

‘the WikiLeaks saga was an alliance of modern technology and good, old-fashioned journalism: of those 250,000 documents, fewer than 2,000 have been published in an meticulous editing process across five newspapers that sought out the best stories from a mountain of 300 million words: constructive documents praising governments or officials are unlikely to feature in such a process, however many were leaked in the first place. Good news doesn't make a story’ (Guardian, 2011)

The final part of this quotation is probably the most significant part of the whole article. It posits that people do not want to read about ‘good news’, which is perhaps why WikiLeaks has been so popular. The organisation shows bias towards a world where we know what our government is doing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2011/may/22/wikileaks-journalism-truth?INTCMP=SRCH

WikiLeaks: Scrutiny and Praise

In the past week WikiLeaks has suffered much criticism for the gagging order put in place to ensure confidentiality within the organisation. This has lead to condemnation from the press, who have suggested that WikiLeaks claims to be in favour of media transparency, but by ‘gagging’ their employees does this mean they are just as secretive as the government?

Among the recent bad press something quite significant has also happened for the site this week. Julian Assange has been given a ‘peace award for exceptional courage in pursuit of human rights’ (Guardian, 2011). It is undeniable that Julian’s achievements are quite remarkable; this is obviously mirrored through his award. Julian was said to be praised for "challenging centuries-old practices of government secrecy and by championing people's right to know" (Guardian, 2011). Again, this draws upon ideas of media transparency, something which WikiLeaks, supposedly, holds in very high regards.

The Guardian article describes how successful the organisation has been, even outlining some of its achievements (positive and negative);

‘WikiLeaks caused a media and diplomatic uproar late last year when it began to publish its cache of more than 250,000 US diplomatic cables, revealing secrets such as that Saudi leaders had urged US military action against Iran. Some US politicians said WikiLeaks should be defined as an international terrorist organisation’ (Guardian, 2011)

This shows the sheer scale of WikiLeaks and its accomplishments, as well as how US governments have defined the organisation. It is quite obvious that politicians would be set against the site and its aims because it is exposing their confidential files. Rather interestingly, the article ends with Assange’s definition of the sites triumphs, claiming that; ‘publication of the cables helped shape uprisings in north Africa and the Middle East and said WikiLeaks was on the side of justice’ (Guardian, 2011).  

I believe it is increasingly important to read about what WikiLeaks has accomplished rather than what it has not. The site is something so unique that it is constantly under pressure from the government and media, which is often reflected in the press.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/11/julian-assange-australian-peace-prize-wikileaks?INTCMP=SRCH

Gagging Order part 2

Controversy has struck yet again, this time in the form of the WikiLeaks gagging order. A German activist named Daniel Domscheit has said ‘in imposing the draconian confidentiality agreement on its employees WikiLeaks was behaving too much like the governments and businesses it purports to expose’ (Guardian, 2011). The gagging order is not dissimilar from the type of contract government officials must sign in order to keep certain exchanges confidential. However, I must point out that the gagging order is predominantly there to safeguard the employees and people who submit documents to the WikiLeaks site. Domscheit also exclaimed that he felt ‘sorry... for all those new staffers that had no idea what they were getting into” – with reference to working for the WikiLeaks organisation. This connotes that people who were to begin working for WikiLeaks were about to take on more responsibility then they knew.

As mentioned in my previous blog, the gagging order has a 12 million pound penalty if anyone comments and/ or reveals any information about the order. The writer of the article suggests that ‘WikiLeaks needs to get out of the gagging game’ (Guardian, 2011), because silencing this ‘dissent is not just ironic, it’s dangerous’ (Guardian, 2011).

Personally, I believe that this gagging order is something needed by the organisation. Assange is running a company where he needs to make sure he can trust people. However, I can see that this order is making the company more and more like a government organisation, rubbishing WikiLeaks belief of media transparency. Perhaps, WikiLeaks ought to re-think their gagging order, so that the people who sign it are not pressured into it, but feel willing to sign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/13/wikileaks-spokesman-assange-gagging-order?INTCMP=SRCH

The gagging contract

Last week it was revealed that WikiLeaks employees have had to sign a gagging contract, which means they are basically signing a contract to make sure they do not disclose any information about the site and/or the people who submit the documents. The article reveals that anyone who breaks this kind of super-injunction could face a 12 million pound penalty. The writer exposed that the contract was ‘by orders of magnitude the most restrictive I have ever encountered. Legal experts consulted about the document agree’ (Guardian, 2011). This shows that any restrictions put in place are merely there to make sure that any documents/ cables contributed to the site are kept highly confidential.

The writer (he once worked for WikiLeaks) discloses that he refused to sign the contract, which ensued in a rather hostile reaction from Assange who said that; ‘I must sign the document, or else risk the lives and wellbeing of everyone in the room, and never be trusted again’ (Guardian, 2011). The writer also revealed that the rest of the day (after his refusal to sign the contract) was spent by people urging him (desperately) to sign the agreement, ‘The rest of the day, and long into the night, was spent with other WikiLeakers begging, reasoning, or cajoling me into signing the document. I later learned Julian had specifically requested they use every possible effort to "apply psychological pressure" until I signed’ (Guardian, 2011).

The article does not portray Julian Assange as the cool and composed character he seems to come across as. In fact, the article leads one to believe that he is actually very frantic, and perhaps slightly aggressive. I would advocate that the reason he comes across this way is because of his passion for WikiLeaks, and I  happen to agree that WikiLeaks employees should sign a gagging document, otherwise the people who expose and/or leak documents to Assange could be found out fairly easily. Therefore, perhaps Assange’s persuasion techniques may seem fairly bold, but it only shows his dedication to the company he has spent the last 4-5 years building.

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

Guantanamo Torture

A recent article by the Telegraph has exposed that doctors at Guantanamo Bay were involved in the torture endured by some of the detainees. This has come to light as a result of the recent leak of Guantanamo Bay files. Many inmates were mentally unstable, some suffering from mental illnesses such as; schizophrenia, bipolar, depression etc.  Several inmates had, supposedly, tried to commit suicide as well.

The reason the prisoners illnesses were seen to cause such a stir, was because they could not be expected to give any kind of useful information while not of sound mind. The prisoner files were released as a result of WikiLeaks, the files showed many cases of unexplored cuts, bruises, injuries obtained by the patients. According to the Telegraph; ‘Researchers at Physicians for Human Rights, a campaign group which analysed the prisoner files, claimed that they found evidence of physical and psychological injuries consistent with abuse, such as sexual assault, mock executions and water boarding, which they alleged that medical staff failed to investigate’ (Telegraph, 2011). This shows the poor treatment of the inmates which has been exploited by WikiLeaks. Some of the files recently released have suggested that many inmates were innocent; also some of the detainees were mentally ill which meant that they were in the wrong facility to deal with their wrongdoings and/or illness.

It is quite shocking reading about the injuries some of these prisoners have acquired. I am fully aware that one does not get sent to Guantanamo Bay without a reason, but is torture really the answer? It’s like Mahatma Ghandi said ‘an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind’. Maybe the American government have a few things to re think.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8475577/Guantanamo-Bay-doctors-complicit-in-torture.html

Plots revealed.

An article from the Washington Post has stated that military files released by WikiLeaks disclose potential al-Qaida plots against the U.S. With relation to the recent Guantanamo Bay cables, the files have unveiled full names of potential al-Qaida members, which have now been printed in newspapers, websites, blogs etc.

The article reveals a few plots – which were never executed – by the detainees, including one to cut the cables of the Brooklyn Bridge! The Pentagon said that ‘the leaked files may or may not represent the current view of a given detainee’ (Washing Post, 2011), which conveys that the files are not necessarily representing the present opinions and/or motives of the current Guantanamo prisoners. For example, one prisoner named Jose Padilla was initially arrested through plots to blow up a building with a ‘radioactive dirty bomb’ (Washington Post, 2011), the claims were then dropped and he was later arrested for something completely unrelated.

These files have clearly brought to light many controversial issues, which in turn have raised many underlying and/or hidden matters. For example, questions of anonymity – whether it was just for the newspapers to reveal potential terrorists full names. Also the revelation that many Guantanamo detainees were not, actually, held with just cause. These underlying issues seem to arise with each article I find, but then I suspect that with 300+ cables released this would be inevitable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/paper-leaked-documents-describe-potential-al-qaida-plots-discussed-by-guantanamo-detainees/2011/04/26/AFgUNcmE_story.html

Government to tighten security?

Today I have found an article from the Washington Post, which argues that the case of the Guantanamo Bay cables is possibly one of the largest leaks in history. Michael. J. Narve (a former lieutenant commander in the U.S Navy) suggested that “though the series of document leaks made to WikiLeaks cumulatively appears to be one of the largest in history, their significance in terms of damage is less than, say, the leaks to Russia by convicted spy Robert Hanssen” (Washington Post, 2011). This proposes that WikiLeaks has not actually caused that much damage – yet, but has the potential to cause as much harm as the leaks to Russia.

The article suggests that ‘the tensions between the public’s right to know and the government’s duty to protect the nation’s security are as strong as ever’ (Washington Post, 2011). As a result the Government are said to be becoming more secretive in their discretions; “Honestly we don’t yet know what the full impact is” of the release of the cables. “But governments have told us that they’re going to share less information with us.” (Washington Post, 2011). This is obviously an effect of WikiLeaks, which poses the question; is media transparency helpful to the general public? Because, it now seems that due to these leaks the government are now becoming even more closed, which means it will be harder for websites such as WikiLeaks to expose confidential files.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/weighing-the-damage-of-the-wikileaks-disclosure/2011/05/02/AFJoBmrF_story.html

WikiLeaks and the death of Osama.

The Canberra Times have explained that the plan to find, and kill, Osama Bin Laden was brought forward due to the Guantanamo Bay leaks. The government have refused to comment on whether this is true or not. However, it has been revealed that some of the Guantanamo detainees were a link in finding Bin Laden. Apparently, although not confirmed, the government believed that the release of the cables could jeopardise their plans to find Bin Laden. The government seem to remain very secretive over ideas that WikiLeaks has helped in the hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

The Canberra Times explained that; ‘the Government would not say if it had been briefed more recently about the WikiLeaks Guantanamo Bay files or if the bin Laden operation was affected by them’ (Canberra Times, 2011). This spurs from ideas that Obama had information on Bin Laden’s whereabouts presented to him over the summer last year, but had to bring his plans to a head earlier than expected because of the cables, also because the government seemed to act fairly fast after the cables had been released into the media.

Could these files have pushed forward the date of Osama’s demise? Either way, it seems like a coincidence that within a week of the release Bin Laden was shot dead by U.S forces.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/embassy-silent-over-wikileaks-bin-laden-connection/2152097.aspx

Classified information.

The New York Times has been mentioned in most of the Guantanamo Bay articles that I found on the Guardian website. Apparently, the NY Times, the Guardian and WikiLeaks have worked together in the release of the Guantanamo Bay cables.

I found, in a New York Times article, that a lawyer went to court sometime last week in order to obtain access to the files released by WikiLeaks, but with a view to discuss them in order to represent one of the prisoners in court. The documents were said to be ‘classified by law’ (New York Times, 2011) and must be handled in ‘accordance with all relevant security precautions and safeguards’ (New York Times, 2011). This meant that any information they find out would be restricted by security guidelines. The lawyers were concerned that if they openly discussed their findings from the files it could jeopardise their careers.

Obviously, this is a risk that WikiLeaks takes with every file release; there will always be some sort of backlash concerning their published documents. The reason WikiLeaks has been so successful is because they keep all of their sources anonymous, which means that any classified information they gain access to is given to them by a source and they submit with the idea of ‘freedom of speech’ (WikiLeaks, 2011), something, which is within all of our basic human rights.

http://www.wikileaks.ch/About.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28gitmo.html?scp=7&sq=guantanamo%20bay&st=cse

Many at Guantanamo NOT dangerous?!

A BBC article titled; ‘Wikileaks: Many at Guantanamo ‘Not dangerous’, states that 220 of the prisoners were deemed dangerous terrorists, whilst the other 150 were innocent people from Pakistan or Afghanistan. Obviously, this has meant that these people were locked in one of the most dangerous prisons in the world for, as it would seem, no reason. The American government perhaps had cause to believe these people to be dangerous, but as WikiLeaks has exposed, these beliefs were found to be false. However, the Pentagon has argued that ‘the files released could damage anti-terrorism efforts’ (BBC, 2011). They believed that the detainees were hoarding information about Al Qaeda troops.

It is inevitable that the American government would be unhappy about the release of these cables. The cables expose that many of the detainees were held due to being ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ or ‘mistaken identity’ (BBC, 2011). Worringly, in some cases, US commanders admitted to having ‘no reason recorded for transfer’ (BBC, 2011), which shows that even the commanders did not know why some of the prisoners had been detained!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13184845

Journalism combining.

According to a Guardian article, published online May 2^nd 2011, the WikiLeaks organisation has been ‘extraordinary on so many levels’ (WikiLeaks, 2011). The Guardian is referring to the sheer scale of cables produced by the site, and/or the effect it has had on media outlets. The article focuses mainly on the Guantanamo Bay cables, and suggests that certain news outlets were anxious to be the first one to release the cables into the media jungle.

The cables were said to have caused quite a stir because people were openly named in them, which happened because a large amount of the cables were released unedited. The reason that many cables had not been edited was because news outlets were eager to have their story released before other news organisations. Although I mentioned that the cables sparked a varied response, the Guardian only received ‘two letters of complaint about the investigation’ (Guardian, 2011).

The advent of the Guantanamo cables has caused much coverage from the media. I find that many articles seem to centre on the people either behind the release of the documents (WikiLeaks, the Guardian and the New York Times), or about the people affected, i.e. the prisoners. Something I find most interesting is the way in which three different organisations cooperated (the organisations mentioned above), they worked together in order to process the cables and compromised about the release. I believe this could be quite a big step in the world of journalism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/open-door-guantanamo-files-wikileaks?INTCMP=SRCH