The rise and fall of WikiLeaks

[Dry Lips]

WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables


"WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US
diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing
thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention,
harm or putting their lives in danger.
[…]
The newly published archive contains more than 1,000 cables
identifying individual activists; several thousand labelled with
a tag used by the US to mark sources it believes could be placed
in danger; and more than 150 specifically mentioning whistleblowers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

(First of all, I would ask the participants of this thread to avoid making political comments…)

Clearly whistleblowers and informants can no longer trust WikiLeaks.
Who is going to give secret information over to WikiLeaks knowing
that their identity will be compromised?

Is this the beginning of the end of WikiLeaks?

[el_koraco]

The beginning of the end was releasing the diplomatic cables in the first place. The project deteriorated from a whistleblower refuge to a soap-opera website. Not that the world's governments had a good response to any of it, but that's another thing.

[Primefalcon]

No whistleblowers will release information if they think their info will be released, since in this can they could be held liable for treason! and probably will be!

A very stupid move from Wikileaks indeed!

[Ric_NYC]

Who needs Wikileaks when we have Rupert Murdoch and friends to tell us what's happening in the world?

[donkyhotay]

from my understanding the cables themselves list activists that the government is keeping an eye on. Wikileaks didn't list who submitted the cables (though it seems pretty obvious who the blame is landing on regardless). So it's more like

cable XYZ has donkyhotay listed as a person of interest

rather then

cable XYZ was submitted by donkyhotay making him a person of interest

[drawkcab]

The U.S. government's attempt to pressure wikileaks might crack/divide wikileaks per se, but even if that is so the wikileaks model is a hydra. It will spring up again and again.

From a strategic standpoint it was idiocy to go after Assange because the subsequent scandal became the vehicle for wikileaks to arrive at international recognition if not sympathy. You would think that officials would be worried about creating an opportunity for the emergence of a hydra of whistleblower sites that are neither as professional nor as ethical as wikileaks.

[jwbrase]

WikiLeaks publishes full cache of unredacted cables


"WikiLeaks has published its full archive of 251,000 secret US
diplomatic cables, without redactions, potentially exposing
thousands of individuals named in the documents to detention,
harm or putting their lives in danger.
[…]
The newly published archive contains more than 1,000 cables
identifying individual activists; several thousand labelled with
a tag used by the US to mark sources it believes could be placed
in danger; and more than 150 specifically mentioning whistleblowers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables

(First of all, I would ask the participants of this thread to avoid making political comments…)

Clearly whistleblowers and informants can no longer trust WikiLeaks.
Who is going to give secret information over to WikiLeaks knowing
that their identity will be compromised?

None of these people gave their information directly to Wikileaks. These are people who whistleblew or acted as informants to the US government, and then had their confidentiality blown because Wikileaks got ahold of cables mentioning them and had a grudge against the US government.

So it's not so much a matter of that whistleblowers can't trust Wikileaks (although it may well be that they can't), but a matter of that whistleblowers can't trust each other: If they whistleblow to a given organization, they can't be certain that a whistleblower in that organization won't send details about them to Wikileaks, which may then publish those details unredacted.

[mutley89]

This article makes it sound like a result of stupidity, rather than a deliberate decision that made these public, including a Guardian journalist who thought publishing encryption keys in his book was a good idea.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,783778,00.html

That same journo had an article on the Guardian website criticising wikileaks for this a few weeks ago which strikes me as hypocritical considering his own part in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/01/wikileaks-make-public-all-state-cables