Julian Assange Doesn't Do Irony Well: Threatens His Own Internal Leakers With $20 Million Penalty
from the that-seems-just-a-little-hypocritical dept
It’s no secret that Wikileaks’ Julian Assange is a man of many contradictions, who has what appears to be a vindictive and angry streak against those who disagree with him on certain plans. However, now reports are coming out that he made his own associates sign an incredibly draconian non-disclosure agreement which threatens anyone who leaks documents from within Wikileaks with the potential for a $20 million penalty. I guess, you could argue that since he recognizes how much leaking goes on, that it makes sense to put in place extreme penalties. Of course, the alternative explanation that many seem to prefer is that he’s just annoying, paranoid and, at times, more than a bit hypocritical.
Filed Under: fines, julian assange, leaks
Companies: wikileaks
Comments on “Julian Assange Doesn't Do Irony Well: Threatens His Own Internal Leakers With $20 Million Penalty”
The most harm to Wikileaks...
…is being done by Assange himself.
This sounds more like he is terrible at executing a great joke than the reality he has (accidentally?) made.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
I offer to your attention a film about six priorities of the generalized instruments of management by countries and people of Earth.
Six Principles of Global Manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fF3TQ0lJnU
and:
Anti-Qur’an Strategy of the Bible Project Wheeler-Dealers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1wXgXwj3MI
Kind of makes sense, we (US gov’t) has been trying to get him and after the rape accusation i can understand his paranoia.
Because letting Wikileaks’ journalists publish classified information without editing, redaction, and oversight under Wikileaks’ name makes perfect sense! Are you going to take your argument to its logical conclusion and argue against all NDA’s or are you going to hold WL, whose employees actually deal with information that could threaten lives and safety if not properly edited, to a hypocritical and self-destructive standard like the rest of the band-wagon?
Re: Re:
Those were my thoughts too, anyone working on those leaked documents needs to follow the Wikileaks rules on editing and redacting sensitive information that could harm innocent people. Obviously leaking those documents unredacted is a no-no, and there should be a huge penalty for that.
It would also undermine Wikileak’s claim to redact documents if someone from within the organization was releasing them unredacted.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s my hopeful take on it, but there is potential for it to be any information based on what we have above. Much as I like what Julian stands for he does come across a bit wombatty.
I don’t understand all the legalese, but section 5 states (paraphrased) that the value of the loss from a breach is $20m (12m pounds). Does this directly translate to a penalty?
Or does it just mean that’s what the cost to Wikileaks would potentially be?
Section talks of injunction and any other order a court my impose.. would they then be given an order to repay by the court?
Re: Re:
Last paragraph should start “Section 8 talks…”
Re: Re: Re:
It ultimately doesn’t matter. What people have a hard time with in Western society is divorcing the worth of actions with the worth of those acting. I personally think Julian Assange is a shit stain, but Wikileaks is a force of good on the world overall. For me, I can keep those two things separate and compartmentalize them.
Most can’t, however, which is why we all talk about Julian instead of Wikileaks, much to the detriment of what Wikileaks is trying to do….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, look into Openleaks. I believe this is a response to the people that left for the new site.
Is this real? Or is it another plot against Julian Assange and Wikileaks?
Re: Re:
Why would you ask that?
Who do you work for?
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t work for anyone. It’s just after Anonymous exposed HBGary and friends, it just seems an appropriate thing to question.
My understanding
It’s my understanding that he has to make sure things get leaked “correctly” and some things may require proper timing.
Even if he is all for freedom of knowledge, he probably is realistic enough to understand that certain knowledge can cost lives or he accepts certain knowledge with certain conditions.
Example. Some nut job may send him a list of SSNs with b-days, names and addresses. He may say “Don’t release that info” even though someone on his team may say “but information should be free”
You can say what you like about this NDA; the fact is that when actually requested to release information about itself, wikileaks has a history of complying:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2009-02/18/wikileaks-forced-to-leak-own-secret-info?page=all
Are you really surprised?
This sort of hypocrisy seems to be around a lot. In recent time I have seen articles on here about copyright supporters who infringe themselves, intelligence agencies who don’t want to have their information leaked, and journalism organizations who don’t want you to read their content…
It is a mad, mad, world!
I don’t think this is ironic: since Wikileaks isn’t opposed to secrets, just secrets being used to hide government and corporate corruption, it’s fair enough that they like to keep some things secret. I guess they are protecting their sources, like journalists usually do, and this document is proof they are being professional about their work.
I do think this is ironic: Wikileaks opponents scream that “Wikileaks is dumping hundreds of thousands of documents and putting people in danger!” and then the same people scream about “irony” when it turns out Wikileaks makes people handling sensitive material sign a CDA to avoid releasing unredacted documents.
So...
…if some juicy confidential Wikileaks documents show up on the Pentagon’s website, will the Wikileaks supporters here accuse the Joint Chiefs of crimes against humanity and call for them to be fed to crocodiles without benefit of council?
Depends. Is that City council or Floyd Council?
The Answer is Obvious
We need to register wikileaksleaks.com ASAP!
I really don’t see what the issue is here. The type of information being handled by WikiLeaks, as we have seen in the past, can be viewed as incredibly sensitive and the reactions the ignorant masses have when exposed to factual information can cause quite an upset.
So, when people start labeling the organization as terrorists, murderers, and the like – it makes sense to try and present their practices in a mannerism as favorable as possible. Allowing anyone in the organization to freely disperse whatever information they may have on hand could easily jeopardize those efforts, or whatever trust current & potential leakers may have.
Now if someone came forth revealing information about persons or practices of malicious intent from within WikiLeaks itself and were then sued in return for doing so, it would be incredibly hypocritical.
Re: Re:
That’s the sticking point, and one I don’t have an answer to.
However, Assange is giving all his haters a valid reason to criticise him, and by extension, weaken Wikileaks’ position.
I suspect he’s being forced to do this.
Maybe not, but considering the jack-booted thugs have ‘interrogated’ him, it wouldn’t at all surprise me.
If you really want a good insight into Wikileaks...
… read this article:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html
Talks about John Young, the man who runs the CRYPTOME website, and his dealings with the “Wiki Management Team”
Streaming on-demand: WikiLeaks
Do you think Julian Assange deserves the Sydney Peace Foundation’s gold medal? Check out the streaming on-demand video series, WikiLeaks: Security Threat or Media Savior? at FORA.tv (http://f4a.tv/eFjoq1)
It seems reasonable to me, considering that leaks from wikileaks include giving away information on sources.
This story has too much of an artificial-controversy taste to it, considering how politicized wikileaks is.
20 million dollars or 28 cents…
Feh. Julian Assange is sooooo October 2010.
Assange is the same as the Governments he is against.
So what is assange doing that is any different at all to the Governments and business he claims to ‘expose’ ?
Re: Assange is the same as the Governments he is against.
far as I know he hasn’t killed any civilians yet..