After reading so many stories of companies and individuals that get the Internet wrong as a distribution mechanism, it just feels great to read this. Certainly it's too soon to know if publishing via a Creative Commons license is the "right" approach. But the willingness to try seems both clued-in and refreshing. I hope it works. But even if it fails we would all learn more from it than we would from any type of the traditional reaction, litigation, regardless of the outcome.
Al Jazeera is to be applauded and wished well for their creativity and willingness to experiment.
Finally! US Government officials speaking sensibly about the reaction to these leaks.
Slightly off topic, now that Mr. Assange has been released on bail, is his life in greater peril then when he was incarcerated? Wait, wait, hear me out.
Follow, if you will, the plot of a movie like Conspiracy Theory or Enemy of the State or others of this genre. Government spokespersons wrap themselves in the flag and bemoan the insecurity of the times in which we live. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a black ops team has been dispatched by a secretive government agency to eliminate the troublesome whistle-blower.
Being out on bail makes Mr. Assange much more vulnerable to this scenario. Would-be assassins no longer have to penetrate the security of Wandsworth prison. Many more plausible "accidents" might befall him whilst free on his own recognizance. Sure, it's totally unlikely and it never happens. Let us hope an antidote to Polonium has been developed
Agree with the Anonymous Coward, there is in this topic an element of "what is the right balance to strike between transparency and secrecy"?
So when, and where, does that discussion occur? I've asked in previous comments "what are the general principles and guidelines that should enlighten decisions about what information should be classified and what should be released?
I support @Anonymous Coward (comment 21), best look to the campaign contributors for Lieberman's motivation in attacking WikiLeaks.
It is not mere cynicism to suppose that the heightened concern for "national security" exhibited by American politicians is a thin disguise for a morbid fear of being exposed as having accepted cash or other favors in return for supporting unethical, immoral or even illegal activities in the powerful and privileged positions they occupy.
We as readers really must insist that the press treat this as the First Amendment issue that it is. The cowardice of the NYT and other mainstream media; reporting this story without taking a principaled stand, is understandable given the pressures to which Amazon, PayPal, EveryDNS et al have been subjected. But that understanding is not acceptance. "Grappling with the hardest issues of the day" must be more than a byline, it needs to be a core value.