JAI NARAYAN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

DEPARIMENT OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

TOPIC :- Whistle blowing with reference

analytical study.

SUBMITTED BY:
MAHIPAL SINGH
CMAT 2nd sEMESTER

ABSTRACT :-

to wiki leaks: An

SUBMITTED TO:
dr. neelam kalla

The international community is increasingly becoming aware of the

consequences and the risks involved with blowing the whistle on
organizational misconduct. Subsequently, there has been a growing trend
within the international community of developing legislation designed to
protect whistleblowers against retaliation. This study performs a Critical
Discourse Analysis on The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act of
2005, the first bill in Canadian legislative history to offer federal
government whistleblowers Protection. The author argues the primary aim
of this Act is not to protect whistleblowers from retaliation or to eliminate
wrongdoing from the public service, but rather to control the context
under which whistle blowing can occur. It is thus an instrument of
oppression serving not to protect whistleblowers, but suppress them.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS :-

I Mahipal Singh, sincerely thankful to all those people who have been
giving me any kind of assistance in the making of this project report.
I would like to express gratitude to the my supervisory, Dr. Neelam

Kalla, without whose advice and guidance this thesis would not have
been successful. Whose knowledge and direction enabled me to develop a
deeper understanding of the subject at hand. I express my gratitude to
Department of Management Studies Jai Narain Vyas University.

I would hereby, make most of the opportunity by expressing my sincerest

thanks

to

all

my

faculties

whose

teachings

gave

me

conceptual

understanding and clarity of comprehension, which ultimately made my

job more easy. Credit also goes to all my friends whose encouragement
kept me in good stead. Their

continuous

support

has

given

me

strength and confi dence to complete the project without any diffi culty.

MAHIPAL SINGH

the

CONTENT:-

1. Abstract
2. Acknowledgement
3. Contents
4. Declaration
5. Introduction
6. Definitions of Whistle Blowing
7. Types of Whistle Blowing
8. Perspectives
9. Conclusions
10.

History of Wiki Leaks

11.

What is Wiki Leaks

12.

How Wiki Leaks Works

13.

Short Essays

14.

Cases of Wiki Leaks

Julian Paul Assange

A Transparency Hard Case
Kristinn Hrafnsoon
United States Diplomatic Cables Leak
We Steal Secrets
Wiki Leaks Whistleblower Case
15.

List Questions Raised

16.

Final Answer

17.

Conclusions

DECLARATION :-

I, Mahipal Singh being a student of MBA of

Department Of

Management Studies (D.M.S.) Jodhpur.. Hereby declares that the

project report under title Whistle Blowing with Reference to Wiki
Leaks : An Analytical Study. Is my own work it is the analysis of
the big scale sector of communication. The survey was conducted
so as to analyze the big scale sector prevailing in the current and
the improvement that can be made upon it. All care has been taken to
keep this report error free and I sincerely regret for any unintended
discrepancies that might have crept into this report. I shall be highly
obliged if errors (if any) be brought to my attention.

Thank You
Mahipal Singh.

Introduction :Nobody grows up wanting to become a whistleblower. Conversely,

authority figures, such as parents, teachers and coaches, condition
children to respect seniority and follow orders. Moreover, children
condition themselves not to tattletale, snitch or rat on one another.
This aversion to dissent often stays with people throughout their teenage
years and adulthood. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a name familiar to
any psychology student, performed a study wherein participants were
ordered to administer increasingly severe shocks to an innocent victim
who, unbeknownst to the participants, was actually an actor pretending to
be shocked. In the end, 26 of the 40 participants were willing to
administer a potentially lethal shock of 450 volts, the maximum amount
(Milgram 1963, p. 371). The Milgram experiment, as it is known, is an
excellent illustration of peoples propensity to obey superiors regardless of
the consequences to themselves or others. This proclivity to conform to
authority is what makes the act of whistle blowing such a remarkable
phenomenon. If individuals are willing to inflict pain on an innocent victim
simply because an authority figure instructed them to then how likely are
they to report wrongdoing when it involves a peer or superior? One would
assume the chances are slim. Yet, individuals, on occasion, have done this
very thing and put themselves, their career and family at risk in the
process. These individuals are known as whistleblowers. They are brave
persons who, instead of following the convenient path of conformity,
choose to stand up for what they feel is right. The path of the
whistleblower is not a pleasant one. They often suffer various forms of
retaliation and are sometimes fired and blacklisted from their industry.
Many find themselves out of work, out of money and perhaps even out of
friends. To make matters worse, many whistleblowers are unaware of or
underestimate the risks that go along with disclosing wrongdoing.
In reality, most are just trying to do their jobs the best they can. Indeed,
few individuals purposely set out to become whistleblowers and fewer still
have an easy time of it. The international community is increasingly
recognizing whistleblowers as very important sources of information about
wrongdoing. At the same time, the international community is also
increasingly becoming aware of the many risks and consequences that
whistleblowers incur as a result of their coming forward. In accordance
with these two trends, many governments have developed, or begun to
develop, laws designed to make it safe for employees to disclose
misconduct that they discover during the course of their employment
(Kaplan 2001, p. 37). These laws are often referred to as whistleblower
protection or whistleblowing legislation. The emergence of such laws
over the past couple of decades has not been without controversy. While
there are some who view whistleblower protection as an essential first
step towards creating a culture that accepts and encourages
whistleblowing (Kaplan 2001, p. 37), there are others who view
whistleblower protection as being costly and ineffective (Thomas 2005, p.
173). Despite this controversy, there is a growing trend amongst the

international community of enacting legislation designed specifically to

protect whistleblowers against retaliation (Kaplan 2001, p. 37). There are
also many researchers who subscribe to the belief that laws are
subservient to power (Ramirez 2007, p.183). The study of
whistleblowing protection is therefore a very interesting point of
investigation since whistleblowers are often at odds with powerful
economic and political interests. If law is submissive to the welfare of the
elite then the development of effective whistleblower protection presents
an obvious conflict of interest for policymakers. This contradiction begs
the question: what is the primary goal of whistleblowing legislation? Does
it aim to protect the whistleblower from the organization or the
organization from the whistleblower? Does it encourage the
expression of dissenting opinions or discourage them? Does it empower
whistleblowers
or discipline them? Does it give whistleblowers a voice or does it
ultimately silence
them? These questions are at the heart of this thesis. In order to
investigate these points
of interest, Critical Discourse Analysis is used to analyze the Public
Servants Disclosure
Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the PSDPA) of 2005. The Act is
the first in
Canadian legislative history to offer federal public servants protection
against retaliatory
measures as a result of reporting misconduct within the government
(Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation 2004).
The ability of whistleblower protection to effectively safeguard
whistleblowers
should matter to all organizations and all people. This is because no
organization is
immune from bad decisions or mistakes and these decisions or nondecisions, as the case
may be, can put the public at risk. This risk can adopt many forms. It may
be that a
grocery store is selling contaminated food, that hazardous waste is being
dumped into a
towns water supply, that fraudulent investors are stealing peoples life
savings or that
politicians are inappropriately spending tax dollars. In most cases, the first
people to
become aware of a wrongdoing and the potential risk it poses to the
public, be it
environmental, physiological, or financial, will be those working with or
within the
organization responsible. Consequently, when it comes to sounding the
alarm about a wrongdoing and its potential consequences, nobody is in a
more privileged position than

employees. However, the unfortunate reality is that employees are also

the people who
stand to lose the most when it comes to reporting wrongdoing. Without
proper support
and protection, employees who blow the whistle on wrongdoing often face
severe
discrimination, harassment and alienation and some even lose their job,
destroy their
career and become a pariah in their chosen industry.
Similarly, the protection of whistleblowers within Canadas public sector is
an
issue that should concern all Canadians. After all, there is not a single
Canadian citizen
who is unaffected by the decisions and actions of the federal government.
The Canadian
government is also fundamentally different from a private organization in
that its primary
mandate is to serve the public interest as opposed to the interests of
shareholders or
investors. Subsequently, when wrongdoing does occur within the public
sector, it is often
not a select few, but large populations and perhaps even the public as a
whole who suffer
the consequences. In order for the Canadian government to follow through
on its
mandate and best serve the public interest, it must foster a culture of
accountability and
transparency. This includes creating a work environment where it is safe
and acceptable
for employees to voice a concern about a wrongdoing. The development
of effective
whistleblower protection is one way to foster such an environment, since
it permits
employees to express dissenting opinions without fear of retribution. If the
Canadian
government fails to draft effective whistleblowing legislation, its
employees may remain
silent when wrongdoings occur for fear that they will be victimized, lose
their job, or do
irreparable damage to their career. Ultimately, it will be the public who
pays the price.

Definitions :-

Whistle blowing is the disclosure by organization members (former

or current) of illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of
their employers, to persons or organizations that may be able to effect
action (Peeples, Stokes, & Wingfield, 2009, p. 468). We can define the

whistle blowing after all our researches as : means to any unethical or

illegal representation. Whistle-blowing : is familiar and known in the
business field to uncover unethical or behaviors made by the employee or
any one in the same field. Whistle blowing in short is altering the others to
misconduct or doing something in wrong.
A whistleblower is ethical person and respects his organization or
countries roles and polices. This person will stop any illegal or ethical
action in organization (internally) or their agency (externally).He must be
brave because the needs of his/her job apply someone have strong heart.
Whats more, he will have many enemies because he/she failed their
planes or works. They have to be careful in this time to blow their whistle
for anything happen wrong.
The whistle-blowing is a new idea to
the people .This term taken form the English police officers when they
know there is a crime happened they blow their whistle. Whistle blowing
the act of exposing fraud, waste, abuse or other misbehavior in a
company or organization is on the rise. It takes courage to stand up and
challenge the corrupt. But courage isnt always enough. Powerful
individuals and organizations can retaliate against whistleblowers,
threatening their jobs, their families or even their lives. These are people
who will not stay mute in the face of glaring injustice, choosing rather to
voice their complaints before the appropriate authorities. At that time the
employee or anyone when he/she detect something wrong he/she have
for choices: first one, to stay silent and be away from problems .Second
choice is blow his whistle internally .The blowers of whistle can tell his
boss about this misconduct. The third choice is to blow the whistle
externally outside the organization or agency. The last choice is to leak
the information secretly or unknown. Any whistle-blower prefers to cover
his identity.
Though whistleblowing is a relatively modern term within the English
language, the
action to which it refers is far from new. For centuries, individuals have
been coming
forward and exposing wrongdoings that either pose a threat to, or are a
matter of, the
public interest. The Oxford English Dictionary first mentions
whistleblowing in a
supplement to its 1986 edition. It defines whistleblowing as to ring an
activity to a
sharp conclusion, as if by the blast of a whistle; now usually by informing
on (a person)
or exposing (an irregularity or crime) (Vandekerckhove 2006, p.7). Since
then, the term
has become widely known and used in industry, business, media, politics,
academia and
popular culture.
The origins of the term are unclear, although whistle has long been
considered a

synonym for such words as speak, call, and squeal. Some have
suggested the term
can be traced back to the schoolyard or playing field where an authority
figure or referee
blows a whistle to indicate that the rules of play have been violated in
some manner (Jubb
1999, p. 77). Others have suggested the term derives from the caricature
of the bulbouscheeked
English Bobby wheezing away on his whistle when the maiden cries stop
thief (Johnson 2002, p. 4). However, individuals who blow the whistle on
wrongdoing
are quite unlike a playground monitor, referee, or English Bobby in that
they are not in a
position of power. They do not have the authority to orchestrate the
degree of change
they deem necessary and therefore have to appeal to higher powers for
assistance. It is
perhaps more appropriate to compare the whistleblower to a person on a
city street who
cries out for help when feeling threatened. It is their hope that, by calling
attention to the
situation, the law can in some way intervene and protect not only them,
but the larger community as well. The whistleblower therefore does not
invoke a whistle of authority
when they blow, but rather an imperative petition or, as Westin (1981)
puts it, a whistle
of desperation (p. 2).
There is much disagreement in recent literature as to how to properly
define
whistleblowing. Many definitions of whistleblowing only include individuals
who report
wrongdoing to outsiders (Farell and Petersen 1982, p. 406). Other
definitions include
individuals who report wrongdoing both inside and outside an organization
(Calland and
Dehn 2004, p. 9). Some definitions exclude individuals who are required
by their jobs to
report wrongdoing (Jubb 1999, p. 78). Other definitions do not make this
distinction
(Miceli and Near 1992, p. 21). James (1984) points out that the term is
typically reserved
for individuals who disclose wrongdoing for moral reasons (p. 249). In
contrast, Barton
(1994) and Miceli and Near (1997) argue that anger and spite can be very
important
motives for whistleblowers. Alford (2001) proposes yet another definition.
He suggests
that a person only becomes a whistleblower when they suffer some
degree of retaliation

for their actions (p. 18). Meanwhile, Bok (2000) describes whistleblowing
as having
three basic elements: dissent, breach of loyalty and accusation (p. 71).
While there is no universally accepted definition of whistleblowing, the
one
developed by Miceli and Near (1992) appears to be the most cited in
recent literature.
They define whistleblowing as:
the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of illegal,
immoral, or illegitimate practices under the control of their employers, to
persons or organizations that may be able to effect action (p. 45). This
definition is broader than most because it includes individuals who choose
to report
wrongdoing within an organization, as well as individuals who report
wrongdoing outside
an organization. The authors do not differentiate between internal and
external
whistleblowers because their research indicates that individuals almost
always report
wrongdoing inside the organization prior to outside the organization
(Miceli, Near, and
Dworkin 2008, p. 8). It also includes individuals who are required by their
jobs to report
wrongdoing, individuals who appear to be motivated by non-altruistic
factors, as well as
both current and former members of organizations. The latter are
sometimes referred to
as alumni whistleblowers (James 1984, p. 249).
Miceli and Nears definition is, as they concede, imperfect. They point out
that
the question of what constitutes illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices
is clearly a
perceptual one. Thus, they conclude that further research is needed to
determine the
circumstances under which activities, or omissions, are deemed illegal,
immoral, or
illegitimate by different individuals (Miceli and Near 1992, p. 46). Vintens
(1992)
definition provides a much closer look at what types of wrongdoing often
precipitate
whistleblowing. He writes that whistleblowing involves the unauthorized
disclosure of
information that evidences the contravention of any law, rule or
regulation, code of
practice, or professional statement, or that involves mismanagement,
corruption, abuse of
authority, or danger to public or worker health and safety (p. 44). This
definition of

whistleblowing clearly emphasizes legal notions of wrongdoing by omitting

any mention
of immoral or unethical activity. However, in doing so, it overlooks the
fact that
many actions and decisions can be considered unscrupulous without
necessarily breaking
some predetermined standard of behavior or posing some risk to public or
worker health and safety. Such a definition of whistleblowing could
unnecessarily limit the scope of
legal protections for whistleblowers.
Another limitation of Miceli and Nears definition is that it does not
mention that
whistleblowers sometimes expose wrongdoing that has yet to be
committed, although one
could argue that any conspiracy to commit wrongdoing is a form of
immoral activity.
Their definition also does not include well-intentioned individuals who
blow the whistle
on perceived wrongdoings, but whose claims turn out to be erroneous.
Jubb (1999)
neatly accounts for both these types of whistleblowers in his definition of
whistleblowing
as a deliberate non-obligatory act of disclosureabout non-trivial
illegality, or other
wrongdoing whether actual, suspected or anticipated (p. 78). The
inclusion of the
words suspected and anticipated in this definition clearly shows that
Jubb doesnt
require individuals to disclose only actual instances of wrongdoing in
order to be
considered legitimate whistleblowers.
The definition of whistleblowing informing this thesis is a slightly amended
version of the one proposed by Miceli and Near (1992). The only
significant changes are
that Jubbs (1999) phrase actual, suspected, or anticipated has been
added to Miceli and
Nears description of wrongdoing and employer has been replaced with
organization
in order to broaden the definitions scope. Thus, for the purposes of this
thesis, the act of
whistleblowing is defined as:
the disclosure by organization members (former or current) of actual,
suspected, or anticipated wrongdoing (i.e., illegal, immoral, or
illegitimate practices) under the control of their organization, to persons
or entities that may be able to effect action. This definition is general
enough that it covers every type of whistleblower imaginable
under its domain, including individuals who report wrongdoing within an
organization,

individuals who are obligated to report wrongdoing, both past and present
members of
organizations, and individuals who disclose either suspected or
anticipated wrongdoings.
It also makes no presumptions about the motivations of whistleblowers.
However, at the
same time, it is narrow enough that it excludes casual discussions about
wrongdoing with
friends or co-workers who lack the ability to effect change. This definition
is also
general enough that it covers every type of wrongdoing imaginable under
its domain,
including wrongdoing that may be immoral, but not necessarily illegal or
illegitimate.
The inclusion of immoral practices in this definition of wrongdoing is
vital considering
many nations have recently decreased their regulations on organizational
activity (Tombs
and Whyte 2003, p. 9).

Types of Whistle Blowing :1. Internal whistle-blowing: it is blowing the whistle inside the
organization. For example designated officer, workers or bosses in
the same organization.
2. External
whistle-blowing: blowing
the
whistle
to
law
enforcement agencies or to teams worried with the matters for
example Lawyers, Mass media, law enforcement.

How does whistleblowing work?

Typically, whistleblowing is a process of five stages:
Step 1: Recognition Event seen as risk or possible wrongdoing
Step 2: Assessment Choosing between neglect, exit, and
voice
Step 3: Action Blowing the whistle (recipient/content/form)
Step 4: Reactions by the addressee and/or the organisation and its
members

Step 5: Evaluation of reaction as success or failure

Why is whistleblowing important?

Wrongdoings can flourish thanks to a lack of transparency. Someone who
does not know that things go wrong cannot take action. With an increase
in the division of labour we more and more rely on insiders to point us to
problems and risks. Within organisations (e.g. companies/authorities)
critical information is often filtered out when reporting to superiors. So
bosses should have an interest in promoting whistleblowing. Democracy
as government by the people needs knowledge of the people for a
democratic discourse to take place.

Benefits of Whistle Blowing :1. Rises security of the organization: is when you feel that the person
with ethical principles is watching others in your organization. This
person will work hard to detect un-ethical or misconduct in the
organization .One day I asked someone work in the ministry of
higher education about the Whistle blowing but he dont heard
about it after I explain for him he said I wish that there will be a
person like that to detect the employees behavior and misdoing.
2. Highlights organizations code of ethics: Every organization
must have their codes of ethics and behavior to have a better
observing of employees acts.
3. Advance the management: Make sure any management that
consider about moral standard will be always successful.
4. Enhance employees' ethical behaviors: The employees will be aware
that there is someone watching him/her. So, he will be carful before
doing something wrong.

Barriers to whistle-blowing :1. Fear to retaliation: Unluckily, the mainstream of whistle blowers
they dont do what they want to do. The basic goal of whistle
blowing is to help the community. Most of them will be attack whom

specially in low level in the organization whom blow their whistle for
the high level people. Whistle blowers don't be damaged they still
have good news for people. Now, over 30 countries have now
accepted specific whistle blower protection law. Also, nowadays
people are trying to accept the whistle blowers as heroes who try to
serve their countries.
2. Lawful liability: sense of responsibility is very heavy.
3. Denial of employees: No one like someone to watch him/her when
he/she doing something.

Reasons for whistle-blowing :1. Unlawful behavior: There are many forms of behaviors and illegal
actions so in this case must to blow the whistle because it will lead
to very bad result .for example, someone will lose his /her life or
lose his/her job.
Story from real life: an Indian man works in the a market in Sohar
.He got hurt and lost his job because he tried to tell the municipality
about the wrong doing of his boss .His boss all the time changes the
expiration date of the selling food. So, the Indian worker lost his job
because he didnt want any one to get sick whereas his boss is
increasing his profit without carrying about people lives. Here we
can see that whistle blowers allow the risk to be removed or
reduced; they are also the people who have the most to lose if they
do. The Indian man lost his job but he didnt accept that he will be
joining in dishonest crime.
2. Un-procedural behavior: Behavior may be un-technical since it
interrupts clearly communicated actions in the form of rules and
policies that leading the operations of the organization.
3. Immoral behavior: Its mean the behavior will be illegal because
he/she not going or following the world behavior guidelines for
example: Safety, respecting, honest, responsibility .Illegal behavior
may hurt the others feelings .In this kind of situation you must not
blow your whistle.
4. Wasteful behavior: This behavior if the person trying to waste the
resource of company. So, you have to tell your boss about whats
happen. Example, There was an employee in a municipality. He is a
manger of equipments store and he steal some equipment. His
colleague couldnt keep silent he take an action and tell the boss
about that.

Steps for effective and actual Whistle

blowing :1.Are you ready to put your carrier on the line? : You have to
keep in your mine that you will lose your job if you blow your
whistle to person with very strong contact.
2.Decide which of the alternatives you can use to solve the
problem: There are many choices that you can choose from
before you go to tell your boss about the unethical behavior.
3. Keep a log or record.
4. Classify your support teams: You have to know who will be
in your side when you will blow your whistle and who will care
if you faced a problem after you blow your whistle?
5. Before you go to the public with the evidence attempt
be careful and informally talk with right-hand
peers: You should take an advice from your trusted peers
who have a high moral standard.
6. Check with teams who work with whistle blower for
advice and support: In this case ask other whistle blowers
and take their advices. For more help can contact with them
online.
7. If you can't think of a way to secretly leak your
information, talk with your attorney to determine
whether your legal position is sound: It is better to
anonymously leak your information so, no one will know your
identity or who you are.
8. Be the one of best behavior: No need for a long stories and
explanation just trust your ethics and moralities so everything
will goes in smoothly.
9. Focus your disclosure on the facts rather than on an
individual in the organization: If you want to find the truth
keep your focus on the facts then you can find the truth easily.
But if you still focusing on the individuals you will not find the
accurate and complete truth.
10.
Leak the information: After considering all these
steps you have to make sure that you will leak the information
in the best way that your job done in good way.

From the peoples point of view :1. need for truth.

2. The trust factor.
3. Better relation between the general public and company.

Protection laws :-

Whistleblower protection refers to

laws and regulation that offers protection who exposes wrongdoing and
dishonest activities. The wrongdoing may take the form of fraud,
corruption or mismanagement. Also, it offers punishment against false or
frivolous complaints.

In America:It was first brought into action in 1989. it protects whistle

blowers who work in a government firm. a federal agency violates this act
if the company concerned takes.

In India :The Government of India has been considering adopting a whistleblower

protection law for several years. In 2003, the Law Commission of India
recommended the adoption of the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of
Informers) Act, 2002.[50] In August 2010, the Public Interest Disclosure and
Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was introduced
into the Lok Sabha, lower house of the Parliament of India.[51] The Bill was
approved by the cabinet in June, 2011. The Public Interest Disclosure and
Protection of Persons Making the Disclosures Bill, 2010 was renamed as
The Whistleblowers' Protection Bill, 2011 by the Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. [52] The Whistleblowers'
Protection Bill, 2011 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 28 December 2011.
[53]
and by theRajyasabha on 21 February 2014. The Whistle Blowers
Protection Act, 2011 has received the Presidential assent on May 9, 2014
and the same has been subsequently published in the official gazette of
the Government of India on May 9, 2011 by the Ministry of Law and
Justice, Government of India.

Perspectives :-

There is a wide range of both positive and negative perspectives on

whistleblowing in
both popular culture and scholarly literature. This spectrum of opinions
varies from the
viewpoint of whistleblowers as inherently virtuous to the viewpoint of
whistleblowers as

inherently villainous and everything in between. They have been called a

great number
of controversial names, ranging from corporate heroes to corporate
anarchists (Culp
1995, p. 109); corporate help to corporate hindrance (Vinten 1992, p.
44); public
heroes to vile wretches (Laframboise 1991, p. 74); and have even been
compared to
Judas Iscariot (Walters 1979, p. 167); and described as saints (Grant
2002, p. 391).
Clearly, there is some disagreement as to whether or not the act of
whistleblowing should be considered positive or negative behavior. It is
perhaps no surprise then that Thomas
(2005) begins his article on whistleblowing with the assertion that it is first
and foremost,
a morally ambiguous activity (p. 147).
The prevailing view of whistleblowing within many organizations is that it
is an
act of disloyalty. The logic behind this perspective is best explained by Bok
(2000), who
points out that the whistleblower hopes to stop the game; but since he is
neither referee
nor coach, and since he blows the whistle on his own team, his act is seen
as a violation
of loyalty (p. 72). Likewise, Culp (1995) points out that most organization
members
possess such a deep sense of institutional loyalty they will remain
fiercely loyal to
government agencies and private corporations, even in the face of
damaging evidence of
wrongdoing (p. 115). Thus, regardless of the severity or frequency of the
wrongdoing
disclosed, employers and co-workers often view whistleblowers as being
traitorous. It is
for this reason that whistleblowers are sometimes called snitches or
tattletales. This
sentiment is clearly expressed in a Forbes magazine article on
whistleblowing legislation
entitled Rat Protection (Seligman 1981, p. 36). It is also echoed by
Laframboise
(1991), a former assistant deputy minister within the Government of
Canada, who
considers whistleblowing to be rarely justified and even claims that many
whistleblowers
are more offensive to the community or to their peer groups than the
acts on which they
have blown the whistle (p. 73). James Roche, former chairman of General
Motors, is

perhaps the most often quoted critic of whistleblowing. In 1971, he gave

this notorious
speech on the subject:
Some critics are now busy eroding another support of free enterprise the
loyalty of a management team, with its unifying values of cooperative
work. Some of the enemies of business now encourage an employee to be
disloyal to the enterprise. They want to create suspicion and disharmony,
and pry into proprietary interests of the business. However this is labeled
industrial espionage, whistle blowing, or professional responsibility it
is another tactic for spreading disunity and creating conflict (Quoted in
Walters 1979, p. 168).
Walters (1979) suggests that there are likely more than a few persons
within the business
community who still share Roches point of view (p. 167).
However, the notion that whistleblowers are disloyal organization
members has
been refuted in recent literature. Vandekerckhove and Commers (2004),
for example,
argue that there is no contradiction between whistleblowing and
organizational loyalty so
long as loyalty is conceptualized as rational loyalty. The object of
rational loyalty is
not an organization itself, but the explicit set of mission statement, value
statement,
goals and code of conduct of an organization (p. 231). Thus, when people
disclose
wrongdoing, they are not acting in a way that is disloyal to their
organization; rather they
are demonstrating rational loyalty by staying true to their organizations
long-term goals
and overall mission statement. After all, if someone is taking action that is
putting an
organization at risk then its members should want to know as soon as
possible so that the
wrongdoing can be rectified and the consequences to the organization
limited. In this
sense, whistleblowing is much more than an act of organizational loyalty,
it is also, as
Vandekerckhove and Commers put it, an organizational need (p. 226).
Similarly, Miceli, Near and Dworkin (2008) conceptualize whistleblowing as
a
form of prosocial behavior, which can benefit the organization involved as
much as it can
benefit the greater community. They argue that whistleblowing helps
organizations by
reducing the risk of lawsuits and potential punitive damages and by
preventing the loss of valuable organization members, who would rather
leave than be a part of an organization

that accepts wrongdoing and suppresses dissent (p. 34). They also argue
that the act of
whistleblowing does not have to be wholly altruistic in order to be
considered prosocial.
In contrast, they maintain that whistleblowers often have mixed motives
when coming
forward and point out that most whistleblowers experience some form of
personal gain
from the cessation of wrongdoing (p. 36). Lewis (2001) and Callahan,
Dworkin, Fort,
and Schipani (2002) also view whistleblowing as a benefit to
organizations. The former
points out that whistleblowers give organizations the opportunity to
correct wrongdoing
before it escalates while the latter conceptualize whistleblowing as a way
of improving
organizational efficiency, social responsibility and employee morale.
Miceli and Near (1997), however, concede that some instances of
whistleblowing
are not prosocial, but in fact antisocial. The authors give three criteria for
identifying
antisocial whistleblowing: the intentions of the whistleblower, the process
used by the
whistleblower and the consequences of the whistleblowing (p. 134). The
antisocial
whistleblower is therefore an individual who blows the whistle on
wrongdoing in a
manner that is both intentionally and actually harmful to either individual
organization
members or the organization as a whole. In contrast, people who blow the
whistle with
the sole intention of benefiting themselves are not considered antisocial
by Miceli and
Near, but merely selfish. While instances of antisocial whistleblowing do
undoubtedly
occur, the authors point out that a large majority of whistleblowing is
prosocial rather
than antisocial (p. 132).
Martin (1999) provides another perspective on whistleblowing by drawing
many
similarities between whistleblowers and nonviolent activists. He argues
that both take principled stands and speak out against improper behavior;
both seek to foster an open,
democratic discussion of the issues; and both are willing to pay the price
for dissent (p.
7). Additionally, he points out that the opponents of whistleblowers and
nonviolent
protestors are alike in that both seek to stifle dialogue and discussion
through various

forms of silencing (p. 8). In fact, the only difference between the two that
he sees is that
whistleblowers typically utilize formal procedures when voicing their
concerns and tend
to expect their complaints to be treated seriously; whereas nonviolent
activists typically
utilize alternative procedures when voicing their concerns as they are
seldom under the
impression that societys formal complaint procedures provide a solution
to injustices (p.
12). Other researchers have also equated whistleblowing with activism.
For example,
Elliston (1982) compares and contrasts whistleblowing to civil
disobedience and Graham
(1986) theorizes whistleblowing as principled organizational dissent.
Similarly,
Greene and Latting (2004) have drawn parallels between whistleblowing
and the concept
of advocacy in the field of social work. They note that many definitions of
advocacy, at
least in a social work context, are very similar to those of whistleblowing
(p. 223).
Though there is no one correct way of conceptualizing whistleblowing,
there are
most certainly wrong ones. To view it always as an act of disloyalty and
whistleblowers
as merely snitches or tattletales is far too simplistic and unrealistic a
perspective to
be taken seriously. However, to view it always as an act of altruism and
whistleblowers
as solely heroes or martyrs is equally simplistic and unrealistic.
Essentially, the act
of whistleblowing is far too complicated to be considered either wholly
good or bad.
Thus, regardless of how one perceives whistleblowing, it is important to
see
whistleblowers for what they really are human. They are people who act
on a variety of motives and in a variety of ways and their actions have
good and bad, as well as planned
and unplanned, consequences. The question then becomes: do they
contribute positively
to society more often than not? The general consensus among Canadians,
at least
according to Thomas (2005), is that they do and that more needs to be
done to protect
them (p. 154).

WikiLeaks :-

It has been involved in the publication of

material documenting extrajudicial killings in Kenya, a report of toxic
waste dumping on the coast of Cte d'Ivoire, Church of Scientology
manuals, Guantanamo Bay detention camp procedures, the 12 July 2007
Baghdad airstrike video, and material involving large banks such as
Kaupthing and Julius Baer among other documents. WikiLeaks became
internationally well known in 2010 when it began to publish U.S. military
and diplomatic documents with assistance from its partners in the news
media.

Conclusions :If you find yourself in a possible whistle-blowing incident, you should
exhaust all internal alternatives for addressing the problem and
accumulate all documentation possible. If blowing the whistle becomes
the only alternative, then you should anticipate a job change and you
should get good legal representation In some cases, there are federal
and state laws meant to provide protection for the whistle blowers Not
every incident that should result in whistle blowing does, sometimes the
whistle is swallowed rather than blown A whistle blowing incident is
probably the most emotionally difficult thing you can experience as a
professional.

History of Wikileaks :WikiLeaks is an international, online, non-profit, journalistic organisation

which publishes secret information,news leaks, and classified media from
anonymous sources. Its website, initiated in 2006 in Iceland by the
organization Sunshine Press, claimed a database of more than 1.2 million
documents
within
a
year
of
its
launch.
Julian
Assange,
an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its founder, editorin-chief, and director. Kristinn Hrafnsson, Joseph Farrell, and Sarah
Harrison are the only other publicly known and acknowledged associates
of Julian Assange. Hrafnsson is also a member of Sunshine Press
Productions along with Assange, Ingi Ragnar Ingason, and Gavin
MacFadyen.
The group has released a number of significant documents which have
become front-page news items. Early releases included documentation of
equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war and
corruption in Kenya. In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gunsight footage
from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in which Iraqi journalists were
among those killed by an AH-64 Apache helicopter, known as
the Collateral Murder video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks
released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents
about the War in Afghanistan not previously available to the public. In
October 2010, the group released a set of almost 400,000 documents
called the "Iraq War Logs" in coordination with major commercial media
organisations. This allowed the mapping of 109,032 deaths in "significant"
attacks by insurgents in Iraq that had been reported to Multi-National
Force Iraq, including about 15,000 that had not been previously
published. In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret
filesrelating to prisoners detained in the Guantanamo Bay detention
camp.
In November 2010, WikiLeaks collaborated with major global media
organisations to release U.S. State department diplomatic "cables" in
redacted format. On 1 September 2011, it became public that an
encrypted version of WikiLeaks' huge archive of unredacted U.S. State
Department cables had been available via BitTorrent for months and that
the decryption key (similar to a password) was available to those who
knew where to find it. WikiLeaks blamed the breach on its former
publication partner, the UK newspaper The Guardian, and that
newspaper's journalist David Leigh, who revealed the key in a book
published in February 2011; The Guardian argued that WikiLeaks was to
blame since they gave the impression that the decryption key was

temporary (something not possible for a file decryption key). The German
periodical Der Spiegel reported a more complex story involving errors on
both sides. The incident resulted in widely expressed fears that the
information released could endanger innocent lives.

Founding :The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006. The
website was begun, and published its first document, in December
2006. WikiLeaks has been predominantly represented in public since
January 2007 by Julian Assange, who is now generally recognised as the
"founder of WikiLeaks". According to the magazine Wired, a volunteer said
that Assange described himself in a private conversation as "the heart and
soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original
coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest".
WikiLeaks relies to some degree on volunteers and previously described
its founders as a mixture of Asian dissidents, journalists, mathematicians,
and
start-up
company
technologists
from
the United
States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, andSouth Africa, but has progressively
adopted a more traditional publication model and no longer accepts either
user comments or edits. As of June 2009, the website had more than
1,200 registered volunteers and listed an advisory board comprising
Assange, his deputy Jash Vora and seven other people, some of whom
denied any association with the organisation.
Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website has not used the "wiki"
publication method since May 2010. Also, despite some popular
confusion due to both having "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks
and Wikipedia are not affiliated with each other ("wiki" is not a brand
name); Wikia, a for-profit corporation affiliated loosely with the Wikimedia
Foundation, did purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names
(including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net) as a "protective brand
measure" in 2007.

Purpose :According to the WikiLeaks website, its goal is "to bring important news
and information to the public... One of our most important activities is to
publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and
historians alike can see evidence of the truth."
Another of the organisation's goals is to ensure that journalists
and whistleblowers are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified

documents. The online "drop box" is described by the WikiLeaks website

as "an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak
information to [WikiLeaks] journalists"
In an interview as part of the American television programme The Colbert
Report, Assange discussed the limit to the freedom of speech, saying, "[it
is] not an ultimate freedom, however free speech is what regulates
government and regulates law. That is why in the US Constitution the Bill
of Rights says that Congress is to make no such law abridging the freedom
of the press. It is to take the rights of the press outside the rights of the
law because those rights are superior to the law because in fact they
create the law. Every constitution, every bit of legislation is derived from
the flow of information. Similarly every government is elected as a result
of people understanding things".
The project has been compared to Daniel Ellsberg's revelation of the
"Pentagon Papers" (US war-related secrets) in 1971. In the United States,
the "leaking" of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at
least in the context of political discourse. Author and journalist Whitley
Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting
that "Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences
for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it
means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa
and the Middle East."

What is Wikileaks?
WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media organisation. Our goal is to bring
important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative,
secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our
journalists (our electronic drop box). One of our most important activities
is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers
and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a young
organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of
dedicated volunteers around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation
was officially launched, WikiLeaks has worked to report on and publish
important information. We also develop and adapt technologies to support
these activities.
WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks
designed to silence our publishing organisation, our journalists and our
anonymous sources. The broader principles on which our work is based
are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the
improvement of our common historical record and the support of the
rights of all people to create new history. We derive these principles from

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, Article 19

inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the
other Articles of the Declaration.

How WikiLeaks works :WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism
and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative
journalism, we accept (but do not solicit) anonymous sources of
information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous
drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies.
This provides maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our
efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information
comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and write a news
piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both
the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to
analyse the story in the context of the original source material
themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of
Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related.
Unlike Wikipedia, random readers can not edit our source documents.
As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been
developing and improving a harm minimisation procedure. We do not
censor our news, but from time to time we may remove or significantly
delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents
to protect life and limb of innocent people.
We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative
methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as
the preferred method of submitting any material. We do not ask for
material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it is
done securely and that the source is well protected. Because we receive
so much information, and we have limited resources, it may take time to
review a sources submission.
We also have a network of talented lawyers around the globe who are
personally committed to the principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and
who defend our media organisation.

Why the media (and particularly Wiki

leaks) is important :-

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better

society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and
stronger democracies in all societys 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.
Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in
terms of human life, human rights and economics. As a result of technical
advances particularly the internet and cryptography - the risks of
conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark ruling on
the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We
agree.
We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their
own government honest, but also the people of other countries who are
watching that government through the media.
In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the
worlds publishing media becoming less independent and far less willing
to ask the hard questions of government, corporations and other
institutions. We believed this needed to change.
WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not
motivated by making a profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing
and media organisations around the globe, instead of following the
traditional model of competing with other media. We dont hoard our
information; we make the original documents available with our news
stories. Readers can verify the truth of what we have reported
themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories that are often
picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the
worlds media should work together as much as possible to bring stories
to a broad international readership.

How WikiLeaks
stories :-

verifies

its

news

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted
document through a very detailed examination a procedure. Is it real?
What elements prove it is real? Who would have the motive to fake such a
document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism
techniques as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically
we will do a forensic analysis of the document, determine the cost of
forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the apparent authoring
organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the
document. We may also seek external verification of the document For

example, for our release of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of
journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and observers of the helicopter
attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death certificates,
eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the
truth of the story. Our verification process does not mean we will never
make a mistake, but so far our method has meant that WikiLeaks has
correctly identified the veracity of every document it has published.
Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the
way in which we show the public that our story is authentic. Readers dont
have to take our word for it; they can see for themselves. In this way, we
also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can view
and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well
see an angle or detail in the document that we were not aware of in the
first instance. By making the documents freely available, we hope to
expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want
readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds.

The people behind WikiLeaks :WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. Its probably pretty clear by
now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or
government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early
in WikiLeaks existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves.
WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing
dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in
society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists,
software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.
To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the
evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information.
By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite.
Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the
world without fear or favour.
The great American president Thomas Jefferson once observed that the
price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We believe the journalistic media
plays a key role in this vigilance.

Anonymity for sources :As far as we can ascertain, WikiLeaks has never revealed any of its
sources. We can not provide details about the security of our media
organisation or its anonymous drop box for sources because to do so
would help those who would like to compromise the security of our
organisation and its sources. What we can say is that we operate a
number of servers across multiple international jurisdictions and we we do

not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Anonymization occurs
early in the WikiLeaks network, long before information passes to our web
servers. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts
of our organisation must conspire with each other to strip submitters of
their anonymity.
However, we also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, via
net cafes, wireless hot spots and even the post so that even if WikiLeaks is
infiltrated by an external agency, sources can still not be traced. Because
sources who are of substantial political or intelligence interest may have
their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras,
we suggest that if sources are going to send WikiLeaks something very
sensitive, they do so away from the home and work.
A number of governments block access to any address with WikiLeaks in
the name. There are ways around this. WikiLeaks has many cover
domains, such as https://destiny.mooo.com, that dont have the
organisation in the name. It is possible to write to us or ask around for
other cover domain addresses. Please make sure the cryptographic
certificate says wikileaks.org .

Short essays on how a more inquiring

media can make a difference in the
world :1. The Malaria Case Study: the antidote is good governance born from
a strong media : Malaria is a case study in why good governance not just
good science is the solution to so much human suffering. This year, the
mosquito borne disease will kill over one million people. More than 80% of
these will be children. Great Britain used to have malaria. In North
America, malaria was epidemic and there are still a handful of infections
each year. In Africa malaria kills over 100 people per hour. In Russia,
amidst the corruption of the 1990s, malaria re-established itself. What is
the difference between these cases?
Why does Malaria kill so many people in one place but barely take hold in
another? Why has malaria been allowed to gain a foothold in places like
Russia where it was previously eradicated? We know how to prevent
malaria epidemics. The science is universal. The difference is good
governance.
Put another way, unresponsive or corrupt government, through malaria
alone, causes a childrens "9/11" every day. [1]
It is only when the people know the true plans and behaviour of their
governments that they can meaningfully choose to support or reject them.

Historically, the most resilient forms of open government are those where
publication and revelation are protected. Where that protection does not
exist, it is our mission to provide it through an energetic and watchful
media.
In Kenya, malaria was estimated to cause 20% of all deaths in children
under five. Before the Dec 2007 national elections, WikiLeaks exposed $3
billion of Kenyan corruption, which swung the vote by 10%. This led to
changes in the constitution and the establishment of a more open
government. It is too soon to know if it will contribute to a change in the
human cost of malaria in Kenya but in the long term we believe it may. It
is one of many reforms catalyzed by WikiLeaks unvarnished reporting.
2. The importance of principled leaking to journalism, good government
and a healthy society : Principled leaking has changed the course of
history for the better. It can alter the course of history in the present, and
it can lead us to a better future.
Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the
Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a
meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the
war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has
sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and
the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed,
secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross
dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy
laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the
Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges
against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon Papers
shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to shorten the
war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives.
The power of principled leaking to call governments, corporations and
institutions to account is amply demonstrated through recent history. The
public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions
forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which
official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to
find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to
the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of
embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against
conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government
answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and
undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of
promoting good governance.
Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world,
increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and
increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the
need for openness and transparency is greater than ever. WikiLeaks
interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state

intelligence agencies, as a media publisher WikiLeaks relies upon the

power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and
corrupt governments and corporations to justice.
With its anonymous drop box, WikiLeaks provides an avenue for every
government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who
becomes privy to damning information that their institution wants to hide
but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and
institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the
world. It is telling that a number of government agencies in different
countries (and indeed some entire countries) have tried to ban access to
WikiLeaks. This is of course a silly response, akin to the ostrich burying its
head in the sand. A far better response would be to behave in more
ethical ways.
Authoritarian
governments,
oppressive
institutions
and
corrupt
corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international
diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of
something far stronger - the consciences of the people within them.

3. Should the press really be free?

In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court
ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose
deception in government." We agree.
The ruling stated that "paramount among the responsibilities of a free
press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving
the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers
and foreign shot and shell."
It is easy to perceive the connection between publication and the
complaints people make about publication. But this generates a
perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the invisible. It
overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it
overlooks all those who are emancipated by a climate of free speech.
Such a climate is a motivating force for governments and corporations to
act justly. If acting in a just manner is easier than acting in an unjust
manner, most actions will be just.
Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring
down administrations that rely on concealing reality from their own
citizens.
It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively
addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud,
followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC.
Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.
Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and
turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some

nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population

size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major
power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations.
Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.
Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state
reveals the following properties:

The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to
land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
All
power
issues
from
a
central
committee.
There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There
are
no
juries
and
innocence
is
not
presumed.
Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
There
is
no
freedom
of
speech.
There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women
is
often
forbidden
without
approval.
The
economy
is
centrally
planned.
There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic
communication.
The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told
when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of
Information
Act
is
unimaginable.
Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled
and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or
New Zealand, many of these multi-national corporations have nothing like
their quality of civic freedoms and protections. This is even more striking
when the regional civic laws the company operates under are weak (such
as in West Papua, many African states or even South Korea); there, the
character of these corporate tyrannies is unregulated by their civilizing
surroundings.
Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of
the judicial system, abusive corporations are able to gain control over the
defining element of government the sole right to deploy coercive force.
Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all
inside and outside it. Corporations will behave more ethically if the world
is watching closely. WikiLeaks has exposed unethical plans and behaviour
in corporations and this as resulted in recompense or other forms of
justice forms of justice for victims.
4. Could oppressive regimes potentially come to face legal consequences
as a result of evidence posted on WikiLeaks?
The laws and immunities that are applied in national and international
courts, committees and other legal institutions vary, and we cant
comment on them in particular. The probative value of documents posted
on WikiLeaks in a court of law is a question for courts to decide.

While a secure chain of custody cannot be established for anonymous

leaks, these leaks can lead to successful court cases. In many cases, it is
easier for journalists or investigators to confirm the existence of a known
document through official channels (such as an FOI law or legal discovery)
than it is to find this information when starting from nothing. Having the
title, author or relevant page numbers of an important document can
accelerate an investigation, even if the content itself has not been
confirmed. In this way, even unverified information is an enabling jump-off
point for media, civil society or official investigations. Principled leaking
has been shown to contribute to bringing justice to victims via the court
system.

Does WikiLeaks
whistleblowers?

support

corporate

It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively

addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud,
followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC.
Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.
Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and
turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some
nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population
size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major
power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations.
Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.
Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state
reveals the following properties:

1. The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous
to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to
ownership.
2. All power issues from a central committee.
3. There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate.
There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
4. Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
5. There is no freedom of speech.
6. There is no right of association. Even romance between men and
women is often forbidden without approval.
7. The economy is centrally planned.

8. There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic

communication.
9. The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are
told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the
toilet.
10.
There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of
Information Act is unimaginable.
11.
Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned,
surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or
New Zealand, many of these multi-national corporations have nothing like
their quality of civic freedoms and protections. This is even more striking
when the regional civic laws the company operates under are weak (such
as in West Papua, many African states or even South Korea); there, the
character of these corporate tyrannies is unobscured by their civilizing
surroundings.
Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of
the judicial system, abusive corporations are able to gain control over the
defining element of government the sole right to deploy coercive force.
WikiLeaks endeavors to civilize corporations by exposing uncivil plans and
behavior. Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a
menace to all inside and outside it.

Cases of Wikileaks :1. Julian Paul Assange and

Criminalization of Dissent :-

Case

Study

in

the

Julian Paul Assange (born 3 July 1971, Townsville, Queensland) is

an Australian publisher and journalist, best known as the editor-in-chief of
the whistleblower website WikiLeaks, which he co-founded in 2006 after
an earlier career inhacking and programming. WikiLeaks achieved
particular prominence in 2010 when it published U.S. military and
diplomatic documents leaked by Chelsea Manning. Assange has been
under investigation in the United States since that time. In the same year,
the Swedish Director of Public Prosecution opened a preliminary
investigation into sexual offences that Assange is alleged to have
committed. In 2012, facing extradition to Sweden, he took refuge at
theEmbassy of Ecuador in London. He was granted political
asylum by Ecuador and currently lives in the Embassy.

Early Life - Assange was born in the north Queensland city of

Townsville to Christine Ann Assange (ne Hawkins) (b. 1951), an aspiring
visual artist, and John Shipton, an anti-war activist, builder, and onetime
architecture student. The couple had separated before Assange was born.
When he was a year old, his mother married Richard Brett Assange. an
actor, with whom she ran "a small eccentric theatre company." They
divorced around 1979, and Assange's mother then became involved with
Leif Meynell, also known as Leif Hamilton, a member of the Australian New
Age group The Family, with whom she had a son before the couple broke
up in 1982. Owing partly to his mother's wanderlust, partly to her work,
and partly to her later fear of Meynell-Hamilton, Assange had a nomadic
childhood, and had lived in over thirty different Australian towns from
coast to coast by the time he reached his mid-teens, when he settled with
his mother and half-brother in Melbourne,Victoria.
He attended many schools, including Goolmangar Primary School in New
South Wales (19791983) and Townsville State High School, as well as
being schooled at home. He studied programming, mathematics, and
physics at Central Queensland University (1994), the University of
Melbourne (20032006), and possibly others but did not complete a
degree.
Hacking - In 1987, Assange began hacking under the name Mendax
(from Horace's splendide mendax: "nobly untruthful"). He and two others
known as Trax and Prime Suspectformed an ethical hacking group
they called the International Subversives. During this time he hacked into
the Pentagon and other U.S. Department of Defense facilities, MILNET,
the U.S. Navy, NASA, and Australia's Overseas Telecommunications
Commission; Citibank, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, Panasonic, andXerox;
and the Australian National University, La Trobe University, and Stanford
University's Stanford Research Institute. He is thought to have been
involved in the WANK (Worms Against Nuclear Killers) hack at NASA in
1989, but he does not acknowledge this.
In September 1991, he was discovered hacking into the Melbourne master
terminal
of Nortel,
a Canadian multinational telecommunications corporation. TheAustralian
Federal Police tapped Assange's phone line (he was using a modem),
raided his home at the end of October, and eventually charged him in
1994 with thirty-one counts of hacking and related crimes. Trax and Prime
Suspect were each charged with a smaller number of offences. In
December 1996, he pleaded guilty to twenty-five charges (the other six
were dropped), and was ordered to pay reparations of A$2,100 and
released on a good behaviour bond, avoiding a heavier penalty due to the
perceived absence of malicious or mercenary intent and his disrupted

childhood. After the trial, Assange lived in Melbourne, where he survived

on single-parent income support.
Programming - In 1993, Assange gave technical advice to the Victoria
Police Child Exploitation Unit and assisted with prosecutions. In the same
year he was involved in starting one of the first public internet service
providers in Australia, Suburbia Public Access Network. He began
programming in 1994, authoring the TCP 'half-open' port scanner (a type
of stealth TCP/IP network reconnaissance tool) strobe.c (1995), patches to
the open-source database PostgreSQL (1996), the Usenet caching
software NNTPCache (1996), the Rubberhose deniable encryption system
(1997), which reflected his growing interest in cryptography,and Surfraw,
a command-line interface for web-based search engines (2000). During
this period he also moderated the AUCRYPTO forum, ran Best of Security,
a website "giving advice on computer security" that had 5,000 subscribers
in
1996, and
contributed
research
to Suelette
Dreyfus's Underground (1997), a book about Australian hackers, including
the International Subversives. In 1998, he co-founded the company
Earthmen Technology.
In 1999, he registered the domain leaks.org, but, as he put it, "I didn't do
anything with it." He did, however, publicise a patent granted to
the National Security Agency in August 1999 for voice-data harvesting
technology: "This patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone
calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of
an unaccountable foreign spy agency." This would remain an abiding
concern, to which he returned more than a decade later
in Cypherpunks (2012), foreseeing a dystopian future in which, "the
Internet, our greatest tool for emancipation, has been transformed into
the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen".
Wikileaks - After his period of study at the University of Melbourne,
Assange and others established WikiLeaks in 2006. Assange is a member
of the organisation's advisory board and describes himself as the editor-inchief. From this time on he was continuously on the move, with periods in
Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, France, Germany (20072008);
Austria,
[
Spain, Malaysia, Denmark (2009);
Iceland, the
United
States, Norway, Australia,
Belgium, Sweden, and
the
United
Kingdom (2010). The purpose was to develop the organisations
infrastructure, promote its activities at conferences and through the
media, and further his editorial work.
WikiLeaks posted large amounts of material exposing government and
corporate wrongdoing between 2006 and 2009, attracting various degrees
of publicity. But it was only when it began publishing documents supplied
by Chelsea Manningthat Wikileaks became a household name. The

Manning material included the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), an

edited version of which was viewed 14.5 million times on YouTube over the
next four years, the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war
logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November
2010), and the Guantnamo files (April 2011).
WikiLeaks was criticised by Amnesty International and other human rights
groups for failing to remove all identifying information from the
Afghanistan war logs, beyond those 15,000 reports already
withhold. Despite withholding some 15,000 incident reports for "safety
reasons," thousands of documents in the Wikileaks Afghan war log do
identify Afghans by name, family, location, and ideology. The Taliban
issued a warning to Afghans, alleged in the log to have worked as
informers for the NATO-led coalition, that "US spies" will be hunted down
and punished, indicating they will investigate the named individuals
before deciding on their fate. Asked what he thought of the dangers to
those families created by the release of their personal information,
Assange claimed that many informers in Afghanistan were "acting in a
criminal way" by sharing false information with NATO authorities. He
insisted that any risk to informants lives was outweighed by the overall
importance of publishing the information. Wikileaks took greater care with
the Iraq war logs, and set to do the same with the diplomatic cables until
the cables had became available online, fully unredacted. In response,
WikiLeaks decided on 1 September 2011 to also publish the 251,287
unedited documents after getting the go-ahead from his Twitter followers.
Opinions of Assange at this time were divided. Australian Prime
Minister Julia Gillard described his activities as "illegal," only to be told
that he had broken no Australian law. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and
others called him a "terrorist." Four people, including Tom Flanagan, a
former aide to the Canadian prime minister, called for his assassination or
execution, with two of these later regretting their statements. Support
came from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Russian Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin, and activists and celebrities including Tariq
Ali, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's John Perry Barlow, Pentagon
Papers leaker Daniel
Ellsberg, the Swedish
Pirate
Party's Rick
Falkvinge, Bianca Jagger,Jemima Khan (who has since had a change of
heart), Mary
Kostakidis, Ken
Loach, Michael
Moore, John
Pilger, the Frontline Club's Vaughan Smith, Oliver Stone, and Naomi Wolf.
The annus mirabilis of 2010 culminated with the Sam Adams Award, which
Assange accepted in October, and a string of distinctions in December
the Le
Monde readers'
choice
award
for
person
of
the
year, the Time readers' choice award for person of the year (he was also a
runner-up in Time's overall person of the year award), a deal for his

autobiography worth at least US$1.3 million, and selection by the Italian

edition of Rolling Stone as "rockstar of the year."
The following February he won the Sydney Peace Foundation Gold Medal
for Peace with Justice, previously awarded to only three peopleNelson
Mandela, theDalai Lama, and Buddhist spiritual leader Daisaku Ikeda. Two
weeks later he filed for the trademark "Julian Assange" in Europe, which
was to be used for "Public speaking services; news reporter services;
journalism; publication of texts other than publicity texts; education
services; entertainment services." For several years a member of
the Australian journalists' union and still an honorary member, he picked
up the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in June, and the Walkley
Award for
Most
Outstanding
Contribution
to
Journalism
in
November, having earlier won the Amnesty International UK Media Award
(New Media) in 2009. Three books about him were published during
2011: WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy by David Leigh
and Luke Harding (February); The Most Dangerous Man in the World by
Andrew
Fowler
(April); and Julian
Assange:
The
Unauthorised
Autobiography by Andrew O'Hagan (September).
Financial matters become uncertain after MasterCard and Visa suspended
donations to Wikileaks after 2010. The Wau Holland Foundation received
1.33 million in 2010, 139,000 in 2011 and 69,000 in 2012, of which
WikiLeaks spent 1.45 million over the same period, leaving a balance of
85,000 with Wau Holland as 2013 began. Assange described it as
"economic censorship outside the judicial system" performed by the US.

Case Study For hundreds of years, in order to promote civil liberties, such as free
speech and a free press, courageous dissenters have challenged
governments and other powerful institutions. They have spoken truth to
power.
In many countries, those civil liberties are now threatened by the war on
terror and the associated legislation which has increased police powers
and the numbers of invisible and unaccountable secret service personnel
responsible for a countrys security (Council of Europe, 2011, Head, 2011,
Herman, 2011). Freedoms fought for in the 18th century are being eroded
in the 21st.
In this account of challenges to state power, I will focus on the activities of
the media organization Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange. My
argument is that something odd is going on, Assange continues to be
vilified and threatened not because he engaged in violent and evil acts
but because he exposed them. I also want to pay tribute to some of his
illustrious predecessors and also to demonstrate that while some states

criminalise dissent, others befriend and defend our popular heroes, past
and present. The paper draws on, and develops some of my previous work
in this area (Rees, 2011, 2012).
WikiLeaks: Some of the Precedents In 1702, Daniel Defoe, political satirist and author of such famous novels
as Moll Flanders and Robinson Crusoe, challenged a UK parliamentary bill
that jeopardised the jobs of Nonconformists, threatening them with hefty
fines. Defoe responded to the Bill by writing, The Shortest-Way with the
Dissenters; Or, Proposals for the Establishment of the Church a hoax in the
guise of a High Church official proposing to suppress non conformity by
executing the dissidents.
Most officials said that Defoes pamphlet had gone too far and a warrant
was issued for his arrest. Defoe was charged with seditious libel. He was
tried and sentenced to punitively hefty fines, imprisonment and to three
days in the pillory by the notoriously corrupt and sadistic Judge Salathiel
Lovell (Adams, 2012:iiii). In Newgate prison he wrote the long satirical
poem Hymn to the Pillory which contains the lines,
Extol the justice of the land,
Who punish what they will not understand.
Tell them he stands exalted there
For speaking what they would not hear. (Dafoe, 1703:604)
Legend has it that the publication of the poem and its sale as a pamphlet
caused the pillory to backfire. Rather than humiliating him, the audience
drank to his health and threw flowers instead of the customary harmful
and noxious objects (Dafoe, 2009). This reversal is a frequent phenomena
that Foucault has observed what the violence of order had driven away
would overthrow that order and bring liberty on its return. (Foucault,
1977: 262)
Tom Paines experience is similar. In 1792, following the publication of
Paines The Rights of Man, government ministers established a grand jury
to inquire into threats posed by Paines writings. He was charged with
sedition, a trial date was set and Paine fled to France. In response to the
publication of The Rights of Man, British Ministers used the same types of
arguments about the protection of national security that have energised
widespread debate about Julian Assange.
Paine (1791) had written that the preservers of government secrecy
considered Government as a thing made up of mysteries, which only
themselves understood. In a commentary called Ways and Means of
Improving the Conditions of Europe, Paine (1791) claimed, Every Ministry
acts upon the same idea namely that people must be hoodwinked and
held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other.
Ministers argued for a suspension of habeas corpus on the grounds that
challenges to government showed that a dangerous and treasonable
conspiracy existed. (Campbell, 1807:68). In the words of a Paine
supporter, the supposed conspiracy was subsequently shown to be a
mere fabrication of ministers who had exercised an illegal influence over
the grand jury, that found the indictment against the parties accused.
(Campbell, 1807:68).

In the USA in June 1971 the controversy over Daniel Ellsberg and the
publication of The Pentagon Papers began (Ellsberg, 2003). Former marine
and military analyst Daniel Ellsberg released secret documents about the
conduct of the Vietnam War, including the revelation that top Pentagon
officials thought that the war could not be won and that there would be
many more casualties.
Ellsberg was charged with theft, conspiracy and espionage. In an effort to
demonize him and even to have him killed, Nixon staff broke into
Ellsbergs psychiatrists office and several dozen Cuban commandoes
were flown to Washington with orders to assassinate Ellsberg. They are
reported to have backed down because when the opportunity to kill arose,
the crowd was too large. On account of gross government misconduct, all
the charges against Ellsberg were eventually dropped and in relation to
the case, the US Supreme Court insisted, Only free and unrestrained
press can effectively expose deception in government. (Justice Black in
New York Times Co. V. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)).
In December 2010, in relation to his defence of Julian Assange, Daniel
Ellsberg recalled, I was the first one prosecuted for the charges that
would be brought against him. In his commentary on the arrest and
confinement of US serviceman Bradley Manning, who has allegedly leaked
thousands of classified documents, Ellsberg says, If Bradley Manning did
what hes accused of, then hes a hero of mine and I think he did great
service to this country. I say there should be some secrets, But I also
say we invaded Iraq illegally because of the lack of a Bradley Manning at
that time. (Ellsberg, in Goodman, 2010). Furthermore, Ellsberg expressed
concern for the lives of Julain Assange and Bradley Manning (Council of
Europe, 2011)
Fast forward to August 2012. Australian whistle blower, journalist Julian
Assange has taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, not
because he is wanted in Sweden for questioning about alleged sex
offences but because he has been telling inconvenient truths about Big
Brother who he fears, with ample justification, will extradite him from
Sweden to the USA for his activities in Wikileaks.
Yet a 2006 statement conveys the purpose of Wikileaks: The goal is
justice. The method is transparency. (Pilger, 2010) Consistent with such a
goal, the thousands of Wikileaks revelations have challenged US
governments and their allies and they have reacted angrily, their reaction
has been principally focused on the criminalization of dissent.
State power and attempts to stifle dissent In March 2008, after the release of US embassy cables, the Pentagons
Cyber Counter Intelligence Assessments Branch said it planned to destroy
the feeling of trust in Wikileaks and would do so by threatening Assange
with exposure and criminal prosecution (Pilger, 2011).
Following Wikileaks release in 2008, of a quarter of a million cables
concerning the conduct of the Iraq and Afghan wars and the subsequent
broadcasting of the video collateral damage, which showed the murder
by US marines from a helicopter of a dozen adults and serious injuries to
two children in the streets of Baghdad, US Presidential candidate Mike
Huckerbee said that people such as Assange were guilty of treason and

that anything less than execution was too kind a penalty. (Siddique, &
Weaver, 2010). Sarah Palin recommended that Assange be hunted down
like Bin Laden (Nicholls, 2010) and a panelist on Americas Fox News said
that although he knew it was illegal, he would encourage anyone out
there with a gun to shoot the son of a bitch. (Fowler, & Harley, 2012).
The idea that bullying is an appropriate form of diplomacy has also been
evident in reactions by the UK state towards the Ecuadors granting of
asylum to Assange. The UK government said they were entitled to invade
the Ecuadorian Embassy in order to arrest him (Pearse, 2012). Foreign
Minister William Hague posited a legal obligation regarding the dispatch of
Assange to Sweden (PA/ Huffington Post, 2012) and placed large
numbers of police outside the embassy.
A widespread smear campaign was launched to accuse President Correa
of Ecuador of not practicing what he preached in terms of supporting
freedom of the press, but as Weisbrot (2010, 2012a, 2012b) has
demonstrated, the issues are far more nuanced. As a private citizen the
president is entitled to sue for defamation and did so. Responding in
interview, President Correa also critiqued the role of media monopolization
in opposing social justice to promote sectional interests and astutely
quipped that, if there is no freedom of speech in Ecuador, how could they
communicate the idea that there is no freedom of speech (RT, 2012a).
Not to be outdone by its powerful neighbor, Sweden reprimanded the
Ecuadorian Ambassador in Stockholm (Rees, 2012) although Ecuador was
not questioning the Swedish justice system in the investigation of possible
sex charges against Assange but rather their failure to guarantee
Assanges safety if the US wanted him extradited to the US.
The assumption persisted that powerful countries in alliance with the US
must know more about the rule of law than a South American republic. In
an ethical stance that others could do well to emulate, Ricardo Patino, The
Ecuadorian Ambassador responded by regarding the threats as an
assault on our national sovereignty. Heroically she asserted:
we may be a small country but we are giants in terms of dignity and our
own right to sovereignty. No country can be treated in this manner as if it
were a mere colony, that history has long gone. (in Millar, 2012).
In contrast to this inspiring stance by Ecuador, other governments can be
roundly criticized for failing to appropriately protect and support their
citizens who engage in dissent. In response to threats in the media to
have Assange killed, government and opposition politicians in Australia
stayed silent, as they had done for over five years when the Australian
citizens David Hicks and Mahmdoub Habib, were imprisoned in
Guantanamo Bay. If the US was involved, the Human Rights of Australian
citizens counted for nothing.
There continues to be one rule for the powerful and another for those who
challenge them. Powerful governments and their representatives engage
in unjust wars but their leaders such as former President Bush, former
UK Prime Minister Blair and former Australian Prime Minister Howard are
never brought to account.
Assange has repeatedly stated that he is prepared to by questioned about
the Swedish allegations, from within the Ecuadorian Embassy, but that he

is concerned that should he travel to Sweden, he risks being extradited to

America. There are two sides to the argument concerning the risk of
extradition to the US. Argument claiming a risk of extradition may draw on
declassified diplomatic cables, released under freedom of information
legislation, revealed in the Sydney Morning Herald, which show show that
a criminal investigation into Mr Assange has been underway for more than
a year (Dorling, 2012). A grand jury had been sitting in Virginia the object
of which is to indict Julian Assange under a discredited espionage act
used to arrest peace activists during the first world war, or one of the war
on terror conspiracy statutes that have degraded American justice.
(Pilger, 2011). The diplomatic cables showed that the Australian
government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that,
on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on
the direction and likely outcome of the investigation and reiterated our
request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr
Assange. (Dorling, 2012). These cables also showed that the Australian
government had no objection in principle to the extradition of Assange to
the United States. (Dorling, 2012).
Argument against the risk of extradition points out that according to the
Convention on Extradition between the United States and Sweden.,
extradition will be refused for "political offences" or where the suspect
has reason to fear persecution on account of their membership of a social
group or political beliefs. The treaty also specifies the offences which
qualify for extradition, and espionage is not one of them (Walker, 2012).
Nevertheless, amidst the controversy, Assange along with Bradley
Manning, has joined an impressive history of English speaking dissenters.
The same punitive themes resonate over the centuries. The pillory for
Defoe, grand juries for Paine, Ellsberg and Assange and years of solitary
confinement plus the prospect of long prison sentence for the supposed
key whistle blower Bradley Manning; the criminalization of dissent.
Yet governments continue to defend secret and violent conduct by
parading a convenient Orwellian paradox: we will defend civil liberties by
insisting that in future these liberties are a luxury which even democracies
can no longer afford. As if confirming Tom Paines analysis, they assume
that their work is so complex and mysterious that ordinary citizens need
not know about it and in any case would not understand.
The people supporting Julian Assange fully comprehend the significance of
his activities. They know that civil liberties must be stoutly defended. They
are not a small minority, All the members of the Organization of American
States, except for the US and Canada, have stated their solidarity and
support of Ecuadors decision to grant asylum to Julian Assange at a
meeting of 35-member bloc in Washington. (RT, 2012b). and the
accolades on Assange continue to unfurl. He gains the most votes for
Time Magazines person of the year (Friedman, 2010). He is awarded the
Martha Gellhorn prize for Journalism (Deans, 2011). He addresses the
United Nations, beamed by satellite from within the Ecuadorian Embassy
(AAP, 2012).
One of the western worlds most effective advocates of Human Rights has
also explained the significance of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. In May

2011, on my way to London to present Assange with the Sydney Peace

Foundations gold medal for advocacy of Human Rights, I spent time with
Professor Noam Chomsky in Boston. He penned the following message for
Julian Assange: I would like to thank you for fulfilling your responsibilities
as a member of free societies who have every right to know what their
government is doing.

2. WikiLeaks as a Transparency Hard-Case by Roy

Peled :Transparency is a winning chip in almost any political debate during the
past twenty years. Rarely, if at all, will politicians in a democratic country
be caught speaking against transparency per se, even if their conduct in
terms of implementation of transparency laws might vary greatly. While
the support for transparency laws crosses party lines, it starkly divides
along position lines. The following could have become famous last words
of a political career, had they been uttered by a politician:
Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I
write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders.
You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible
nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how
vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it . . . [f]or political
leaders, its like saying to someone who is hitting you over the head with a
stick, Hey, try this instead, and handing them a mallet.
But instead, they were included by an ex-politician, former British premier,
Tony Blair, in his memoirs.1 Blair reports protesting to civil servants under
him that they should have prevented this legislation knowing what [they]
know.2 But if everybody knows the evils of Freedom of Information
(FOI), how has it gained so much popularity across the world? There is
doubtfully a legislative pandemic similar to FOI. In the past twenty years
approximately eighty countries have joined the fifteen who have older FOI
laws,3 and there are very few democracies without a FOI-like law. What is
the magic power of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that unites
legislatures and brings them to set aside what their Sir Humphries might
have told them and bestow the perils of transparency upon their
legislatures? It is likely the beneficial outcomes attributed to transparency.
Louis Brandeis famous quote about sunlight being the best of
disinfectants4 gave FOIA legislation its name.5 The notion is so
widespread and so deeply rooted that a few politicians dare express their
reluctance. The conviction is so deep that it has swept up large academic
circles and civil society in numerous countries and the international arena.
It is against this backdrop that I believe Mark Fensters eye-opening article
Disclosures Effects: WikiLeaks and Transparency6 should be read and its
contribution assessed. In an unfairly crude nutshell, I believe Fensters
argument can be summed as the following: The alleged benefits of
transparency serve as a moral basis of a large international civic,
academic, legal, and political movement supporting transparency
legislation. The recent, massive disclosure of classified documents by
WikiLeaks is the most significant experiment in transparency we have
witnessed. These releases had minimal beneficial (or hazardous) effect.

Thus, the rug is pulled from under the utilitarian moral basis. If there is
any use in weighing the expected impact of disclosure, such effects need
to be assessed not by courts but by experts in the matters relevant for
each case. Any idea and any movement that becomes too popular and is
left unquestioned risks stagnating and losing sight of its original
justifications. This is why I believe Fensters article does an important
service to the transparency movement. If nothing else, it should leave
proponents of transparency, a group I hope to be worthy of being included
in, more modest in their statements and more sincere in their discourse.
Nevertheless, if such proponents finish reading the article with a sense of
disempowerment or helplessness, I shall attempt in this note to show that
these are unwarranted.
WIKILEAKSA TRIAL IN MEGA-DISCLOSURE During the second half of 2010, WikiLeaks, by now largely embodied in
the persona of Julian Assange, began releasing massive stockpiles of
classified U.S. documents pertaining to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and
later diplomatic correspondence between Washington and its
representatives around the globe. These disclosures sent transparency
advocates across the globe on an emotional roller coaster ride. WikiLeaks
was an organization with a short history of leaking information of public
importance, most notably the collateral murder video. Many, myself
included, viewed the release of this video as the epitome of much-justified
leaks.7 Human lives were taken by what seemed to be a trigger-happy or
negligent team of pilots. Inquiry findings were being concealed from the
public at large, as well as from the loved ones of those killed in the
incident.8 The video uploaded to YouTube was viewed over twelve million
times.9 The story made headlines across the globe.10 While no
disciplinary action has been taken to this day against any of those
involved, the video shed an important light on the specific incident and
raised questions in regard to the conduct of U.S forces in far-away war
zones. Consequently, it also highlighted doubts about the self-handled
investigations of U.S. forces and their public statements on this and
possibly other matters.
Following the collateral murder video leak and other similarly striking
releases in their portfolio, WikiLeaks struck the imagination of
transparency advocates. When the world was waiting for the release of
tens, and then hundreds, of thousands of documents, one could not but
think to herself, if one video caused such outrage, what would disclosure
thousands of folds
more extensive do? The expectations were high, extremely high.
These expectations were the source of what can be fairly described as a
disappointment among transparency circles. In spite of the first
impression made by the sheer volume of disclosed materials, few will
dispute Fensters main observationthese mega-leaks did not do a whole
lot, and what they may have done (namely, according to Fenster, inspire
uprising in Tunisia) could not have been predicted and hence could not
have been included in the cost-benefit calculation of the disclosure.

Comments such as, [b]oosters of WikiLeaks have overestimated the scale

and significance of the leaks13 and many of the cables . . . tell us much
about the private thoughts of dining diplomats, and rather less about
duplicity in policy,14 delivered in the aftermath of the first wave of
excitement following the WikiLeaks disclosure, seem to project a widely
held sentiment. So, does this mean that transparency has failed in its
most important test to date? I argue not. The nature of the organization
and the nature of the disclosed information make it a hard case, and the
theories based on it questionable.
One of Fensters important contributions is identifying, defining and
distinguishing between two very different goals of WikiLeaks and Julian
Assange. The firstto enforce the human right to know;15 the second
to [d]estroy the regimes ability to communicate with itself or degrade
the quality of the information that the regime processes.16 There is some
evidence that for Assange and his organization, the real goal is the latter,
putting into question his intention to contribute to transparency per se.
Take for instance WikiLeaks approach towards transparency in its own
operation: it has shown outrage at newspapers printing files leaked to it
without its authorization.17 It has made its employees sign draconic
confidentiality agreements.18 To host his talk show, Assange has chosen a
TV channel strongly identified with a regime that is far from a model of
openness,19 and as his first interviewee, the head of a radical Islamic
militant organization.20 It does not talk or walk like an organization
committed to transparency, but very much like one committed to radical
resistance as Fenster puts it, employing methods of radical underground
organizations (and some of their characteristics, including some level of a
personality cult). This is not to say that the organization cannot contribute
to promoting transparency or that the information it disclosed lacks public
significance, but it does imply that the public significance of the
information or of the informations disclosure may not be on the top of its
agenda.
The focus on quantity is another characteristic of the State Department
cables disclosure that makes it a questionable candidate upon which to
examine transparencys impact. It was rightfully noted that much of the
public attention initially drawn by the 20102011 WikiLeaks disclosure was
a result of the mind-boggling masses of leaked documents21: ninety
thousand in one case, four hundred thousand in another and two hundred
fifty thousand in yet a third disclosure.22 This message was amplified by
the newspapers cooperating with WikiLeaks23 who must have known that
the headline potential of the cables subject matter was rather limited, so
they preferred to focus on what may have seemed to be the larger
implication of such a massive leak. With some quality, but not enough to
meet expectations, the focus remained on the quantity of the documents
leaked. Three quarters of a million documents! Wow! Or is the quantity
that impressive?
The truth is that for information to give meaningful insight into
government operations, or even merely those of just one government
agency, it would have not only to be numerous times larger, but it would
also have to be a volume no human being or team of human beings can

grasp or process. The National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA) receives an estimated seventy-two million print document pages
a year, which account for 2% of overall government-produced print
documents. Therefore, the number of government document pages
printed per year is approximately 3.6 billion, and 21.6 billion over the sixyear period covered by the WikiLeaks leaked cablesthis is an
underestimate, as the figures are taken from a 2003 study, and the figures
have likely risen since.24 Thus, the released cables do not amount to
more than 0.0025% of the total volume of government documents.
Looking at the file sizes produces even starker outcomes. The two
hundred fifty thousand cables disclosed in one CSV file amount to 1.73
gigabytes. The Bush White House alone, a single government
organization, transferred seventy-seven thousand gigabytes to the NARA
in 2009, upon termination of Presidents Bushs presidency. The cables are
less than 0.0025% of this figure, and this is just one of approximately one
hundred federal government organs. The State Department cables,
therefore are not a very wide window through which to view government.
Such calculations would have been totally immaterial if the disclosures
claim to fame focused on content of the information, but where quantity
was chosen as the name of the game, WikiLeaks also fails. Much can be
learned from the cablegate affair. The government will likely change
much of its cross-agency information-sharing protocol, as well as its
restrictions on access to confidential information. Diplomats will likely be
more cautious when putting their thoughts in writing. These are responses
more to the perceived threats of future leaks than to actual harm caused
by the recent ones. Does the public stand to gain significantly from this
windfall of unmediated, unprocessed incidental information? Fenster
seems successful in showing that it is doubtful.
Many have compared the Wikileaks disclosures to the Pentagon Papers
affair. Not only Fenster, but Daniel Ellsberg himself, the hero of the
Pentagon Papers, as well as Julian Assange, have promoted the
comparison. However, the two incidents are worlds apart. The Pentagon
papers were indeed a leak of official documents of unprecedented
magnitude: seven thousand pages, including four thousand classified
documents, were brought to daylight. Yet, they were not incidental files
one individual happened to have access to. They were leaked by a person
innately involved in their collection and processing. These documents
were part of the Pentagon Papers because they were found to contribute
to the understanding of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This leak had a
significant effect. Unlike WikiLeaks disclosures, the Pentagon Papers
revealed to the public information that dramatically departed from what
was common knowledge at the time. People were surprised. People were
outraged. Polls from 1971 showed that a vast majority of the public
thought The New York Times and other newspapers did the right thing by
publishing the papers, which many believed to show that the Johnson
Administration deceived the public regarding the escalation of the war.25
Support for the war had been declining for years, and it is hard to assess
the contribution made to this process by the publication of the Pentagon

Papers. Yet, there seems to be no question they contributed significantly

to disillusionment among the American public in regard to its government.
It is not difficult to come up with other examples where transparency had
clear-cut effects. A recent example could be the Members of Parliament
Expense Scandal in United Kingdoms House of Commons. At the least it
had a life-changing effect on the speaker of the house, six cabinet
members, and no fewer than thirteen house members, who had their
political career come to an end over the scandal.26 In this affair, millions
of expense claims and relevant correspondence were published following
a Freedom of Information campaign and a leak to the press.27 It caused
profound changes in the way the House handles expense claims and one
cannot question that it will have a serious effect on the future expense
claiming by Members of Parliament. Furthermore, public trust in U.K.
politicians, low to begin with, plummeted following the scandal.28 It is
important to mention that one of the arguments against disclosure of
expense claims, albeit awkward, was that any allegations made that MPs
claim excessive levels of allowances can damage the trust in which the
public holds Parliament, politicians and public office-holders in general.29
This prophecy was realized. Transparency in this case had far-reaching,
but also predictable, effects.
THE ERRORS OF MEGA-DISCLOSURE The Torture Memos30 and the Abu Ghraib photos31 are just two other
examples of disclosures that had and still have a substantial effect on
public affairs. Disclosure required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission from public corporations have clear effects on their practice
and it is unthinkable, some eighty years after they have become law in
the U.S., to give up on them. Consumer disclosure acts32 affected
behavior of both consumers and producers, and the list goes on. Is this to
say that the modest effects of WikiLeaks, relative to the expected effects,
have nothing to teach us? Not at all.
WikiLeaks was not just another disclosure. It was an event, which
transparency advocates and the media together turned into a
transparency litmus test, and as Fenster shows, it did not live up to the
expectations surrounding the hype around its publication, which is a
massive rebuttal to the above examples. While I believe we have shown
that at times transparency has profound and publicly beneficial effects,
this is not always the case. A short description of another telling story is
necessary before we reach some conclusions.
The Data.gov website is a flagship Administration initiative intended to
allow the public to easily find, access, understand, and use data that are
generated by the Federal government.33 It is one of the major steps
taken by the Obama Administration to demonstrate its commitment to
transparency in government. It is a central government repository for
agencies data.34 When launched in May 2009, it received loud applause
and stirred excitement among transparency advocates that declared it to
be no less than a dramatic breakthrough in the role of government.35
The site initiators believed it ha[d] the potential to generate public value
by driving better governance through greater accountability,
effectiveness, and efficiency in Federal government operations.36 The

site sees [p]ublic participation and collaboration [as] key to the success
of Data.gov.37 To reach these noble goals through Data.gov and other
transparency focused sites,38 the government allocated as much as
thirty-four million dollars in 2010 to the cause.39 It was so proud of its
new effort that it also launched an international initiative to spread the
Data.gov message.40 And indeed it took no more than two years for
transparency enthusiasts around the globe to push thirty governments to
create similar sites,41 and the number is on the rise.42 Data.gov itself
grew at an impressive pace from forty-seven datasets on the day of its
launch to nearly four hundred thousand in two years.43 All the apparent
differences aside, the hype around Data.gov among transparency
proponents resembled that around WikiLeaks.
But sadly, the initial excitement over Data.gov is not supported by, well,
the data. In the past year, the site enjoyed a surprisingly low number of
unique visitors, averaging less than thirty thousand per month.44 During
the same time Britains Data.gov.uk suffered a miserable usage of less
than two thousand unique visitors per month. They seem to have been
ignored by all but a small minority of interested groups and
individuals.45 Thirty-four million dollars were spent on Data.gov and a
handful of other transparency sites in fiscal year 2010.46 Is making the
government accountable to a few tens of thousands of people worth that
much? These numbers were among the reasons that brought Congress to
consider turning the lights off on these sites.47 Although this never
happened,48 more and more people feel comfortable raising doubts as to
the usefulness of open-government efforts.
In spite of apparent differences, there are many similarities between
WikiLeaks and Data.gov websites. Both generated a lot of excitement,
which at least in part was a result of their use of modern technologies and
the massive amount of information they shed light on. Both happily
engaged in a numbers game to create this excitement. Both depart from
the more traditional approach to transparency that developed through the
implementation of FOIA. Both created a challenge and a significant burden
for government agenciesWikileaks by forcing them to invest more in
data security, Data.gov sites by requiring investments of millions of
dollars in data management and IT infrastructure. Unlike WikiLeaks, the
efforts of the people behind Data.gov are geared towards bettering the
Government and not putting sticks in the wheels of its policy. Yet like
WikiLeaks, the opengovernment data movement has a hard time showing
any measurable proof it fulfills transparency proponents hopes.
Thus, Mark Fensters argument is again proven valid, even in a more
normative environment than that offered by WikiLeaks. While some
disclosures of carefully picked documents can reasonably be expected to
have certain effects, large-scale transparency has not proven to have any
significant effect. Are transparency advocates thus ripped off in their most
powerful campaign ammunition? I think this is an erred conclusion, for
three reasons.
First, intended or not, Fenster actually provides us with a strong legal
argument in favor of transparency. As he notes, the inability to predict
transparencys effects applies to beneficial, as well as hazardous,

effects.50 This may or may not mean that courts are ill-fitted to balance
the interests raised in any FOIA case,51 but it surely means that the cases
in which such balancing is required are much less common than is
perceived. FOIA and practically all similar laws around the world are based
on an assumption of openness. The claimed beneficial effects of disclosure
need not be balanced at all, unless alleged threats of disclosure can be
proven. Balancing should take place only where the catastrophic
consequences of disclosure are probable and inevitable.52 If WikiLeaks,
the Pentagon Papers, and scores of other cases have shown us anything, it
is that the government resorts to presenting such threatening scenarios
as a matter of convenience, but again and again, when its position is
rejected by the court, its predictions are proven groundless.
Second, and more importantly, mega-disclosures like those practiced by
WikiLeaks and, by very different means, the various Data.gov sites are a
new phenomenon. It is too early to judge their effect not only because not
enough time has passed, but also because we are all still in the process of
learning how to make the most out of them. Never in the past had the
press, civil society, corporations, and individuals had to cope with such a
torrent of information. This new reality requires information consumers to
acquire and practice a whole new set of skills. It requires information
distributors to implement new policies. WikiLeaks and Data.gov have
made it clear that simply dumping information in the public commons
does not achieve transparency. In addition to access to information, you
need an ability to process the information, and the ability and incentives
to act on the processed information.54
Third, and most importantly, the beneficial effects of transparency are far
from its only claim to fame. They are often seen as the most effective
argument in convincing politicians and other decision-makers to move
ahead with transparency plans, but they are not necessarily the primary
or the morally strongest reasons to promote transparency in a democratic
society. Information generated by the government is public property. It is
created with the publics funds and assumingly for the publics benefit.
Members of the public as owners of the information should have access to
it, just as any owner may access his property, unless other compelling
interests prevent such access. Transparency is seen as a branch of
freedom of expression. People often choose to speak without expecting to
succeed in making any beneficial impact. They are still practicing their
right to freedom of expression, and they may well require information to
be able to express themselves. Information is required for an individual to
understand the world in which she operates. This is an aspect of her
personal autonomy and her ability to operate freely within society and
interact with it.
CONCLUDING REMARKS Transparencys popularity among civic groups and engaged citizens has
turned it into a valuable political token. It has also shallowed much of the
discussion on the subject, hushed critics, and created a false impression
thattransparency in itself is a magic cure to many of societys diseases. It
might have inadvertently delayed the development of policies, tools, and
approaches that are necessary to complement transparency if

transparency is to fulfill the high hopes we put in it. If WikiLeaks was a trial
in information dumping and its effect, it failed. Merely dumping masses of
information does not do much. It was an error to think it would. But with
more sophisticated and well-educated information analysts, mediators,
and consumers, the results can be very different.
Mark Fenster rightly argues that much of what transparency was said to
be, it is not, or at least we cannot prove it is. He serves transparency
advocates well by calling on them to justify transparency, sending us to
look back at its moral basis regardless of its effects. We should, however,
insist on existing evidence of its positive effects and on the development
of the complementary tools and skills needed to harvest its potential.
As I have attempted to show, transparency is not untouched by Fensters
challenge, but it rises to it. It remains a pillar of democracy without which
no human rights system is complete, and no society can be considered
free.

3. Kristinn Hrafnsoon :This is an Icelandic name. The last name is a patronymic, not a family
name; this person is properly referred to by the given name Kristinn.
Kristinn Hrafnsson (born 25 June 1962) is an Icelandic investigative
journalist and spokesperson for the WikiLeaksorganisation.
He has worked at various newspapers in Iceland and hosted the television
programme Komps on the Icelandic channelSt 2, where he and his
team often exposed criminal activity and corruption in high places. In
February 2009, while investigating the connection between Iceland's
Kaupthing Bank and Robert Tchenguiz, the programme was taken off air
and Kristinn and his crew were sacked.
Shortly thereafter, Kristinn was hired by RV, the Icelandic National
Broadcasting Service. In August 2009, he was working on a story about
Kaupthing's loan book which had just been published on the WikiLeaks
webpage, when the bank got a gag order issued by the Reykjavik sheriff's
office, banning RV from reporting on the loan book, which could be
publicly accessed online via WikiLeaks. The prohibition order was
withdrawn later.
Kristinn was dismissed from RV (his contract was not renewed) in July
2010 and has since worked as an independent journalist, collaborating
with WikiLeaks and stepping up as the organisation's spokesman as
founder Julian Assange withdrew from the limelight. He has called the
December 2010 attacks on WikiLeaks by MasterCard, Visa, and others a
"privatisation of censorship". In 2012, in his capacity as WikiLeaks
spokesman, he defended the organisation on the website of Swedish

Television against what he described as a smear campaign by the Swedish

tabloidExpressen.
Kristinn has been named Icelandic journalist of the year three times, in
2004, 2007 and 2010.

4.United States Diplomatic Cables Leak :The United States diplomatic cables leak, widely known as Cablegate,
began on Sunday, 28 November 2010. when WikiLeaksa non-profit
organization that publishes submissions from anonymous whistleblowers
began releasing classified cables that had been sent to the U.S. State
Department by 274 of its consulates, embassies, anddiplomatic
missions around the world. Dated between December 1966 and February
2010, the cables contain diplomatic analysis from world leaders, and the
diplomats' assessment of host countries and their officials. According to
WikiLeaks, the 251,287 cables consist of 261,276,536 words, making
Cablegate the world's largest release of classified material.
The first document, the so-called Reykjavik 13 cable, was released by
WikiLeaks on 18 February 2010, and was followed by the release of State
Department profiles of Icelandic politicians a month later. Later that
year, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief, reached an agreement
with media partners in Europe and the United States to publish the rest of
the cables in redacted form, removing the names of sources and others in
vulnerable positions. On 28 November, the first 220 cables were published
under this agreement by El Pas (Spain), Der Spiegel (Germany), Le
Monde (France), The Guardian (United Kingdom) and The New York
Times (United States). WikiLeaks had planned to release the rest over
several months, and as of 11 January 2011, 2,017 had been published.
The remaining cables were published in September 2011 after a series of
events compromised the security of a WikiLeaks file containing the cables.
This included WikiLeaks volunteers placing an encrypted file containing all
WikiLeaks data online as "insurance" in July 2010, in case something
happened to the organization. In February 2011David Leigh of The
Guardian published the encryption passphrase in a book; he had received
it from Assange so he could access a copy of the Cablegate file, and
believed the passphrase was a temporary one, unique to that file. In
August 2011, a German magazine, Der Freitag, published some of these
details, enabling others to piece the information together and decrypt the
Cablegate files. The cables were then available online, fully unredacted. In
response, WikiLeaks decided on 1 September 2011 to publish all 251,287
unedited documents.

The publication of the cables was the third in a series of U.S. classified
document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following
the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents
leak in October. Over 130,000 of the cables are unclassified, some
100,000 are labeled "confidential", around 15,000 have the higher
classification "secret", and none are classified as "top secret" on
the classification scale. Reactions to the leak in 2010 varied. Western
governments expressed strong disapproval, while the material generated
intense interest from the public and journalists. Some political leaders
referred to Assange as a criminal, while blaming the U.S. Department of
Defense for security lapses. Supporters of Assange referred to him in
November 2010 as a key defender of free speech and freedom of the
press. Reaction to the release in September 2011 of the unredacted
cables attracted stronger criticism, and was condemned by the five
newspapers that had first published the cables in redacted form in
November 2010.
Background - In June 2010, the magazine Wired reported that the U.S.
State Department and embassy personnel were concerned thatChelsea
(then known as Bradley) Manning, a United States Army soldier charged
with the unauthorized download of classified material while stationed in
Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as
inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000
classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".
However, by June 2010, The Guardian had been offered "half a million
military dispatches from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. There
might be more after that, including an immense bundle of confidential
diplomatic cables", and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian had
contacted Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, to see if he would be
interested in sharing the dissemination of the information.
Manning was suspected to have uploaded all that was obtained to
WikiLeaks, which chose to release the material in stages so as to have the
greatest possible impact.
According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis",
denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had
been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of
Defense's classified version of the civilian internet. More than three million
U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this
network. Documents marked "top secret" are not included in the system.
Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide
audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the 11 September
attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since
gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed. More

specifically, the diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence

communities would be able to do their jobs better with this easy access to
analytic and operative information. A spokesman said that in the previous
weeks and months additional measures had been taken to improve the
security of the system and prevent leaks.
On
22
November,
an
announcement
was
made
via
WikiLeaks's Twitter feed that the next release would be "7 the size of
theIraq War Logs". U.S. authorities and the media had speculated, at the
time, that they could contain diplomatic cables. Prior to the expected leak,
the government of the United Kingdom (UK) sent a DA-Notice to UK
newspapers, which requested advance notice from newspapers regarding
the expected publication. Index on Censorship pointed out that "there is
no obligation on [the] media to comply". Under the terms of a DA-Notice,
"[n]ewspaper editors would speak to [the] Defence, Press and
Broadcasting Advisory Committee prior to publication". The Guardian was
revealed to have been the source of the copy of the documents given
to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from
obtaining any injunction against its publication. The Pakistani
newspaper Dawn stated that the U.S. newspapers The New York
Times and The Washington Post were expected to publish parts of the
diplomatic cables on 28 November, including 94 Pakistan-related
documents.
On 26 November, Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State,
via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, inviting them to "privately nominate any
specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the
publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk
of harm that has not already been addressed". Harold Koh, the Legal
Adviser of the Department of State, rejected the proposal, stating: "We will
not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination
of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials". Assange
responded by writing back to the U.S. State Department that "you have
chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the
supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to
suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal
behaviour". Ahead of the leak, United States Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and other American officials contacted governments in several
countries about the impending release.
Release
November 2010 release of redacted cables -

The five newspapers that had obtained an advance copy of all leaked
cables began releasing the cables on 28 November 2010, and WikiLeaks

made the cables selected by these newspapers and redacted by their

journalists available on its website. "They are releasing the documents we
selected", Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an
interview.
WikiLeaks aims to release the cables in phases over several months due
to their global scope and significance. The first batch of leaks released
comprised 220 cables. Further cables were subsequently made available
on the WikiLeaks website. The full set of cables published by WikiLeaks
can be browsed and searched by a variety of websites, see Sites offering
search capabilities.
Contents - The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in
detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274
embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The
diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and
revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S.
embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in
the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament,
actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the
world,
dealings
between
various
countries,
U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts,
U.S.
support
of
dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
The leaked cables revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain
eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in apparent violation of international
treaties prohibiting spying at the UN.
Coverage - The Guardian released its coverage of the leaked cables in
numerous articles, including an interactive database, starting on 28
November.
Der Spiegel also released its preliminary report, with extended coverage
promised for the next day. Its cover for 29 November was also leaked with
the initial report.
The New York Times initially covered the story in a nine-part series
spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the
other outlets. The New York Times was not originally intended to receive
the leak, allegedly due to its unflattering portrayal of the site's founder,
but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation
while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs.
The Washington Post reported that it also requested permission to see the
documents, but was rejected for undisclosed reasons.

El Pas released its report saying there was an agreement between the
newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant"
documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those
documents that primarily relate to its own country.
Several of the newspapers coordinating with WikiLeaks have published
some of the cables on their own websites.
The Lebanese daily newspaper Al-Akhbar published about 183 cables on 2
December 2010.
The Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Aftonbladet started
reporting on the leaks early December. In Norway Verdens Gang (VG)
brought the first leaks concerning USA and the Norwegian government on
7 December.
Aftenposten, a Norwegian daily newspaper, reported on 17 December
2010 that it had gained access to the full cable set of 251,287
documents. While it is unclear how it received the documents, they were
apparently not obtained directly from WikiLeaks. Aftenposten started
releasing cables that are not available in the official WikiLeaks
distribution. As of 5 January 2011, it had released just over one hundred
cables unpublished by WikiLeaks, with about a third of these related toSri
Lanka, and many related to Norway.
Politiken, a Danish daily newspaper, announced on 8 January 2011 that it
had obtained access to the full set of cables.
NRC, a Dutch daily newspaper, and RTL Nieuws, a Dutch television news
service, announced on 14 January 2011 that they had gained access to
the
about
3000
cables
sent
from
The
Hague,
via
Aftenposten. NOS announced on the same day that it had obtained these
same cables from Wikileaks.
Die Welt, a German daily newspaper, announced on 17 January 2011 that
they had gained access to the full set of cables, via Aftenposten.
Australian-based Fairfax Media obtained access to the cables under a
separate arrangement. Fairfax newspapers began releasing their own
stories based on the leaked cables on 7 December 2010. Unlike other
newspapers given access, Fairfax originally had not posted any of the
original cables online, citing the need to maintain its competitive
advantage over other Australian newspapers. However, on 16 December
2010, Fairfax reversed its position, and began publishing the cables used
in its stories.

The Russian weekly newspaper Russky Reporter ( '') has

published a large number of cables, both in English and in Russian
translation.
The Cuban government-run website Razones de Cuba started publishing
Spanish translations of WikiLeaks documents on 23 December 2010.
The Costa Rican newspaper La Nacin announced on 1 March 2011 it had
received 827 cables from WikiLeaks which it started publishing the next
day. 764 of these were sent from the U.S. Embassy in San Jos while 63
were sent from other embassies and deal with Costa Rican affairs.
CNN was originally supposed to receive an advance copy of the
documents as well, but did not after it refused to sign
a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks. The Wall Street Journal also
refused advance access, apparently for similar reasons as CNN.
The Ecuadorian newspaper El Universo started releasing 343 cables
related to the Ecuadorian government or institutions on 6 April 2011. The
publication was done the day after the Spanish newspaper El
Pas published a cable in which the ambassador Heather Hodges showed
concerns regarding corruption in the Ecuadorian National Police, especially
of Gral. Jaime Hurtado Vaca, former Police commander. The ambassador
was later declared persona non grata and requested to leave the country
as soon as possible.
September 2011 release of unredacted cables In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an
encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full Cablegate file. In
February 2011, shortly before Domscheit-Berg's book appeared, he
and Luke Harding, another Guardian journalist, published WikiLeaks: Inside
Julian Assange's War on Secrecy via Guardian Books. In it, Leigh revealed
the encryption key Assange had given him.
It is not yet clear how or when the encrypted file itself was released
inadvertently. So far it appears that it was released to bittorrent as part of
a mirror file for the WikiLeaks web server on which it had been placed to
aid in transferring the file from WikiLeaks to Leigh, and either not removed
due to oversight, or mirrored by other WikiLeaks staff before it could be
removed. The password leaked in Leigh's book is not the password for the
whole of the "insurance file" which WikiLeaks published in a separate
event. It also remains unclear if during the transfer process the file was
exposed publicly under the assumption that it is acceptable to transfer an
encrypted file in plain sight so long as the key remains secret.

On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article

about it, and while it left out the crucial details, there was enough to allow
others to piece the information together. The story was also published in
the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information the same day. By 1
September, the encrypted Cablegate file had been decrypted and
published by a Twitter user, and WikiLeaks therefore decided to publish all
the diplomatic cables unredacted. Their reasoning, according to Glenn
Greenwald in Salon, was that government intelligence agencies were able
to find and read the files, while ordinary people-including journalists,
whistleblowers, and those directly affected-were not. WikiLeaks took the
view that sources could better protect themselves if the information were
equally available.[7] The archive includes 34,687 files on Iraq, 8,003 on
Kuwait, 9,755 on Australia, and 12,606 on Egypt. According to The
Guardian, it includes more than 1,000 cables containing the names of
individual activists, and around 150 identifying whistleblowers.
Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had
assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to
him. The Guardianwrote that the decision to publish the cables was made
by Assange alone, a decision that it-and its four previous media partnerscondemned. The partners released a joint statement saying the
uncensored publication put sources at risk of dismissal, detention and
physical harm, while other commentators have agreed with WikiLeaks'
rationale for the release of unredacted cables. Leigh was nevertheless
criticized by several commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, who
called the publication of the password "reckless", arguing that, even if it
had been a temporary one, publishing it divulged the type of passwords
WikiLeaks was using. WikiLeaks said it was pursuing pre-litigation action
against The Guardian for an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.
Consequences of the release An investigation into two senior Zimbabwe army commanders who
communicated with US Ambassador Charles A. Ray was launched, with the
two facing a possible court martial. On September 14 the Committee to
Protect Journalists said that an Ethiopian journalist named in the cables
was forced to flee the country but WikiLeaks accused the CPJ of distorting
the situation "for marketing purposes". Al Jazeera replaced its news
director, Wadah Khanfar, on September 20 after he was identified in the
cables. The naming of mainland China residents reportedly "sparked an
online witch-hunt by Chinese nationalist groups, with some advocating
violence against those now known to have met with U.S. Embassy staff."

5. We Steal Secrets : The Case Story of Wikileaks :We

Steal
Secrets:
The
Story
of
WikiLeaks is
a
2013
American independent documentary film about the organizationstarted

by Julian Assange, and people involved in the collection and distribution of

secret information and media bywhistleblowers. It covers a period of
several decades, and includes considerable background material.
Synopsis - The 1989 WANK worm attack on NASA computers, originally
thought to threaten the Galileo spacecraft, is depicted as the work of
Australian hackers, including Assange. The founding of Wikileaks in 2006
is followed by coverage of several key events: its 20092010 leaks about
the Icelandic financial collapse, Swiss banking tax evasion, Kenyan
government corruption, toxic-waste dumping, Chelsea (formerly Bradley)
Manning's communications with Adrian Lamo, uploads to Wikileaks of
the Iraq and Afghanistan war documents, diplomatic cables, and video,
exposure to the FBI by Lamo, and the accusations of sexual assault made
against Assange. Interview subjects include Julian Assange, Chelsea
Manning, Heather Brooke, James Ball, Donald Bostom, Nick Davies, Mark
Davis, Jason Edwards, Michael Hayden, Adrian Lamo, J. William Leonard,
Gavin MacFadyen, Smri McCarthy, Iain Overton, and Vaughan Smith.
Production - Assange did not participate in the production, so previously
recorded interviews were used. Manning was also unavailable. John Young
and Deborah Natsios of Cryptome contributed contacts and research
material, but after lengthy negotiations, ultimately declined to be
interviewed for the film. About 35 minutes of chat animations, headline
effects, and other visual effects were designed and rendered
by Framestore in New York.
Release - The film previewed in December 2012, and debuted January 21, 2013 at
the Sundance Film Festival. It was scheduled to be released May 24, 2013 in New York and Los
Angeles, and widely in June.

Reception - We Steal Secrets has been widely praised by film reviewers,

with film review site Rotten Tomatoes noting that 95% of critics have
reviewed the film positively. Nonetheless it has been criticized by
journalists
and
professors
including Chris
Hedges, Alexa
O'Brien, and Robert Manne who was interviewed in the documentary.
Hollywood Reporter writer David Rooney found the film to be a
"tremendously fascinating story told with probing insight and
complexity". David Edelstein of New York Magazine wrote that the film is a
"twisty, probing, altogether enthralling movie," adding that it is "a
documentary with the overflowing texture of fiction." Steven Rea of
the Philadelphia Inquirer, who calls the film "riveting and revelatory,"
notes that the director "lines up an A-list of experts, observers, cohorts,
and adversaries, tracing how Assange's and Manning's worlds collide virtually, and violently - and how a noble quest for transparency and truth
turned into a tale of conspiracy and paranoia."
Several reviewers have noted that despite the film's strengths, some flaws
remain. In the UK Guardian, Jeremy Kay gave the film 3 of 5 stars,
asserting that, although the film explored facts and themes thoroughly

and thoughtfully, and provided "insightful commentary" from government,

media, and WikiLeaks insiders, the film revealed little about Assange, who
remained unavailable to be interviewed by the director. Kay wrote, "It's
probably too soon for a meaningful perspective on the WikiLeaks
saga." In Variety, Peter Debruge found the film "dramatically lacking" a
central core conflict, especially when compared with Gibney's previous
work. Like Kay in The Guardian, Debruge found Manning's story the most
compelling part of the film.
We Steal Secrets was among five films nominated for the
2013 International Documentary Association ABC News Videosource
Award.
Criticism - Robert Manne, who was interviewed in the film, considered it
to be a "superficially impressive but ultimately myopic film". He detailed
his criticism in The Monthly.Based on this article Manne and Gibney had a
written debate.
In his Truthdig review, journalist Chris Hedges called the film "agitprop for
the security and surveillance state," adding that it "dutifully peddles the
states contention that WikiLeaks is not a legitimate publisher and
that Chelsea Manning, who passed half a million classified Pentagon and
State Department documents to WikiLeaks, is not a legitimate whistleblower." Salon reporter Andrew O'Hehir claimed that many of Hedges's
statements about the film are patently false, and that his "alarming
accusations and peculiar misreadings of the film" are "an attempt to
attack Gibneys integrity and sabotage his reputation."
WikiLeaks published a transcript of the film, annotated with comments,
asserted to be corrections, by WikiLeaks. Director Gibney responded that
the transcript was incomplete, lacked Private Manning's words, and was
from an unreleased, incomplete version of the film. Later, Gibney
published his own annotated version of the WikiLeaks transcript,
responding to the criticisms and assertions made by Assange and his
supporters. According to the film's executive producerJemima Khan, We
Steal Secrets was "denounced before seeing" by Assange, who tweeted
"an unethical and biased title in the context of pending criminal trials. It is
the prosecutions claim and it is false." Khan asserted the title was based
on a quote in the film "from Michael Hayden, a former director of the CIA,
who told Gibney that the US government was in the business of 'stealing
secrets' from other countries".

6. Case study of the Wikileaks Whistleblower by R.

Lennon. On December 10, 2010 :-

Introduction - Wikileaks.org is a whistleblowing website that was

founded by Julian Assange[1]
in 2006. Its purpose was to provide whistleblowers with a medium to
publish their case to the general public and preserve their identity.
Wikileaks.org made a huge breakthrough when they released video
footage[2] showing a US military helicopter squad engaging over a dozen
suspects in Iraq, including two news staff, and the wounding of children.
The video was not available under the Freedom of information Act in the
United States and instead was decrypted from an anonymous
whistleblower by Wikileaks.org and uploaded.
Since then Wikileaks has sourced hundreds of thousands of confidential
ca-bles from the US embassy, and has published them at various stages.
The main bulk of cables released revealed many unethical issues with iraq
war, especially regarding the civilian death tolls[3]. Very recently
Wikileaks has published an- other batch of cables, with an emphasis on
controversial diplomatic strategies, including the spying of UN o_cials[4].
Overall Wikileaks has revealed controver- sies in; dealing with prisoners in
Guantanamo bay, the Afghan war, international espionage, the 9-11
attacks on the World Trade Centre amongst many others[5].
The reactions to Wikileaks have been strong on both sides. The Guardian
has defended its publishing of cables from Wikileaks in what it calls a
"respon- sible manner", pointing out that most of those cables are actually
more widely published and less confidential than suggested[6, 7]. The US
government has repeatedly criticised the release of the cables, as Hillary
Clinton described it as an "attack on the international community, the
alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that
safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity" while
defending the US State department[8].
The debate around Wikileaks has been around two conicting rationale regarding the common good of the public. One is that the people have a
right to know about what is happening in the world and in their country,
given through the freedom of information type acts of their legislations.
The other is that the current practices for diplomatic negotiations, forming
international relations and other government activities are often very
sensitive processes and need a high level of con_dentiality and security to
work. To illustrate this point, the US State Department advised Julian
Assange that the leaks will endager lives, including military operations[9].
Julian Assange was questioned whether he should "censor any names that
[he feels] might land people in danger from repraisals". His answer was
clear that there was no allegation of any harm caused by his leaks, even
from the Pentagon.
Those leading the two sides of the debate are using some interesting
tactics to deal with the other, in a moral principle to protect the common
good. Wikileaks leaked a document revealing US tactics to neutralize
Wikileaks, including a po- tential hacking of Wikileaks[11]. Wikileaks has
actually been hacked many times by mass tra_c since, and lost its DNS
provider as a result [12]. Some govern- ment departments have banned
Wikileaks in their countries, such as Australia, which later removed its
ban, and the United States Military[13, 14]. Julian Assange has had to take

very defensive positions against the aggressive pressure faced[15],

including Interpol for rape charges. The US has been introducing a new bill
to deal with whistleblowers fairly, paving a secure pathway that would
bypass Wikileaks.
Discussion - It is clear that there is a need to resolve this debate. On a
global scale, to ethically determine who is in the right, the issues of
whistleblowing, journalism, media, law, national and international security,
transparency, corruption at up- per levels, classifying documents and a
large number of other rationale need to be broken down. It is intuitive to
see Wikileaks on a higher philosophical level, regarding the common good,
morality, law and reason. However, any ethical answer on the debate of
Wikileaks will itself be open to interpretation, and the broader the context
the broader the door for interpretation.
To begin the debate, it is recommended to break down the arguement into
its components; the issue of whether the sources were right to
whistleblow and give the cables to wikileaks, whether wikileaks had a
right to publish those cables. The section regarding whistleblowing is
clearly related to computer ethics, since it considers the access and
copying of the cables. The section regarding wikileaks publication is
clearly related to media and publication rights under the freedom of
information acts in each country concerned.
This case study will analyze the whistleblowing case of the 250,000 US
em-bassy cables, to illustrate the logic and reasoning that is
recommended in dealing with the debate and can be applied to the other
areas. To do this, a top-down methodology by Li_ck has been
recommended in analysing the ethical scenario [17] as follows; list the
participants, reduce list by simplyfying assumptions, le-gal considerations,
list options of the participants, justi_cation for actions, key statements,
questions raised, and related issues. The arguement will follow a dialectic
ow between the two sides.
a) participants of the US state Embassy whistleblowing
_ US State Department.
_ Private Bradley Manning.
_ Julian Assange/Wikileaks, New York Times, The Guardian, Le
Monde,
El Pas and Der Spiegel publishers and the media.
_ Siprnet users.
_ US Military.
_ Personnel named in the cables with controversial or unethical
behaviour,
in the US and internationally.
_ Adrian Lamo.
b) reducing list - Siprnet users, of which there are up to 3 million US
citizens with access.
Eth-ically many of these other users were in the same position as the
source of the Wikileaks whistleblowing believed to be Private Manning.
They are relevant to the case, but the ethics of whistleblowing applies the

same to the source as to others with access. That is it doesn't matter who
whistleblowed as much as whether it was right to. So we assume the right
of whistleblowing is content based and not personally based so we can
assume the other Siprnet users are not to be analyzed in this ethical case.
Adrian Lamo reported Manning as the source to the Military. His action
does question the reasoning behind the whistleblowing but is in line with
the US Military's decisions, and it is assumed Adrian Lamo acted for the
Military's interests and is taken into account when we analyse the US
Military's position.
Bradley Manning will be identified as a single participant due to the
charges from the US State Dept speci_cally.
Is the US Military in line with the US State Department? Accountability for
anyone following procedure goes directly to those in charge. It can be
assumed that all those in the Military who acted unethically such as in the
helicopter video massacre released by wikileaks, if they followed the
protocols they are
freed of accountability but clearly there is war crimes coming from the
Military itself that must be accountible not only by the US state
Deparment but coming from the US Military itself. However, just like the
diplomatic cables that have been released, the US State of Department is
accountable for the actions of its Military and its diplomats and all other
US participants. This assumption of all US participants who acted
irresponsibly to come under the US State department.
The media including Wikileaks publish cables they believe to be of importance to the public good in terms of freedom of information, transparency
and accountability. Once they know that the source is valid and that the
material contains information containing seriously unethical practices,
their case is a separate issue of how to handle that data. In terms of the
whistleblowing case itself, the whistleblower transferred cables to these
medium in good faith. There are differences between each medium the
whistleblower should have been aware of and these options will need to
be looked at from an ethical point of view.
c) options of participants - The whistleblower had the option of
distributing the media directly to respected media such as the media
Julian Assange has passed onto, media which will filter important names
before publication. There is also the option of dealing with the issues
internally through ombudsmen in the State department or reporting to
further up the chain of command in the Military or departments that allow
for confidential internal auditing. The steps for the whistleblower were to
address it to supervisors, which private Bradley Manning reportedly did,
and when unattended to, go elsewhere. Exactly what steps the
whistleblower took is unknown, and anything Bradley Manning reportedly
did came from one source, described as extremely untrustworthy[19].
Wikileaks may have been chosen for its freedom of national press or
possible easier access by internet.
The participants in the helicopter massacre video may have had a few
options. They were given permission to engage, and the US military
internal investigation found that those soldiers acted followed "Rules of

Engagement" and were in accordance with the law of armed conict [20].
However, the video showed clear violation of the Genova Convention, war
crimes[21], raising the question of what options the internal military
investigation used in coming to its decision, and what options the US State
department had to deal with it.Therefore the US military and US state
department had a few options. The Military and State could have charged
those who commited the war crimes, or those who developed the rules of
engagement, or whoever was responsible for clear war crimes. They could
have chosen to review the internal investigation report which found the
soldiers engaging in proper conduct. They could choose to charge the
person who leaked the video and those who publish it, assuming that the
video release was itself the problem and not the conduct of the soldiers.
This is the option that was taken when Private Bradley Manning was
charged with leaking the video and many other cables.
The participants in the diplomatic cables, especially diplomats, also had a
few but limited options. They could choose to follow orders in developing
secret negotiations, often necessary in sensitive times and places, or to
whistleblow any unethical issues such as the order by Hillary Clinton, head
of the US State department, to spy on United Nations o_cials[22, 23]. The
diplomats also had a choice to resign. The US State could have decided to
act responsibly in assigning orders to the military and diplomats, including
responsible reviews of everything. The US State department have the
choice to charge those who act irresponsibly, and to judge what is
irresponsible based on its judicial and legal system and its own internal
procedures.
d) Justications - For the whistleblower:
_ Many of the cables, including the video of the US Military
Helicopter collateral murder in Iraq, needed international attention.
_ The internal system, including the US State of Department, was
not being fully accountable for illegal activities and for the clear failure of
the internal investigations to resolve these issues.
_ The belief that information should be free to the public domain and
not classified as is the case.
For the US State Department:
_ The need to protect National Security, for the progress of
diplomatic and military work. They see a case where procedures are set in
place and the sensitive work that is being carried out by protocol should
not be put to the public domain where sensitive information could lead to
mistrust of foreign parties and knowledge of military operations going into
the wrong hands.
_ Taking its military internal report of the video findings as the
measure to judge the whistleblowing case, the whistleblowing case loses
its viability and the whistleblower is then seen as breaking computer and
military codes of conduct, and breaking the law.
_ The disclosure of classified documents to wikileaks was illegal and
deserves
to be charged.

e) Key Statements - For the whistleblower: Excerpts from IM logs

reportly between private Manning (bradass87) and Adrian Lamo
(Adrian) [24]. (12:15:11 PM) bradass87:
hypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for
long periods of time... say, 8-9 months... and you saw incredible things,
awful things... things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some
server stored in a dark room in Washington DC... what would you do? or
Guan-tanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter... things that
would have an impact on 6.7 billion people. lets just say *someone* i
know intimately well, has been penetrating US classified networks,mining
data like the ones described... and been transferring that data from the
classified networks over the "air gap" onto a commer-cial network
computer... sorting the data, compressing it, encrypting it, and uploading
it to a crazy white haired aussie who can't seem to stay in one country
very long. crazy white haired dude = Julian Assange. in other words... ive
made a huge mess :'(12:46:17 PM) Adrian: how long have you helped
WIkileaks? (12:49:09 PM) bradass87: since they released the 9/11 "pager
messages". i immediately recognized that they were from an NSA database,
and i felt comfortable enough to come forward, so... right after
thanksgiving timeframe of 2009. Hilary Clinton, and several thousand
diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they
wake up one morning, and finds an entire repository of classified foreign
policy is available, in searchable format to the public...
(12:54:47 PM) Adrian: What sort of content? (12:59:41 PM) bradass87:
uhm... crazy, almost criminal political backdealings... the non-PR-versions
of world events and crises...
uhm... all kinds of stuff like everything from the buildup to the Iraq War
during Powell, to what the actual content of "`aid packages"' is: for
instance, PR that the US is sending aid to pakistan includes funding for
water/food/clothing... that much is true, it includes that, but the other 85
[percent] of it is for F-16 fighters and munitions to aid in the Afghanistan
effort, so the US can call in Pakistanis to do aerial bombing instead of
americans potentially killing civiliansand creating a PR crisis. theres so
much... it afects everybody on earth... everywhere there's a US post...
there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed... Iceland, the Vatican,
Spain, Brazil, Madascar, if its a country, and its recognized by the US as a
country, its got dirt on it. i just... dont wish to be a part of it... at least not
now... im not ready... i wouldn't mind going to prison for the rest of my life,
or being executed so much, if it wasn't for the possibility of having
pictures of me... plastered all over the world press.
Excerpts from the Q&A session with the Guardian[25]: "For the past four
years one of our goals has been to lionise the source who take the real
risks in nearly every journalistic disclosure and without whose efforts,
journalists would be nothing," said Assange. "If indeed it is the case, as
alleged by the Pentagon, that the young soldier Bradley Manning is behind
some of our recent disclosures,then he is without doubt an unparalleled
hero."

"WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time there has
been no credible allegation, even by organisations like the Pentagon that
even a single person has come to harm as a result of our activities."
Final Excerpt from a Time Special
Julian Assange:
"[But] she should resign if it can be shown that she was responsible for
ordering U.S. diplomatic figures to engage in espionage in the United
Nations, in violation of the international covenants to which the U.S. has
signed up. Yes, she should resign over that."
Regarding the cables: "They are all reviewed, and they're all redacted
either by us or by the newspapers concerned," he said. He added that
WikiLeaks "formally asked the State Department for assistance with that.
That request was formally rejected."
For the US State Department: Excerpts from Hillary Clinton's formal response from the White House regarding the cables[27]:
"The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of clas-sified
information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national
security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve
shared problems. This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign
policy interests. It is an attack on the international community - the
alliances and partnerships, the conver-sations and negotiations, that
safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity."
"I want to make clear, our offcial foreign policy is not set through these
messages, but in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as
reected in our statements and our actions around the world. There is
nothing laudable about endangering innocent peo-ple. There is nothing
brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which
our common security depends."
A separate occasion afterwards[28]: "The work of diplomacy is on
display," Clinton told reporters. "It was not our intention for it to be
released this way {usually it takes years before such matters are. But I
think there's a lot to be said about what it shows about the foreign policy
of the United States. Everybody has a right to have us talk to them, and
have any questions that they have answered, but at the end of the day
{ as a couple of analysts and writers are now writing { what you see are
diplomats doing the work of diplomacy," she said. "I really believe that we
had to reestablish trust, to reestablish relationships, so I take this very
personally."
Responses from the US State dept29:
"The publishing of the cables would "`place at risk the lives of countless
in-nocent individuals",including journalists and soldiers; threaten ongoing
military operations; and undermine "cooperation between countries,".
State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh to Assange[29]: "Despite your
stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and
endangered the lives of countless individuals. If any of the materials you
intend to publish were provided by any government offcials, or any
intermediary without proper authorization, they were provided in violation
of U.S. law," Koh wrote. "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the

violation of the law is ongoing." There are many other statements but
these will suffce to make an objective dialectic arguement.

List Questions Raised :_Was private Manning the whistleblower?

_ Do the Military have substantial evidence of the conversation or of testimony from Manning that will hold in court.
_ Given the time that Bradley Manning has been detained for questioning
and the US state department building their case, is that an indication that
the US State Dept can't yet make their case against Private Manning?
_ Why did the whistleblower choose Wikileaks?
_ Why did Assange describe Bradley Manning as a Hero if it was him, but
avoided declaring it was him?
_ Why are many of the media describing the controversial video of the helicopter engagement in Iraq as shocking and wrong but yet the internal
military investigation found that the soldiers acted appropriately in the
Rules of Engagement?
_ Did the whistleblower have enough reason to believe from the evidence
in
the cables that it needed to be leaked to the media?
_ Was the whistleblower bound to the computer and military codes of conduct regarding whistleblowing?
_ Was there a precise careful method used to choosing which cables were
needed and a thorough plan of who was the most responsible person to
leak to, and was it necessary to leak the complete collection of cables or
is there some that should have been left untouched, for example some
diplomatic cables?
_ Could the leaking be considered careless and wreckless?
_ Which is more important for the public good? International security
through ongoing classified diplomatic relations or the publication of
'truths'
regarding misconduct of some offcials and affecting the work of other government offcials?
_ Is it better to reveal unethical practices in the military while exposing
and
naming ongoing ethical military operations?

_ Should names and sensitive information be filtered from the publications

or is that a central dogma to the freedom of information?
_ Should the Whistleblower be accountable for not selecting and
forwarding
only the unethical cables?
_ How does the whistleblower judge what is unethical practice in the military?

Related Issues :

The release of the cables has been contrasted to the Pentagon Papers[30].
Both highlight "`credibility"' gaps between the administrations' press
releases and private actions. The difference is mainly in the type of
information leaked.
The Pentagon Papers were high level secret documents exposing issues
withthe Vietnam War and covered a large period. The 250,000+ cables
released by Wikileaks are lower level classified documents with patches of
information scat-tered, and the question is will they have enough
substance to picture the puzzle of what the conspiracy theorists have
believed all along. Its worth remembering that there are higher levels of
secret documents, and those cables leaked by the whistleblower are not
of significant clearance level to leak the more important high level secret
documents.

Final Answer :-

Forming a reasonable opinion - Clearly we can see from the breakdown

that the whistleblower felt the cables affected the entire world, and
private Bradley Manning mentioned that he would risk imprisonment and
even death to do what is right, a clear sign of altruism.
If the weight of public need for this information overwhelmed the public
need for security then clearly the whistleblower did the right thing. Given
that the cables were released at least 7 months after the cables were
written, the world of diplomtic negotations and military operations have
surely moved on and changed in that time, so to say military and
diplomatic work has been jeopardised is not as significant as the US State
Department would believe. Given that the latest batch of US state
embassy cables regarding US diplomacy are being published by the media
with names filtered this time, and that so much time has passed to make
them less critical in the recent work the governments are trying to
achieve,
it makes sense that the need for national security is much less affected by
the latest batch of cables as claimed, and the need for public access to
know what happened still stands, the whistleblower is clearly in the right
to have done so, in whatever media he chose. Knowing the risks the
whistleblower would have had to face on this scale against possibly the

most powerful country in the world, its perfectly understandable to choose

Wikileaks.
The US State Department have no right to have had Bradley Manning in
custody for so long without proper charge, and had no right in standing by
the awed Military internal reviews and should be responsible for its
actions. Hillary Clinton as head of the US State Department should take
this responsibility. Given that she signed the operation to gain illegal intel
on UN offcials, and the lack of responsibility, it seems the whistleblower is
not the one in the wrong, but Hillary Clinton as head of the US State
Department. There are other people also responsible for the failings in the
Military, US state department, and other international and national
governments and organisations.

Conclusion :-

The ethical debate for the whistleblowing of the US-Embassy cables has
shown two very strong sides, and from the questions raised it can be seen
that there is issues with both the military and diplomatic actions, the
handling of the case by the State Department, the way the cables were
leaked, and the way the cables were handled/published. Using the logical
methodology of a top down breakdown approach and using dialectic
arguement for both sides it is open to interpretation and leaves the reader
with an educated self-formed opinion of the greater truth that should be
revealed by the method.