The £12m question: how WikiLeaks gags its own staff

[Robb]

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/05/wikileaks-information-legal">The £12m question: how WikiLeaks gags its own staff

This blog has previously described the bizarre legal world of WikiLeaks where, for example, the organisation claims some form of commercial ownership over the information that has been leaked to it.

Today, the New Statesman can reveal the extent of this legal eccentricity as we publish a copy of the draconian and extraordinary legal gag which WikiLeaks imposes on its own staff.

Clause 5 of this "http://images.newstatesman.com/wikileaks.pdf">Confidentiality Agreement" (PDF) imposes a penalty of "£12,000,000 - twelve million pounds sterling" on anyone who breaches this legal gag.

Read more: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/05/wikileaks-information-legal

[guruoo]

1. Story smells like a RW hit piece. nt

[NashVegas]

2. Now That WSJ Has Their Own Wiki-Style Leaks Site, We'll See A Lot Of That

[Robb]

3. In the New Statesman?

[guruoo]

6. Author descrediting wikileaks for penalizing those that release info before it's properly vetted

That's how I read it.

[Robb]

7. "...All newsworthy information relating to the workings of WikiLeaks" is subject as well.

[sabrina 1]

4. Karl Rove style hit piece. He's apparently very involved in the

smear campaign against Wikileaks. The reason is that there is a huge amount of material, a vast majority of which has not yet been released, that is from Bush era. I wonder what he's worried about?

Also, don't forget that Assange stated that some of the material deals with Fox 'news'.

Putting a stop to Wikileaks is probably of paramount importance to the war criminals from the Bush era.

It will take years to sort through the data Wikileaks has but I'm sure they know that there is a lot of damaging info on their criminal administration.

Look what they did to Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? Assange is an even bigger threat to them. So yes, there will be plenty of smears like this against him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. It's written by a well-known liberal blogging lawyer, Jack of Kent

Some links to his work that got him nominated for the 2010 George Orwell Prize for blogging here: http://theorwellprize.co.uk/shortlists/david-allen-green/

Why is publishing their employee agreement a 'smear'?

[sabrina 1]

15. First, any organization that is operating as Wikileaks is,

exposing corruption in governments around the world, HAS TO protect their sources who will die if they are exposed. So, it is nothing strange, in fact it is comforting to know, that Wikileaks took the safety of their sources this seriously.

Wikileaks was exposing corrupt governments, governments like Kenya eg, who were 'disappearing' and killing people who were speaking out against them. Wikileaks helped expose that government, placing people like Assange himself in danger which is why he was on the run long before the US docs were leaked to Wikileaks.

This article is written with a slant, it is intended to make an agreement to protect whistle-blowers seem sinister.

And there will be plenty of this until the US gets its hands on the docs in Wikileaks' possession regarding this government. Imo, I think Assange will be assassinated or suicided. I think he expects it himself.

Why btw, is having such an employee agreement wrong when people's lives may be at stake? Assange himself did not hide, this was to protect those who need protection? So why the attempt to make it look bad?

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. It explicitly says it's to protect its revenue, not to protect sources

Leaking the document has itself broken the confidentiality agreement. It's not just about the sources Wikileaks publishes.

[sabrina 1]

17. No, it doesn't say that. That is the interpretation of this blogger.

All news organizations have commercial interests in their material btw. And Wikileaks is a news organiztion. As for the fact that his guy is a 'liberal', perhaps you haven't noticed how many 'liberals' have flip-flopped on major issues such as exposing war crimes etc. over the past couple of years. Joe Biden, eg, suggest that the editor and publisher of Wikeleaks could be described as a 'terrorist' while stating that Mubarak was a 'good friend and ally' and 'not a dictator'.

My interpretation of this document, assuming it is real, is that it was an attempt to protect the organization and its sources from exposure.

Wikileaks is made up of over one thousand people who were involved in its founding, people from all over the world. Many of them were Chinese dissidents. Assange joined them because of his tech skills and his belief that GOVERNMENTS, not INDIVIDUALS should not be allowed to get away with corruption by silencing brutally, dissident voices, as China does.

If you disagree with Wikileaks principles and confuse the idea of the responsibility of GOVERNMENTS with individuals and/or the fourth estate, then I understand why you would accept this blogger's opinion, and that is all it is, his opinion.

I see nothing wrong with a news agency protecting its material if it can. It's likely too that Assange had nothing to do with this document, he is not an attorney and as I said, Wikileaks has more than a thousand members. He was the one who was brave enough to be the public face of the org. and as a result is taking all the hits from all the corrupt governments Wikileaks has exposed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. No, it's the obvious message of the document

There's nothing in 'types of damage' listed as 'a' to 'f' about protecting sources; it's all about loss of value, or of reputation. They describe it all as 'valuable proprietary commercial information'.

Likely that Assange has nothing to do with it? Apart from the space where he has to sign it, you mean?

[sabrina 1]

19. Of course he signed it. That does not mean he

wrote it or had anything to do with writing it. And all news organizations have control over their property.

Not to worry though, the US is going after him anyhow. They sure do not want any of the info on the Bush years to get out so I guess before too long we will have declared an award-winning Editor of a news organization an enemy of the state and who knows, maybe even apply the death penalty?

Funny how differently the 'left' would be reacting to Wikileaks had Bush still been president. We would eg, still be supporting a free and open press like we used to! In fact, when we first heard of them releasing evidence of Bush crimes, they were BIG heroes to the left. What happened? As if the answer is not obvious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Saying 'he got someone else to write it for him' is not much of an excuse

He signs it as the representative of Wikileaks. He is the centre of the group that is claiming all rights to the information (along with the information sources - the only time the document mentions the sources; strange that Wikileaks thinks those leaking information to it actually control the rights to the information).

[sabrina 1]

22. Editors and publishers of News Organizations do not

write legal documents. They do sign them. I don't know what's so difficult to understand about that.

But as I said, the US is about to declare a prize-winning (Wikileaks has received several awards for their efforts in exposing corrupt governments around the world, something the US didn't seem to think was 'espionage' until the Bush gang were about to be exposed) a spy and/or a terrorist. So the left can now get on board with yet more Bush policies, which appears to be all the rage nowadays, for the 'left' that is.

Don't bother wasting time trying to smear Assange, our Democratic DOJ which has nothing better to do apparently, like maybe going after our war criminals, is about to do it for you.

[Iggo]

5. Kill the messenger.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. Amen, brother

Wikileaks is "selling" information????

WTF!?

If this is true, my support for the organization just ended.

[Iggo]

14. Oh, sorry.

Here. This is for my previous reply: :sarcasm:

Didn't think that was necessary.

Here's the thing: People's like or dislike of Wikileaks doesn't change the information that is being leaked.

Keep your eyes on the ball.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. True

and I am waiting on the information promised.

If Assange is "selling" information, this changes the character of Wikileaks, and brings many troubling questions.

[Iggo]

23. But it doesn't change the information. (n/t)

[Kelvin Mace]

27. What it changes is

what is being withheld for sale to the highest bidder. At which point Wikileaks moves into the blackmail business as opposed to a public service.

If "exclusive" rights are being offered for money on leaks, and a company is the subject of the leak, then all it has to do is outbid (directly or by proxy) any media groups to keep the information from the public.

Also, most ethical and reputable media groups (that would be the kind of groups that we trust), do NOT pay for stories.

Again, my earlier question elsewhere in this thread is where is the big cache of docs promised about the mortgage crisis? These were supposed to show that a "big player" in the mortgage crisis was fully aware they were committing crimes and screwing their customers.

To date, I haven't seen the story and it has been months since it was announced as imminent.

Years ago, when I and a few others were sitting on the Diebold emails, we released them, despite threats of law suits and criminal prosecution. At no time did we offer to sell what we had to the media (though some people later got into the business of making money off the enterprise).

[Kelvin Mace]

28. The ambiguity in your post

was which "messenger" you were referring to. I assumed (my error) that it was the reporter on Wikileaks contract, whereas you were sarcastically referring to Wikileaks. None, the less, I apologize for my error.

[MattBaggins]

26. Congratulations: That was the intent of this piece

[Kelvin Mace]

8. I am still waiting on the bank documents

we were promised months ago. This stuff was supposed to blow the lid off a major bank in the mortgage scandal.

If they did this, I missed it.

[Forkboy]

10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but DU's moderators sign a non-disclosure form don't they?

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. It doesn't claim it's because the information is worth £12 million, though

The document even claims that it itself is covered by the confidentiality agreement. It's rather like the superinjunctions that the UK is suffering from at the moment - which prevent anyone reporting that an injunction has been granted. Everyone with a liberal bone in their body agree they are a blight on the country. It is a bit comical to see Wikileaks claiming its employee agreements are worth £12 million on the open market. I suspect it means they were drawn up by an amateur rather than a professional lawyer.

[Forkboy]

13. Of course not, but a contract is a contract, and breaching them has consequences.

The figure is silly, but the only ones who seem bothered by this are those people, like the OP, who have problems with Wikileaks to begin with.

[fascisthunter]

25. BINGO

[tekisui]

24. The penalty portion of this contract would be unenforceable

under contract law.

[SidDithers]

29. K&R...

the St. Julian sycophants won't like this, however.

Sid