It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks gags staff, threatens leakers with $20 million penalty

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

WikiLeaks gags staff, threatens leakers with $20 million penalty


www.rawstory.com

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange requires WikiLeaks staff to sign a confidentiality agreement that claims the organization's collection of leaked documents is "solely the property of WikiLeaks," according to a published report.

The confidentiality agreement says that unpublished documents leaked to the organization are "valuable proprietary commercial information, the misuse or unauthorized disclosure of which would be likely to cause us considerable damage."

The legal agreement was leaked to the New Statesman and published Wednesday [PDF].
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
While a lot of people have been thrilled at the disclosures brought about by Wiki-leaks a number of people have had real concerns about whether the organization is just a honey pot, to ensnare government employees, while others have worried it might be funded or controlled by big corporate or intelligence agency interests to selectively put out leaks that serve government or political party foreign policy or domestic image interests.

Evidence is mounting that Wiki-Leaks might not be the altruistic organization of noble intent that it sells itself as, as it considers all the leaks it comes by it’s own proprietary information that disclosure of by staff without the expressed consent of ownership could lead to civil prosecutions and law suits.

Wiki-leaks, do-gooders looking to save the world, or just another corporate enterprise looking to make a buck, is a question people are bound to be asking once again.


www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
lol - well that would be ironic.

I'm not sure how they can claim that stuff that actually comes from somewhere else is their property tho??
- although I generally applaud WL's wider objectives - i'd love to see it tested in a court!!


I suspect it's more about keeping secret what it is that they have until they are ready to release it at a time of their choosing - certainly there's a commercial interest there....but claiming that the info is proprietry WL property??!!

Edit: On a moment's reflection, the fact that they have info might well be proprietry info as described - but not the actual documents themselves. So revealing what documents they have would effectively be industrial espionage in their eyes - eithe by relasing a list, or by releasing the document itself.

still,....the irony...


Edit again:


Wiki-leaks, do-gooders looking to save the world, or just another corporate enterprise looking to make a buck, is a question people are bound to be asking once again.


Like many I suspect the first has developed (or is developing) into the 2nd - wouldn't be the 1st time - Greenpeace, Google, Microsoft, FB.....
edit on 11-5-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
How frustrating.

It's funny, because we always want to believe in these sorts of organizations. Leaking valuable intelligence, evidence to validate our worst fears and sometimes phenomenal research.

I wonder if this agreement is reaction to the extreme attention they've drawn to themselves. Something less nefarious than what the evidence suggests would be great.

~Keeper



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I dont trust Assange or Wikileaks they are wolves in sheep`s clothing and seem to serve the main purpose of the further promotion of Assange and the Wikileaks brand. As I have said before the leaks have only hurt the people that took the information to Assange.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I have yet to read the full article, but the implications are depressing. However, I sincerely doubt Wikileaks has anything to do with an intelligence agency's whims. None of the leaks have made anyone look good.
What is the other "evidence" that Wikileaks is malicious?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well they certainly seem to believe it is their exclusive commerical property once they come by it, as they make employees sign a statement saying that they agree with such and that they accept that civil suits might be brought against them if they leak any of the leaks.

One thing is for sure, Assange is not running a non-profit, but something he views as a business, as he times and stages the events leading up to releases for maximum press coverage and donations.

My concern from day one, is this is stuff that the State Department and CIA and others really want to be know for various foreign policy reasons that they can't release themselves and get the same impact with.

I think in a lot of ways Wiki-leaks is designed as a pysops operation too, in that it tends to give people false hope that it's disclosures will lead to a real change how the US Government does business, and as we see in the lack of transparency and the tactics used in the alleged Bin Laden Assassination nothing could be further than the truth.

A lot of what's released does more to humiliate foreign leaders the US want's to destablize the nations of, than it does to humiliate our state department and military.

It also leads other nations to consider that US Soldiers aren't the nice fair guys who play by the book that they or the Government promotes them as, but often cold blooded indiscriminate killers.

End result Wiki-leaks embarasses foreign leaders, and intimidates them with the thought by making it clear the last thing you want is a 100,000 US Soldiers running around your nation.

So who is Wiki-Leaks serving, Assange, the US Government, or truth and transparency and the people.

Honestly I think for critical minds, I known mine anway the jury is still out on what Wiki-Leaks is all about.

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Isn't it stuff like this the whole reason the cofounder left wikileaks and formed openleaks. Assange has always seemed a little power hungry. I just wish the government would choose to be transparent on their own. I also wish journalists would do their jobs and start asking the real questions.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
How frustrating.

It's funny, because we always want to believe in these sorts of organizations. Leaking valuable intelligence, evidence to validate our worst fears and sometimes phenomenal research.

I wonder if this agreement is reaction to the extreme attention they've drawn to themselves. Something less nefarious than what the evidence suggests would be great.

~Keeper


I don't honestly know I haven't read the full PDF yet of the employee agreement or when it's dated or might have been revised or otherwise modified.

It certainly is a corporate style run enterprise though to have that kind of verbiage in it's employee packet statements.

I wonder what their employee parking policy is like?



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


If the employees contracts were leaked then it's obvious there is a leak inside Wikileaks; usually the culprit is among the most most trusted.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Well they certainly seem to believe it is their exclusive commerical property once they come by it, as they make employees sign a statement saying that they agree with such and that they accept that civil suits might be brought against them if they leak any of the leaks.


Yeah but it's one thing to claim something like that and get ppl to "agree" to it - it's quite another thing for a court to agree that it is either (a) true or (b) a reasonable term of employment.

As I said....until it's tested in a court of law I'd say it's pretty dodgy - but i'd not understimate the effect on the employees of having it pointed out to them every now & then.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I wonder what their employee parking policy is like?


I didn't think Assange got parking in jail..


edit on 5/11/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I find myself thinking that by the time we get to the bottom of Wikileaks,
they may release the earth shattering UFO news and the Big Bank expose.

Or, we will never get to the bottom of it, and they will keep all this info a proprietary secret.

If only they were harvesting heirloom seeds. Corruption is everywhere, we can count on it.
edit on 11-5-2011 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I have yet to read the full article, but the implications are depressing. However, I sincerely doubt Wikileaks has anything to do with an intelligence agency's whims. None of the leaks have made anyone look good.
What is the other "evidence" that Wikileaks is malicious?


Sadly Assange's unique upbringing in a religious cult has some classic MkUltra constructs to it that do have some people scratching their head.

Not to mention he's failed to have an auto accident, choke on a piece of steak, or slip and break his neck on some slippery ice yet.

If the information was really that explosive and really a threat to the US Government many do believe he would have met an unfortunate end.

Sadly what this looks like is he really does have selective control of what gets out there and is very serious about that control.

I honestly don't know but I have been suspect since day one, and my posting history on site displays it.

In this world if it's too good to be true, it usually isn't.

Thanks for posting.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by On the level
I dont trust Assange or Wikileaks they are wolves in sheep`s clothing and seem to serve the main purpose of the further promotion of Assange and the Wikileaks brand. As I have said before the leaks have only hurt the people that took the information to Assange.


To think Manning might spend the rest of his life in Jail is pretty disturbing.

Still I don't entirely blame Wiki or Assange since the American people really are being left far too often out of the loop on what government is up too.

I don't think there is any getting around that Assange is trying to establish himself as a kind of power broker in how he times and stages releases and what he selects to release, and the fact that it's a business for him, not a calling.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I wonder what their employee parking policy is like?


I didn't think Assange got parking in jail..


edit on 5/11/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


I suppose that depends on what kind of cellmate he's got.


edit on 11-5-2011 by notsofunnyguy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Wait so this is a policy that wikileaks has decided to enforce? Isn't is much more sensible for them to make such a policy to make sure that the leaks that they provide to media have some what credential behind them. Also wikileaks doesn't release everything that they have in their stockpile for people who don't know and don't want it getting out without checking over fact or looking into the implications. They run wikileaks just like any other company or firm and all this is based on institutional theory.

Articles like this are only look into slandering the whole organisation who is trying their best to provide informative reports that the MSM themselves would not dig up.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
This would be the biggest ever double cross, covert trickery ever manipulated on the people of the world by a vary sinister and dark deceptive, bunch of low life bellies scratching turncoat whoop ass tin can junkies mother fooker dip sticks.

We will ever see.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by nahsik
 


Well where are the leaks on the Banks, the Oil Companies the Shadow Government types.

Some of these leaks that they are withholding just to 'verify' have been things like Gadaffi hires European Escorts to give him massages.

Interesting the situation Gadaffi is in a few months later.

Why would an organization supposedly dedicated to bringing the world the truth waste research time on independently confirming a tid-bit like that and that's just one for instance.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
His staff has $20 million


I agree with the calling out of the irony here. WikiLeaks leaked on. What is with the timing of their releases anyway? Haven't the been sitting on tons of stuff form months and maybe even years? Vetting the information and making sure it's not putting anyone in danger is one thing, but what possible other reasons could they have for not releasing what they have?
edit on 5/12/2011 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join