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.

 

Julian Assange slaps $20 million fine on leakers

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Julian Assange slaps $20 million fine on leakers


www.tgdaily.com

After facing serious heat for disseminating classified information, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is requiring associates to sign an NDA stipulating that leaked materials are "solely the property" of the organization.

If anyone breaks the NDA and leaks information, they face a 12 million GBP (around 20 million USD) penalty, according to the new confidentiality agreement.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
(I have my reservations about the author's choice of title here, but guidelines are guidelines....)

If I were the editor of this organization i would have opted for a different title for the article... perhaps;

Wikileak's Assange creates Non-Disclosure Agreement for associates

I believe this is a legal posturing move to create policy which mitigates personal liability for the Wikileak's leadership. Of course we can imagine why.


"You accept and agree that the information disclosed, or to be disclosed to you pursuant to this agreement is, by its nature, valuable proprietary commercial information. The misuse or unauthorized disclosure of which would be likely to cause us considerable damage."


Interestingly, for those who have maintained that Mr. Assange and crew are all about the money....


The agreement also claims an information leak could cause WikiLeaks to lose the "opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers."


I call attention to the relatively new reality of our age.... Information is a commodity (as in "property" with which one can conduct "commerce")

Enjoy!

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



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I'm sure there was already a thread on this but for some reason I can't find it.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
So the place that makes a living leaking information is telling their employees not to leak information. Good stuff!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bridge_Boy
I'm sure there was already a thread on this but for some reason I can't find it.


So they are given information based on leaks, so if i received information based on leaks about leaks from within their org then that would make their claims null and void.


Love it..simply Love it...Time to activate the bots, lets face it we are talking six figure digits here.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I dont find it worrying that they are assigning financial value to the information they have. Nor do I find it worrying that they have a NDA. There are costs associated with what they are doing, including legal fees, and even ATS has as part of its TnC a clause saying that if you get ATS sued, you will cover their costs.

ATS cant really threaten to sue us for distributing content to other websites instead of ATS. Its our content until we post it here. However, in the case of Wikileaks, whatever is leaked to it genuinely can be considered "the property of wikileaks" even before it is posted. I wouldnt want some volunteer selling information leaked to the organization that contained really critical (in terms of endangering lives of soldiers, agents, etc) for their own gain. Or even, if they were in place to destroy Wikileaks, to prove that Wikileaks was dangerous and irresponsible.

It seems to me pretty run of the mill stuff, in this day and age to do what they are doing. I personally think it was very wise, and actually a bit over due.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

Nicely said

I also think that if WikiLeaks employees don't want to play by their rules, then rather than expecting WikiLeaks to be fine with that they should follow Daniel Domscheit-Berg's example and do it their own way, independent of WikiLeaks.
edit on 13/5/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: spelling fix



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
However, in the case of Wikileaks, whatever is leaked to it genuinely can be considered "the property of wikileaks" even before it is posted.



So as i posted, if leaks leaked to wiki and then forwarded to...for example myself that would make the " leaks of wiki my property" right ?



edit on 13-5-2011 by tristar because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
The dark agencies (CIA, Mossad, etc) thought everyone is stupid enough to believe the Wikileaks and Julian Assange soap opera. I wish they stop the BS before karma woe unto them.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
It goes like this ...

Wikileaks, the dis-info clearing house, most likely employs well meaning, naive people.
So, with all the attention wikileaks has garnered around the world, I am sure some Real leaks will be sent their way.

This imposed fine thing, is to stop the well meaning employees from accidentally leaking this Real information, without the clearance of a higher up.

Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Frankly, it doesn't worry me at all. Except for the part where they determine they 'own' the information leaked to them.

Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'

My reason for interest in the article was the fact that apparently, prior to this point, the organization had no such non-disclosure agreements in place; lending credence to the altruistic nature of the endeavor. Now it is clear that this is a business. When commerce enters the picture it seems reasonable to assume that some organizations would be willing to pay more than advertisers for their information NOT to be released..... in the old days we called that blackmail.

If someone wanted to leak secrets about Wikileaks... where would they go? ATS?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Frankly, it doesn't worry me at all. Except for the part where they determine they 'own' the information leaked to them.

Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'

My reason for interest in the article was the fact that apparently, prior to this point, the organization had no such non-disclosure agreements in place; lending credence to the altruistic nature of the endeavor. Now it is clear that this is a business. When commerce enters the picture it seems reasonable to assume that some organizations would be willing to pay more than advertisers for their information NOT to be released..... in the old days we called that blackmail.

If someone wanted to leak secrets about Wikileaks... where would they go? ATS?



Hi max

and here is your next target by some unknown group. Who put the fun in spaghetti ....heinz did.

I deeply agree with you as its intent know is to generate revenue, its has simply crossed over, not that it hadn't, but now it has been made public. All gloves are off.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


Yes. Because by forwarding them anonymously, you are not the one responsible for the costs associated with those leaks. Unless like Manning you go and out yourself to a rat. An anonymous leaker, by virtue of their guaranteed anonymity, cannot be said to own the information. They stole it, and they passed it on to a journalistic concern who CAN claim ownership of it.

In order for the leaker to make a case for ownership, they would have to successfully make a case that they had a legal right to the information they have stolen, and, I suspect that would not world out well for them.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by tristar
 


Yes. Because by forwarding them anonymously, you are not the one responsible for the costs associated with those leaks. Unless like Manning you go and out yourself to a rat. An anonymous leaker, by virtue of their guaranteed anonymity, cannot be said to own the information. They stole it, and they passed it on to a journalistic concern who CAN claim ownership of it.

In order for the leaker to make a case for ownership, they would have to successfully make a case that they had a legal right to the information they have stolen, and, I suspect that would not world out well for them.


If that is the case, then information that originated from internal u.s. military/diplomatic divisions is obviously not wikileaks property, but the property of the U.S. or from wich nation that information was leaked from.

Again..the gloves are off.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars


Frankly, it doesn't worry me at all. Except for the part where they determine they 'own' the information leaked to them.


Did you miss the part of Wikileaks strategy that they use the legal structures and laws set up to protect corporations to protect themselves and enable their activities? Much like Hitler is credited with claiming the best way to overthrow a democracy is to use the mechanisms provided by democracy to elevate yourself to power, and then erode those same mechanisms behind you so that no one else can do the same?

I suspect that this NDA is not so different from any other NDA any other news organization would use to limit their liability for the actions of an employee or volunteer. I guess I see it very differently because I have some background in business and the law related to it. I dont see this as unusual at all. Certainly no more nefarious than an organization saying we are going to profit from your work, gladly, but if any trouble arises because of us profiting from your work, you have to pay all our costs.


Originally posted by Maxmars
Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'


So did denying ignorance. There are real costs associated with spreading information. And the more edgy that information is, the higher the costs. ATS wont even go on record saying they endorse the posting of leaked information here, probably for legal reasons. You can choose to feel that someone protecting themselves, their sources, and the information is nefarious, or you can look at what an NDA offers them in terms of legal teeth if someone "sells" leaked information for personal gain or even, like I pointed out, to paint Wikileaks as a website that gets innocent soldiers killed with their irresponsibility.

Wikileaks and ATS operate within a legal framework. BOTH organizations spread information. Both of them protect themselves legally to the extent that they are able. I would point out the unlike ATS, Wikileaks can and will fight to protect the anonymity and help with the legal costs of its contributors.



Originally posted by Maxmars
My reason for interest in the article was the fact that apparently, prior to this point, the organization had no such non-disclosure agreements in place; lending credence to the altruistic nature of the endeavor.


You could make the same argument about ATS's evolving TnC and protection of its self interests too. As issues arise, and problems become apparent, people tend to take corrective and protective measures. There may have been no recognized need for an NDA prior to whatever event prompted the creation of one.


Originally posted by Maxmars
If someone wanted to leak secrets about Wikileaks... where would they go? ATS?


They could also go to any other news organization. Who, seeing as how Wikileaks is competition, would likely fall over backwards to publish it, and unlike ATS would have the legal right to keep you anonymous as a source. I wouldnt leak anything here that could get me in trouble. There is ZERO legal protection for me here. And, I am legally bound by posting here to not only cover my own costs, but ATS' as well for any trouble I might cause.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Illusionsaregrander because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


The law must recognize some legal ownership of news organizations for leaked information. Or NO ONE would be able to publish it. The original "owners" would simply demand it back, and sue the crap out of anyone who did publish it.

So far, Wikileaks HAS been sued, but they are not losing their cases. Like I said in an earlier post, Wikileaks chose as a strategy to use the laws corporations use to enable their own shady actions.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by tristar
 


The law must recognize some legal ownership of news organizations for leaked information. Or NO ONE would be able to publish it. The original "owners" would simply demand it back, and sue the crap out of anyone who did publish it.

So far, Wikileaks HAS been sued, but they are not losing their cases. Like I said in an earlier post, Wikileaks chose as a strategy to use the laws corporations use to enable their own shady actions.


Simply wait when the sh#t hits the fan regarding wL intentions and methods used. I wonder if they will ever admit or perhaps former internal memos of wL become available to the public regarding active targeting of specific orgs. Myself, i am as calm as can be for the outcome is not about "if", but "when". In short, do not count your chickens before they are hatched.

As for their so called ownership of leaks, thats simply bogus when you are referring to an org that openly talks about free flow of information. Since wL has decided to move into the revenue aspect of what one would call in similar terms industrial espionage and sale to the highest bidder then you certainly moved into the big leagues. As for their so called secure network, i merely laugh at the notion as those who are aware, know all to well that anything, and i mean anything digital always leaves a trail, do not and never think otherwise.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Simply wait when the sh#t hits the fan regarding wL intentions and methods used. I wonder if they will ever admit or perhaps former internal memos of wL become available to the public regarding active targeting of specific orgs. Myself, i am as calm as can be for the outcome is not about "if", but "when". In short, do not count your chickens before they are hatched.


I choose to remain agnostic about their motives and intentions unless and until I see some evidence that would case build one way or the other. So far, as I see it, the evidence stacks in favor of them being what they say they are. Not enough that I would say for certain that is the only possibility, only enough that I cannot agree with those who feel they have some hidden purpose.

Not only that, but so far the actions and reactions of the MSM and various governments stacks in favor of their being who and what they say they are.

I dont count my chickens before they hatch. I prefer to not form beliefs until all the evidence is in. But so far, the evidence is not stacking up in such a way that would lead me to suspect them of being anything other than they say they are.


Originally posted by tristar
As for their so called ownership of leaks, thats simply bogus when you are referring to an org that openly talks about free flow of information.


You dont seem to have a very well developed understanding of law. Not that I am the be all and end all of said, but I did have to take several courses on the topic in the pursuit of my degree. I dont see anything happening here that is inconsistent with their stated goals and ends, considering the way the legal system works.



Originally posted by tristar
Since wL has decided to move into the revenue aspect of what one would call in similar terms industrial espionage and sale to the highest bidder then you certainly moved into the big leagues.


I just dont see this as problematic. Its a strategic move. And a smart one.



Originally posted by tristar
As for their so called secure network, i merely laugh at the notion as those who are aware, know all to well that anything, and i mean anything digital always leaves a trail, do not and never think otherwise.


I know nothing about this area, so I cant really comment on it except to say that so far, the only person who IS being prosecuted for leaking to them, outed himself. It may be the case that no one can offer a truly secure network, but the vast majority of their leakers are free and anonymous. And they have done everything they could to deny Manning as the source, despite his own very unfortunate choices, including offering financial help for his defense.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Did you miss the part of Wikileaks strategy that they use the legal structures and laws set up to protect corporations to protect themselves and enable their activities? Much like Hitler is credited with claiming the best way to overthrow a democracy is to use the mechanisms provided by democracy to elevate yourself to power, and then erode those same mechanisms behind you so that no one else can do the same?


Frankly, I am a bit unclear on the source of our disagreement, which I can only infer from the discussion.

Corporate structure is specifically for liability mitigation - and if someone wants to dive in the water with the sharks, it would be logical that they should already know how to swim. The internet entity Wikileaks is a business entity; it's corporate existence is presumed.

Dissemination of information can be said to have a cost.... but your post didn't cost you anything did it? (aside from the presence on the internet which we all pay for - generally speaking.)

I have never had the experience of working for an employer who established - as a matter of policy - that I was to be 'fined' for misconduct; and I have signed many NDA's in my time. So this approach of controlling the organization's associates via punitive monetary action seemed unusual to me.

The NDA itself only shows as an outwards demonstration that the company has taken a demonstrable stance which verifies its policy of conduct. Assuming it is ever invoked, I can't imagine anyone remaining with the company after being 'punished' that way. So it will be interesting to see what 'liability' is averted from this policy, outside the declaration that "As a matter of established policy Wikileaks does not allow independent releases of information." Of course this may be about members who are not exactly 'employees' but instead fellow board members and executive functionaries.



Originally posted by Maxmars
Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'


So did denying ignorance. There are real costs associated with spreading information. And the more edgy that information is, the higher the costs. ATS wont even go on record saying they endorse the posting of leaked information here, probably for legal reasons. You can choose to feel that someone protecting themselves, their sources, and the information is nefarious, or you can look at what an NDA offers them in terms of legal teeth if someone "sells" leaked information for personal gain or even, like I pointed out, to paint Wikileaks as a website that gets innocent soldiers killed with their irresponsibility.

Wikileaks and ATS operate within a legal framework. BOTH organizations spread information. Both of them protect themselves legally to the extent that they are able. I would point out the unlike ATS, Wikileaks can and will fight to protect the anonymity and help with the legal costs of its contributors.


This gives me a moment of pause. Firstly because the "So did denying ignorance." comes across as some form of rudeness. Am I displaying ignorance here? Are you implying that my opinion or observations are ignorant? I am willing to forgo the answer to proceed with the more substantial part of your dialog.

The "costs" of spreading information presumes that the 'spreading' information is an activity in which one engages. By posting here, we all 'spread' something... not all of it is information, and it can be argued that most of it is not shared with the intent of 'spreading' anything, but to discuss and analyze information. The "cost" of 'spreading' information is directly proportional to the intensity of your desire to 'spread it.' Aside from establishing a presence on the internet (which is a cost) the 'spreading' is a function of others successfully accessing it - that cost is born by the seeker, not the teller.

I have never seen a Wikileaks advertisement. Other than through indirect or direct reference has anyone ever led me to their site. So I am unclear how this cost issue is even relevant. The cost Wikileaks faces is from the legal attacks it must contend with. If they didn't want that cost, they wouldn't post the information for all to see.... which is essentially what this new posture seems to indicate they are intent on doing.... they will retain their "property" until the CEO or his delegate decides otherwise.

In regards to ATS, the members have not assumed a journalistic role, the ATS platfdorm is being used by some members as an aggregate news site whose content they drive. In this regard, there is no comparison between one and the other (outside that both are accessible via the internet.)

When discussing ATS you do not distinguish between us, the members, and the host company that provides the platform and tools for the members to use.

ATS content is a function of the members and their dialog (like this one right now.) ATS doesn't "spread" anything, except maybe an occasional dose of reality, and then it is only the members who are participants.



Originally posted by Maxmars
My reason for interest in the article was the fact that apparently, prior to this point, the organization had no such non-disclosure agreements in place; lending credence to the altruistic nature of the endeavor.


You could make the same argument about ATS's evolving TnC and protection of its self interests too. As issues arise, and problems become apparent, people tend to take corrective and protective measures. There may have been no recognized need for an NDA prior to whatever event prompted the creation of one.


Not really. Legal advice was sought and paid for, good faith requires adherence to the legal legerdemain that attorneys you retain provide. Otherwise its a waste of money. The T&C evolved because of external influences and most would agree, did little to change the nature of the ATS community.


Originally posted by Maxmars
If someone wanted to leak secrets about Wikileaks... where would they go? ATS?


That was a rhetorical question intended to encourage some introspection about the subject. Wikileaks, unlike ATS is a medium of data delivery, a venue for a very specific kind of information.

ATS, unlike Wikileaks, is staunchly dedicated to laboring towards a measured civil stance in what we discuss, for the sake of open discussion and analysis, speculation and conjecture.

The two could hardly be more different.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 



Well lets say we obviously have a difference of opinion, since they receive information that is leaked/hacked/forwarded, other individuals do the same thing. It all depends on which side of the fence one chooses to stand. As one of my favorite songs by deepeche mode is titled, " its no good" , you should take the time to listen to the words.
edit on 13-5-2011 by tristar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join