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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
"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."
The agreement also claims an information leak could cause WikiLeaks to lose the "opportunity to sell the information to other news broadcasters and publishers."
Originally posted by Bridge_Boy
I'm sure there was already a thread on this but for some reason I can't find it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Maxmars
Whistle-blowing ostensibly used to be about 'doing the right thing.'
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.
Originally posted by Maxmars
If someone wanted to leak secrets about Wikileaks... where would they go? ATS?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?