Matter Report

WikiLeaks

Background • Founded in 2006.

• In the 1970s, the publication of the Pentagon papers cut the ground from
beneath the US case for the Vietnam war. Now technology is allowing such
exposures on a far grander scale.
• WikiLeaks is about the release of information without regard for national
interest – operates indiscriminately on a policy of more information is
always good. Release online corrects for any timidity or blind spots that
media may experience.
• World’s first stateless news organisation. Organised specifically so that if a
crackdown arises in one country, can simply switch to servers in another
country. Mysterious 1.4 gigabyte ‘insurance’ file downloaded by millions of
people around the world – Assange says that he just has to give everyone
the password to open it.
• Regularly passes information onto news sources before dumping them – eg
passed the cables onto Germany’s Der Spiegel, El Pais in Spain, Britain’s
Guardian (who then passed them on to the New York Times – Times was
given access to the Afghan war logs).
• Entire operation of WikiLeaks conducted incredibly secretively – key
members only known by initials (eg M), and even deep within WikiLeaks,
communications are conducted by encrypted chat services.
• WikiLeaks has never lost a court action in any one of its legislative
proposals, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, unanimously passed the
Icelandic Parliament.

Biggest leaks Early targets included high-level corruption in Kenya; alleged illegal activities in
an offshore operation of the Swiss-based bank Julius Baer; the American
prison camp at Guantánamo Bay; Scientology’s beliefs and practices; Sarah
Palin’s personal e-mail account; the membership list of the far-right British
National Party; and a toxic-waste scandal in Africa. Cheekily, WikiLeaks also
published classified Pentagon and British military documents about the damage
leaks can do to national security.
Afghan war logs
• In April 2010, released footage showing an attack in Iraq in 2007 in which
an American Apache helicopter killed two Reuters staff and a dozen
bystanders, mistaking camera equipment for weapons.
• Taliban said it was cross-referencing materials against its hit list.
• Pentagon review held that they didn’t think the leaks had caused problems
for national security.
Diplomatic cables
• Part of the stuff downloaded by Bradley Manning.
• Julian Assange claims he acted responsibly – wrote to the American
embassy in London offering officials to ‘nominate’ details that should be

Printed 16/12/10 (10:21) page 1

 Biggest leaks

withheld for security or for other reasons. They declined, citing that it would
implicitly concede that the bits not cited were harmless.
• Has a cache of over 250,000 Diplomatic Cables – Posted about 220 in late
November – some redacted to protect diplomatic sources.
– Missing the top categories of secrecy – Nodis (president, secretary of
state, head of mission only), Roger, Exdis and Docklamp (between
defence attaches and the defence intelligence agency only).
– However, 4,330 of the cables classified ‘NOFORN’ – which means no
foreign national should see them.
• Many disclose diplomat’s confident sources, including foreign legislations
and military officers, human rights activists and journalists, often with a
warning to ‘Please protect’ or ‘Strictly protect’. The Times, who were given
access to cables, withheld names of people who could be at risk if publicly
identified.
• Even where cables recount things already known, they provide a lot more
detail.
– Previously reported that the Yemeni government has sought to cover up
the US role in missile strikes against the local branch of Al Qaeda by
claiming the strikes as their own. Cable describes January meeting
between Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and General Petreaus.
“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours”, Mr Saleh said,
prompting his deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by
telling Parliament” that Yemen had carried out the strikes.
• Includes revelations about:
– Hilary Clinton ordered diplomats to engage in low-level espionage in the
UN, such as trying to work out others’ credit card details and biometric
records. Would be in violation of international covenants.
– Saudi Arabia called for the US to “cut off the head of the snake” and
bomb Iranian nuclear facilities – echoed by Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain
and Israel.
– US and South Korea discussions about the prospect of a unified Korea.
China saying it was not opposed to the idea.
– US pressuring Germany not to prosecute CIA officers responsible for
the kidnapping, extraordinary rendition and torture of German national
Khaled El-Masri on grounds of mistaken identity.
– Bargaining to empty Guantanamo Bay – Slovenia told it had to take a
prisoner if it wanted to meet Obama, Kiribati offered millions of dollars in
incentives to take Chinese Muslim detainees. Suggested accepting
prisoners would be a ‘low cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in
Europe’.
– Note in cable to Washington re Karzai: ‘While we must deal with AWK
as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be
corrupt and a narcotics trafficker’
– US attempting secret effort to remove from a Pakistani research reactor
highly enriched uranium that American offers fear could be diverted
towards illicit nuclear devices. Pakistan in 2009 refused to schedule a
visit by American technical experts for fear it would seem to public that
‘US was taking away Pakistan’s nuclear weapons’.
– Admission by Chinese contact to American Embassy in Beijing in
January 2010d that China’s Politburo directed the intrusion into Google’s
computer systems in China. Also admitted they had hacked into US
government computers and those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and
American businesses since 2002.
Bank secrets

page 2
 Key actors

• Threatening to release commercial information about a US bank that

Assange compared to the ‘Enron emails’ – speculation that it is Bank of
America, Citigroup or Goldman Sachs

Key actors • Julian Assange – Founder of WikiLeaks. An Australian with a long history
of hacking. Being investigated by US to see if he had violated its Espionage
Act (suggestion that documents may not have been properly
classified/actually secret therefore Act doesn’t apply). Now added to
Interpol’s wanted list for ‘sex crimes’ (unconsensual sex with two women)
committed in Sweden, who have issued international and European
warrants for him. Has now surrendered to British police in London and is
being defended by Geoffrey Robertson. Fear that he may be extradited
from Sweden to the US, where, according to his lawyers, odds of a fair trial
are slim. Also wanted in Australia. Been offered asylum by Ecuador.
• Bradley Manning – 23 year old US army intelligence analyst accused of
leaking 250,000 diplomatic cables and military logs about Afghanistan and
Iraq to WikiLeaks. Downloaded it onto a Lady Gaga CD and snuck it out.
Charged with illegally leaking classified information. Faces a court martial
and up to 52 years in prison. Pre-trial hearing in early 2011. Was caught
when Adrian Lamo, a hacker he discussed his leaks to over internet chat,
reported him to the federal authorities.

What would • The leaks would probably continue.

happen if • After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, agencies began sharing information that
WikiLeaks shut previously had been “stove-piped.” At the same time, the number of
individuals with access to classified information via the secure Secret
down? Internet Protocol Router Network grew to nearly 2.5 million people (most of
them at the Defense Department). Manning was one such person.
• The Pentagon is now tightening controls on classified information. For
example, classified computers will be “read-only,” preventing the use of
thumb drives and other removable media to copy and walk away with
sensitive data. The State Department and other agencies, too, are
tightening information-sharing. Moreover, the White House has directed
government entities that handle classified information to review their
"implementation of procedures for safeguarding classified information
against improper disclosures.”

Iceland law • WikiLeaks made a submission to Iceland for whistleblower law reform (pulls
together various international protections). Voted in unanimously by the
reform Icelandic parliament in 2009. Icelandic Modern Media Initiative (IMMI) –
aimed at setting itself up as a haven for digital information.
• Key provisions:
– Journalist cannot be compelled to reveal a source and can be
prosecuted for doing so (from Sweden).
– Conversations (including phone and IM) with journalists are inadmissible
in court (from Belgium)
– Government documents are public by default, all documents, classified
or not, are listed in an open director (Norway and Estonia)
– From New York State – will not recognise a libel verdict from a country
that does not have the equivalent of the US’ first amendment right to
free speech.

page 3
 Possible Arguments

For WikiLeaks

Strategic note: Need to shift focus – the harm is not that information about crimes or
misdeeds is published, the harm is that those things happened in the first place. The only
good that can come of it is that we try to ensure it doesn’t happen again. Given the
government is supposed to represent the people, it has no inherent right to do anything
that the people would disapprove of.

1 Facilitates right to information

(a) Political information
• The core principle of democracies is that governments should be accountable to
their citizens and that citizens, with the knowledge of how their governments have
operated, are able to vote for or against that government in coming elections.
• There is, however, a system failure in that, without organisations like WikiLeaks,
the government that is being kept accountable by information is also the entity in
charge of distributing that information. There is no guarantee, therefore, that
governments won’t (and they definitely do) withhold information that could be
damaging or otherwise unfavourable to its operations from citizens. Voters,
therefore, are unable to get a full picture of what their governments are doing and
as such cannot keep their government fully accountable.
• WikiLeaks fixes this information gap by providing information to voters so that they
can make an informed decision. It’s not about forcing individuals to think one way
or another, but rather providing them with the opportunity to make their decision
based on that information – if they choose to. (Fact that millions of people bothered
to download the 1.4Gb WikiLeaks insurance file shows a huge level of support for
the site)
• Perfect example of this is the leak of the Kroll Report on official corruption on
Kenya, which has been credited with turning around the 2007 election and bringing
about the defect at the polls of all the politicians named in that leaked document.

(b) Private information of big corporations

• WikiLeaks also fixes the market failure that exists at the moment due to the fact
that present markets don’t operate under a system of perfect information.
• Leaks about major corporations provide shareholders with information that allows
them to keep their companies accountable (analogous to elections).
• Moreover, however, the idea that companies should only be accountable to their
shareholders in accordance with the limited information they are required to
provide is over in an era where major corporations often have the capacity to
impact individuals far more than governments can.
• Given the GFC has demonstrated how much of an impact the private sector can
have on the public, WikiLeaks provides an important and unique insight into how
corporations are functioning, and provides both individuals and governments with
the means to hold them more accountable.

Printed 16/12/10 (10:21) page 1

2 Leads to better policy
(a) More representative
• Most obviously, means policies will now actually have to reflect what the people
want, given constituents now have the knowledge required to vote people out if
they disagree with policies. Governments can no longer seek to sneak policies
through.

(b) Better decision-making

• Given politicians and bureaucrats now know that there is a serious risk that
documents will be leaked, they are more likely to go through procedures properly,
and to think through the decisions that they make. Importantly, where there is
internal disagreement about the policy – a) the public are more likely to be able to
decide which way to go, or, even if the information is not leaked, b) decision-
makers are now more likely to assure that they have clear and solid grounds for
making the decision they make, as they know that that decision might be
scrutinised by the public later.
• In assessing the effects of the recent leaks, it would be instructive to remember
that Americans were led into the war in Iraq based on false assurances from the
White House and State Department. Serious doubts surrounding the invasion
were raised but quashed in Washington with little discussion. Even if WikiLeaks
would not have stopped the decision to invade, it would at least have ensured that
politicians would have had to take the dissent seriously.

(c) Overcomes breakdowns in government mechanisms

• Important to remember that “the government” is not a single entity, but a myriad of
organs. WikiLeaks allows the various organs a way of exchanging or sharing
information when it is being repressed.
• Coleen Rowley, a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and
Federal Air Marshal Bogdan Dzakovic, publicly suggested that WikiLeaks might
have prevented September 11 as it would have provided those who had seen the
warning signs are way to get information out despite superiors warning against
‘talking to the media’ and frowning on whistle-blowing, yet refusing to do anything.
The 9/11 Commission concluded that failure to share information resulted in a
failure to ‘connect the dots’.

3 Gets unique and important kinds of information

WikiLeaks is able to uniquely expose information that might not otherwise get out in three
main ways.

(a) Stateless therefore independent

• Firstly, the fact that it is the world’s stateless news organisation means that it is the
only current news organisation that is completely independent of the government of
its host country. WikiLeaks is organised specifically so that if a crackdown arises in
one country, they can simply switch servers to another country. This is particularly
important because, unlike news organisations, it cannot be pressured by
governments to withhold information (many governments, for example, requested
that the newspapers that received early access to the diplomatic cables not
disclose significant parts of them). At the most extreme level, it is also immune to
any local laws that attempt to minimise dissent. This is particularly important in
undemocratic or fledgling democracies with corrupt governments, but even in
places like the US, whose willingness to suggest changing laws to stop Assange
doesn’t bode well for freedom of speech.

page 2
(b) More welcoming to whistleblowers
• Secondly, the fact that it’s so independent and can ensure complete anonymity
means that it attracts whistleblowers, and, in particular, whistleblowers with
particularly explosive or controversial documents. Unlike newspaper organisations
with a terrestrial address organised under the laws of a nation that could for the
reported you contacted to reveal your real name, and may or may not run the
documents you’re delivered to them in a censored or non-censored way –
WikiLeaks has no address, answers no subpoenas and promises to run the full
cache of information if they can be verified as real. They’re also exerts in
encryption, and as such can provide important protection to whistleblowers. Those
are things that newspapers can never provide. WikiLeaks, therefore, means that
the public are more likely to get access to leaks that whistleblowers would normally
be too scared to expose.
• Importantly, the documents that are most likely to be the most explosive, and to
incur the greatest penalties for publishing – such as war logs and diplomatic
cables, are also things that are more likely to change public opinion.

(c) Doesn’t need to sell headlines

• Thirdly, WikiLeaks, as a non-profit organisation, doesn’t have to deal with the
commercial pressure to choose to run or reject stories based on what they think
will sell. They also don’t incur the opportunity cost of only being able to publish
certain stories at the expense of others, because of limited space. This means that
they can publish anything they feel is important, with the knowledge that those who
are interested will be able to access it.
• Prime example = In 2008, WikiLeaks published a report by the Kenya National
Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya, that documented the
deaths or disappearances of some 500 young Kenyans. The Western press
weren’t interested initially, but eventually the story was picked up by London’s
Sunday Times. The Commissions findings were then corroborated by a special UN
investigator, and WikiLeaks went on to win the 2009 Media Award from Amnesty
International for the leak.

Against WikiLeaks

Strategic note: The public has no right to information, and deny that this information is
actually good for public debate.

1 There is no right to information

(a) Government right to suppress information
• Yes, the government is representative of the people, but they are also elected to
govern, and as such need the capacity to function effectively as a government.
Sometimes this means that information must be kept from the public, such as on
national security grounds or because the release of that information could be
against the nation’s interests.
• Accountability in and of itself is not an inherent good and the need for
accountability must be balanced with a need to protect the governmental structure
as a whole. If a government is made so accountable that it is unable to function,
that leads to a worse outcome for voters as well.

page 3
(b) No right to private information
• In particular, no right to private information about corporations, etc, which are
private bodies.

2 WikiLeaks is unaccountable
• The problem is that as much as he can argue that WikiLeaks is facilitating
democracy, Assange himself is not accountable to the people whose secrets are
being leaked. As elected representatives of citizens, governments represent the
collective interests of their constituents, yet those constituents have absolutely no
say in whether or not they want to know the information or others to know the
information that could lead to the destabilisation and undermining of their elected
governments.
• We’re not quite sure where WikiLeaks has its servers, but can deduce that they are
in Sweden, Iceland, Belgium and New York state. Those jurisdictions have
generous whistle-blower protection laws, and it is those laws that WikiLeaks has
used to protect itself from the consequences of its actions – such as through
defending the suit brought by Swiss bank Julius Baer. While enjoying the
protections that these laws provide, he never submits to them.
• Unlike Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, then stayed in America
to stand trial, Assange guarantees that he is above any law. By placing himself
outside the reach of any jurisdiction, Assange ensures that the citizens whose
secrets he has shared with the world are never able to decide whether or not they
want that secret revealed. That is also depriving individuals of their democratic
right to control how their country is governed.

3 Operational harms
(a) Military harms
• Could give away locations and battle plans. Even if only released after battle has
occurred, militaries often employ similar strategies and so those strategies could
be compromised in the future. At the very least reveals information about things
such as equipment, which then provides enemy combatants with knowledge about
what they have to deal with (eg know what type of bullet they need to use to get
through x type of armour).

(b) Diplomatic harms

• Harms the ability of governments to conduct effective foreign policy. Given secrets
are a regular part of just the most basic, everyday human interactions, it is
completely naïve to suggest that they have no place in even more complex, state
relationships. Particularly important when dealing with nations such as the US, who
conduct diplomatic relations with many countries, often with conflicting national
interests.
• Means that decisions are also likely to be made by smaller, less accountable
groups. Likely to lead to less information sharing, not more – eg papers dissenting
with main government position likely to never be allowed to be written for fear that
they could be leaked.
• Public leaks of diplomatic cables between governments in difficult situations is also
likely to lead to less rational, but more populist, or rash decision-making.
Negotiations in conflicts, for instance, often involve concessions that would look
awful if taken out of context.
– May no longer be politically viable, for example, for Yemen to allow
the US to conduct anti-terrorist operations in its borders.

page 4
 – Some diplomatic cables from US concern American interventions on
behalf of dissidents in authoritarian countries. Release of such cables
would endanger any future such American intervention, since
authoritarian governments would fear that concessions to secret
American requests would eventually embarrass them if the requests
were made public. May also endanger dissidents themselves, or their
movements – if they become tainted as American-backed.
– It’s a good thing that China is able to make concessions in relation to
North Korea without having to sacrifice its position on the world stage.
Releasing such information could sacrifice any concessions from it or
similar countries.

(c) Harm to informants / less informants

• Could seriously endanger the lives of informants. The Taliban, after the release of
the Afghan war logs, said it was cross-referencing individuals mentioned in the war
logs against its hit list.
• Cables reviewed an Iranian businessman who revealed to the US a firm involved in
breaking arms sanctions on Iran. While his name was not mentioned, the cables do
disclose his family history, career history – including a notable sporting career and
education, which would be enough to track him down. Now could face reprisals.
• Informants are also less likely to come forward for fear of being exposed.

4 Harms political debate

• Firstly, need to be clear that, regardless of its claims to objectivity, WikiLeaks does
make editorial decisions about the information that is released – from its decision
of what or what not to release to its often highly incendiary captions, such as its
titling of the 2007 Afghan war footage “Collateral Murder”.
• Secondly, there’s no guarantee that the information is verified or correct.
Particularly problematic for the news publications which its relies on to generate
publicity for its leaks, because they don’t have any access to the source at all.
– The WikiLeaks report presented a unique dilemma to the three papers
given advance copies of the 92,000 reports included in the Afghan
war logs — the New York Times, Germany’s Der Speigel and the UK’s
Guardian. The editors couldn’t verify the source of the reports — as
they would have done if their own staffers had obtained them — and
they couldn’t stop WikiLeaks from posting it, whether they wrote about
it or not. So they were basically left with proving veracity through
official sources and picking through the pile for the bits that seemed to
be the most truthful.
• Once information is released – in the best case scenario that it is correct
information – still bad for political debate.
– Media will pick the most scandalous news that is mostly likely to sell
headlines – headlines don’t say “250,000 diplomatic cables leaked,
249,500 pretty kosher’.
– Information therefore also often taken out of context. Information of
army blunders don’t explain the difficult conditions that they face,
details of civilian or soldier deaths don’t explain that more people
could have died had the army not done what it did.
– Very difficult for government to fight back. Long articles explaining the
government position is unlikely to attract as much interest or air-time
as the original leak. Bad news is also much easier to show than good.
Difficult for governments to quantify the good they have done – can’t
exactly show a video of someone cooking and be like “we saved her”.

page 5