WikiLeaks is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.

WikiLeaks

wikileaks.ch[1][2]
wikileaks.org (originally)[Note]
URL
Official mirrors list
Commercial? No
Type of site Document archive & disclosure
Owner The Sunshine Press
Created by Julian Assange
Launched 4 October 2006[3]
Alexa rank 1,970 (February 2011)[4]
Current status Active

Julian Assange, the main spokesperson and editor-in-chief for WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private,

secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources, news leaks, and whistleblowers. Its
website, launched in 2006 under The Sunshine Press[5] organisation,[6] claimed a database of
more than 1.2 million documents within a year of its launch.[7] WikiLeaks describes its founders
as a mix of Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists
from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[8] Julian Assange, an
Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its director.[9] The site was originally
launched as a user-editable wiki, but has progressively moved towards a more traditional
publication model and no longer accepts either user comments or edits.
In April 2010, WikiLeaks published gunsight footage from the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike in
which Iraqi civilians and journalists were killed by an Apache helicopter, as the Collateral
Murder video. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of
more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public
review.[10] In October 2010, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the
Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. This allowed every
death in Iraq, and across the border in Iran, to be mapped.[11] In November 2010, WikiLeaks
began releasing U.S. State department diplomatic cables.

In April 2011, Wikileaks began publishing 779 secret files relating to prisoners detained in the
Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[12]

Contents
[hide]

 1 History
o 1.1 Founding
o 1.2 Purpose
o 1.3 Funding
o 1.4 Operational challenges
 2 Administration
o 2.1 Site management issues
o 2.2 Hosting
o 2.3 Financing
o 2.4 Name servers
o 2.5 Name and policies
o 2.6 Verification of submissions
o 2.7 Legal status
o 2.8 Insurance file
 3 Leaks
o 3.1 2006–08
o 3.2 2009
o 3.3 2010
o 3.4 2011
 4 Backlash and pressure
o 4.1 Governments
o 4.2 Organisations and companies
o 4.3 U.S. diplomatic cables leak responses
 5 Reception
 6 Spin-offs
 7 See also
 8 Footnotes
 9 Further reading
  10 External links

History
Founding

The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006.[3] The website was unveiled,
and published its first document in December 2006.[13][14] The site claims to have been "founded
by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the
US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".[8]

The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[15] It has been represented in public
since January 2007 by Julian Assange and others. Assange describes himself as a member of
WikiLeaks' advisory board.[16] News reports in The Australian have called Assange the "founder
of WikiLeaks".[17] According to Wired magazine, a volunteer said that Assange described himself
in a private conversation as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher,
spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest".[18] As of June 2009, the site
had over 1,200 registered volunteers[8] and listed an advisory board comprising Assange and
eight other people.[19]

Purpose

WikiLeaks states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former
Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to
people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and
corporations."[8][16]

In January 2007, the website stated that it had over 1.2 million leaked documents that it was
preparing to publish.[20] An article in The New Yorker said:

One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor
network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers
from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to
record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial
tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, "[w]e have received over
one million documents from thirteen countries."[14][21]

Assange responded to the suggestion that eavesdropping on Chinese hackers played a crucial
part in the early days of WikiLeaks by saying "the imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a
2006 investigation into Chinese espionage one of our contacts was involved in. Somewhere
between none and handful of those documents were ever released on WikiLeaks. Non-
government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as Tibetan associations were informed (by
us)".[22] The group has subsequently released a number of other significant documents which
have become front-page news items, ranging from documentation of equipment expenditures and
holdings in the Afghanistan war to corruption in Kenya.[23]

The organisation's stated goal is to ensure that whistleblowers and journalists are not jailed for
emailing sensitive or classified documents, as happened to Chinese journalist Shi Tao, who was
sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[15]

In an interview on The Colbert Report, Assange explained about the limit to the freedom of
speech, saying, "[it is] not an ultimate freedom, however free speech is what regulates
government and regulates law. That is why in the US constitution the bill of rights says that
congress is to make no such law abridging the freedom of the press. It is to take the rights of the
press outside the rights of the law because those rights are superior to the law because in fact
they create the law. Every constitution, every bit of legislation is derived from the flow of
information. Similarly every government is elected as a result of people understanding things".[24]

The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.
[25]
In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of
political discourse.[25] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the
WikiLeaks project, noting that "Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail
sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long
incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East."[26]

Funding

On 24 December 2009, WikiLeaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[27] and
suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[28] Material that was
previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial
mirrors.[29] WikiLeaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the
operational costs were covered.[28] WikiLeaks saw this as a kind of strike "to ensure that
everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue".[30] While
the organisation initially planned for funds to be secured by 6 January 2010,[31] it was not until 3
February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.
[32]

On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended WikiLeaks' donation account and froze its assets.
WikiLeaks said that this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason".[33] The
account was restored on 25 January 2010.[34] On 18 May 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its
website and archive were back up.[35]

As of June 2010, WikiLeaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[14] but did not make the cut.[36] WikiLeaks commented
via Twitter, "WikiLeaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly
recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure."[37] WikiLeaks said that the Knight
foundation announced the award to "'12 Grantees who will impact future of news' – but not
WikiLeaks" and questioned whether Knight foundation was "really looking for impact".[36] A
spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks' statement, saying "WikiLeaks
was not recommended by Knight staff to the board."[37] However, he declined to say whether
WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-
staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the
press and on social networking sites.[37]

Operational challenges

On 17 July, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the 2010 Hackers on Planet
Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange because of the presence of federal agents
at the conference.[38][39] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and
running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[38][40][41] Assange was a surprise speaker at a
TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that the site had begun accepting
submissions again.[42]

Upon returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was detained for three
hours at the airport by US agents, according to anonymous sources.[43] The sources told Cnet that
Appelbaum's bag was searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied, his laptop was
inspected, although in what manner was unclear.[43] Appelbaum reportedly refused to answer
questions without a lawyer present, and was not allowed to make a phone call. His three mobile
phones were reportedly taken and not returned.[43] On 31 July, he spoke at a Defcon conference
and mentioned his phone being "seized". After speaking, he was approached by two FBI agents
and questioned.[43]

Assange has acknowledged that the practice of posting largely unfiltered classified information
online could one day lead the Web site to have "blood on our hands."[44][45] He expressed the view
that the potential to save lives, however, outweighs the danger to innocents.[46] Furthermore,
WikiLeaks has highlighted independent investigations which have failed to find any evidence of
civilians harmed as a result of WikiLeaks' activities.[47][48]

On 25 September 2010, after being suspended by Assange for "suspended for disloyalty,
insubordination and destabilization", Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the German spokesman for
Wikileaks, told Der Spiegel that he was resigning, saying "WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I
no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project".[49][50][51]
Assange accused Domscheit-Berg of leaking information to Newsweek claiming the Wikileaks
team was unhappy with Assange's leadership and handling of the Afghan war document releases.
[51]
Domscheit-Berg left with a small group to start OpenLeaks.com, a new leak organisation and
website with a different management and distribution philosophy.[52][53] Herbert Snorrason, also a
25-year old Icelandic university student, resigned after he challenged Assange on his decision to
suspend Domscheit-Berg and was bluntly rebuked.[51] Iceland MP Birgitta Jonsdottir also left
Wikileaks citing lack of transparency, lack of structure, and poor communication flow in the
organisation.[54] According to The Independent, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks left
the website in 2010.[55]

Administration
According to a January 2010 interview, the WikiLeaks team then consisted of five people
working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were
compensated.[30] WikiLeaks has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about
€200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work currently done
by volunteers were paid for.[30] WikiLeaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press,
Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[30] Its only revenue
stream is donations, but WikiLeaks has planned to add an auction model to sell early access to
documents.[30] The Wau Holland Foundation helps to process donations to WikiLeaks. In July
2010, the Foundation stated that WikiLeaks was receiving no money for personnel costs, only for
hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[56] An article in TechEye wrote:

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for WikiLeaks can be made to the
foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to WikiLeaks after the whistleblower website
files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay
any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [sic] to WikiLeaks' personnel, corroborating the
statement of the site's former German representative Daniel Schmitt [real name Daniel
Domscheit-Berg][57] on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.
[56]

However, in December 2010 the Wau Holland Foundation stated that 4 permanent employees,
including Julian Assange, had begun to receive salaries.[58]

Site management issues

Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson Julian
Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, the site's former German representative who was
suspended by Assange. Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving
the organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the site.[57][59][60]

Hosting

WikiLeaks describes itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking".
[61]
The site is available on multiple servers and different domain names following a number of
denial-of-service attacks and its severance from different Domain Name System (DNS)
providers.[62][63]

Until August 2010, WikiLeaks was hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing "highly
secure, no-questions-asked hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about
its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs".[64] Currently, WikiLeaks is mainly hosted
by Bahnhof in a facility that used to be a nuclear bunker.[65][66] Other servers are spread around
the world with the central server located in Sweden.[67] Julian Assange has said that the servers
are located in Sweden (and the other countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal
protection to the disclosures made on the site". He talks about the Swedish constitution, which
gives the information providers total legal protection.[67] It is forbidden according to Swedish law
for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[68]
These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult to take WikiLeaks offline; such laws place
an onus of proof upon any complainant whose suit would circumscribe WikiLeaks’ liberty, e.g.,
its rights, of exercising free speech online. Furthermore, "WikiLeaks maintains its own servers at
undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and
other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."[64][69]

On 17 August 2010, it was announced that the Swedish Pirate Party will be hosting and
managing many of WikiLeaks' new servers. The party donates servers and bandwidth to
WikiLeaks without charge. Technicians of the party will make sure that the servers are
maintained and working.[70][71]

After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack from a hacker on its old servers,
WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon's servers.[72] Later, however, the website was "ousted" from
the Amazon servers.[72] In a public statement, Amazon said that WikiLeaks was not following its
terms of service. The company further explained, "There were several parts they were violating.
For example, our terms of service state that 'you represent and warrant that you own or otherwise
control all of the rights to the content... that use of the content you supply does not violate this
policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.' It's clear that WikiLeaks doesn't own or
otherwise control all the rights to this classified content."[73] WikiLeaks then decided to install
itself on the servers of OVH in France.[74] After criticism from the French government, the
company sought two court rulings about the legality of hosting WikiLeaks. While the court in
Lille immediately declined to force OVH to shut down the WikiLeaks site, the court in Paris
stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical issue.[75][76]

This article's factual accuracy may be compromised because of out-of-date

information. Please help improve the article by updating it. There may be additional
information on the talk page. (December 2010)

WikiLeaks is based on several software packages, including MediaWiki, Freenet, Tor, and PGP.
[77]
WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor because of the strong privacy needs of its
users.[78]

On 4 November 2010, Julian Assange told Swiss public television TSR that he is seriously
considering seeking political asylum in neutral Switzerland and setting up a WikiLeaks
foundation in the country to move the operation there.[79][80] According to Assange, Switzerland
and Iceland are the only countries where WikiLeaks would feel safe to operate.[81][82]

Financing

WikiLeaks is a non-profit organisation, and it is dependent on public donations. Its main

financing methods include conventional bank transfers and online payment systems. Wau
Holland Foundation, one of the WikiLeaks' main funding channels, stated that they received
more than €900,000 (US$1.2 million) in public donations between October 2009 and December
2010, out of which €370,000 has been passed on to WikiLeaks. Hendrik Fulda, vice president of
the Wau Holland Foundation, mentioned that the Foundation had been receiving twice as many
donations through PayPal as through normal banks, before PayPal's decision to suspend
WikiLeaks' account. He also noted that every new WikiLeaks publication brought "a wave of
support", and that donations were strongest in the weeks after WikiLeaks started publishing
leaked diplomatic cables.[83][84]

Name servers

WikiLeaks had been using EveryDNS's services, which led to DDoS attacks on the host.[clarification
needed]
The attacks affected the quality of service at EveryDNS, so the company withdrew their
service from WikiLeaks. Pro-WikiLeaks supporters retaliated by launching a DDoS attack
against EveryDNS. Due to mistakes in the blogosphere, some supporters accidentally mistook
EasyDNS for EveryDNS and attacked it. The attacks caused both EveryDNS and EasyDNS to
experience outages. Afterwards EasyDNS decided to provide WikiLeaks its name server service.
[85]

Name and policies

Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website is no longer wiki-based as of May 2010.[86]
Also, despite some popular confusion[87] due to both having the term "wiki" in their names,
WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other ("wiki" is not a brand name);[88][89]
Wikia, a for-profit corporation loosely affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation, did however
purchase several WikiLeaks-related domain names (including wikileaks.com and wikileaks.net)
as a "protective brand measure" in 2007.[90]

The "about" page originally read:[91]

To the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody
can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and
untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity.
Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective
publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background
material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be
revealed by a cast of thousands.

However, WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents that were "of
political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" (and excluded "material that is already
publicly available").[92] This coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would
drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or indiscriminate publication of
confidential records."[93] It is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, as the original
FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are
published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous
WikiLeaks reviewers. By 2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it.
[...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility and veracity."[94] After the
2010 relaunch, posting new comments to leaks was no longer possible.[86]

Verification of submissions
WikiLeaks states that it has never released a misattributed document. Documents are assessed
before release. In response to concerns about the possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks,
WikiLeaks has stated that misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media.
WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[95] The FAQ states that: "The simplest and most
effective countermeasure is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can
scrutinise and discuss leaked documents."[96]

According to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a group of five
reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as language or programming, who also
investigate the background of the leaker if his or her identity is known.[97] In that group, Assange
has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[97]

Legal status

Legal background

The legal status of WikiLeaks is complex. Assange considers WikiLeaks a whistleblower

protection intermediary. Rather than leaking directly to the press, and fearing exposure and
retribution, whistleblowers can leak to WikiLeaks, which then leaks to the press for them.[98] Its
servers are located throughout Europe and are accessible from any uncensored web connection.
The group located its headquarters in Sweden because it has one of the world’s strongest shield
laws to protect confidential source-journalist relationships.[99][100] WikiLeaks has stated that they
"do not solicit any information".[99] However, Assange used his speech during the Hack In The
Box conference in Malaysia to ask the crowd of hackers and security researchers to help find
documents on its "Most Wanted Leaks of 2009" list.[101]

Potential criminal prosecution

The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange
shortly after the leak of diplomatic cables began.[102][103] Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed
the probe was “not sabre-rattling”, but was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."[103] The
The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage
Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment
protections for the press.[102][104] Several Supreme Court cases have previously established that the
American constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information provided the
publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring it.[105] Federal prosecutors have also
considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in stolen government property, but since the
diplomatic cables are intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces hurdles.
[106]
Any prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United States, a step made
more complicated and potentially delayed by any preceding extradition to Sweden.[107] One of
Assange's lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to Sweden because it might lead
to his extradition to the United States.[108] Assange's attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from
Swedish authorities there has been a secretly empaneled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]"
meeting to consider criminal charges in the WikiLeaks case.[109]
In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian
laws may have been broken by WikiLeaks, but Julia Gillard has stated that the foundation of
WikiLeaks and the stealing of classified documents from the US administration is illegal in
foreign countries.[110] Gillard later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of the
material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr Assange."[111] Spencer Zifcak,
President of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties group, notes that with no charge, and
no trial completed, it is inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[112]

On threats by various governments toward Assange, legal expert Ben Saul argues that founder
Julian Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to demonise him as a criminal or as a
terrorist, without any legal basis.[113] The Center for Constitutional Rights has issued a statement
highlighting its alarm at the "multiple examples of legal overreach and irregularities" in his
arrest.[114]

Insurance file

On 29 July 2010, WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB "Insurance File" to the Afghan War Diary page.
The file is AES encrypted and has been speculated to serve as insurance in case the WikiLeaks
website or its spokesman Julian Assange are incapacitated, upon which the passphrase could be
published, similar to the concept of a dead man's switch.[115][116] Following the first few days'
release of the US diplomatic cables starting 28 November 2010, the US television broadcaster
CBS predicted that "If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock
the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire
because so many people already have copies."[117] CBS correspondent Declan McCullagh stated,
"What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that
would be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released."[117]

Leaks
Main article: Information published by WikiLeaks

2006–08

WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government
officials signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys."[14] In August 2007, The Guardian published a
story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader Daniel arap Moi based on
information provided via WikiLeaks.[118] In November 2007, a March 2003 copy of Standard
Operating Procedures for Camp Delta detailing the protocol of the U.S. Army at the
Guantanamo Bay detention camp was released.[119] The document revealed that some prisoners
were off-limits to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something that the U.S. military
had in the past repeatedly denied.[120] In February 2008, WikiLeaks released allegations of illegal
activities at the Cayman Islands branch of the Swiss Bank Julius Baer which led to the bank
suing WikiLeaks and obtaining an injunction which temporarily shut down wikileaks.org.[121] The
site was instantly mirrored by supporters and later that month the judge overturned his previous
decision citing First Amendment concerns and questions about legal jurisdiction.[122][123] In March
2008, WikiLeaks published what they referred to as "the collected secret 'bibles' of Scientology,"
and three days later received letters threatening to sue them for breach of copyright.[124] In
September 2008, during the 2008 United States presidential election campaigns, the contents of a
Yahoo account belonging to Sarah Palin (the running mate of Republican presidential nominee
John McCain) were posted on WikiLeaks after being hacked into by members of Anonymous.[125]
In November 2008, the membership list of the far-right British National Party was posted to
WikiLeaks, after briefly appearing on a blog.[126] A year later, on October 2009, another list of
BNP members was leaked.[127]

2009

In January 2009, WikiLeaks released 86 telephone intercept recordings of Peruvian politicians

and businessmen involved in the 2008 Peru oil scandal.[128] In February, WikiLeaks released
6,780 Congressional Research Service reports[129] followed in March, by a list of contributors to
the Norm Coleman senatorial campaign[130][131] and a set of documents belonging to Barclays
Bank that had been ordered removed from the website of The Guardian.[132] In July, they released
a report relating to a serious nuclear accident that had occurred at the Iranian Natanz nuclear
facility in 2009.[133] Later media reports have suggested that the accident was related to the
Stuxnet computer worm.[134][135] In September, internal documents from Kaupthing Bank were
leaked, from shortly before the collapse of Iceland's banking sector, which led to the 2008–2010
Icelandic financial crisis. The document shows that suspiciously large sums of money were
loaned to various owners of the bank, and large debts written off.[136] In October, Joint Services
Protocol 440, a British document advising the security services on how to avoid documents
being leaked was published by WikiLeaks.[137] Later that month, they announced that a super-
injunction was being used by the commodities company, Trafigura to gag The Guardian
newspaper from reporting on a leaked internal document regarding a toxic dumping incident in
the Ivory Coast.[138][139] In November, they hosted copies of e-mail correspondence between
climate scientists, although they were not originally leaked to WikiLeaks.[140][141] They also
released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the 11 September attacks.[142]
During 2008 and 2009, WikiLeaks published the alleged lists of forbidden or illegal web
addresses for Australia, Denmark and Thailand. These were originally created to prevent access
to child pornography and terrorism, but the leaks revealed that other sites covering unrelated
subjects were also listed.[143][144][145]

2010

In March 2010, WikiLeaks released a secret 32-page U.S. Department of Defense

Counterintelligence Analysis Report written in March 2008 discussing the leaking of material by
WikiLeaks and how it could be deterred.[146][147] In April, a classified video of the 12 July 2007
Baghdad airstrike was released, showing two Reuters employees being fired at, after the pilots
mistakenly thought the men were carrying weapons, which were in fact cameras.[148] In the week
following the release, "wikileaks" was the search term with the most significant growth
worldwide in the last seven days as measured by Google Insights.[149] In January 2010,
WikiLeaks received the first test cable[150] A 22-year-old US Army intelligence analyst, PFC
(formerly SPC) Bradley Manning, a US embassy cable relating about IceSave, thereafter referred
as "Reykjavik 13"[citation needed]. In June 2010, he was arrested after alleged chat logs were turned in
to the authorities by former hacker Adrian Lamo, in whom he had confided. Manning reportedly
told Lamo he had leaked the "Collateral Murder" video, in addition to a video of the Granai
airstrike and around 260,000 diplomatic cables, to WikiLeaks.[151] In July, WikiLeaks released
92,000 documents related to the war in Afghanistan between 2004 and the end of 2009 to The
Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. The documents detail individual incidents
including friendly fire and civilian casualties.[152] At the end of July, a 1.4 GB "insurance file"
was added to the Afghan War Diary page, whose decryption details would be released if
WikiLeaks or Assange were harmed.[115] About 15,000 of the 92,000 documents have not yet
been released on WikiLeaks, as the group is currently reviewing the documents to remove some
of the sources of the information. WikiLeaks asked the Pentagon and human-rights groups to
help remove names from the documents to reduce the potential harm caused by their release, but
did not receive assistance.[153] Following the Love Parade stampede in Duisburg, Germany on 24
July 2010, a local published internal documents of the city administration regarding the planning
of Love Parade. The city government reacted by acquiring a court order on 16 August forcing the
removal of the documents from the site on which it was hosted.[154] On 20 August WikiLeaks
released a publication titled Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010, which
comprised 43 internal documents regarding the Love Parade 2010.[155][156] Following on from the
leak of information from the Afghan War, in October 2010, around 400,000 documents relating
to the Iraq War were released in October. The BBC quoted The Pentagon referring to the Iraq
War Logs as "the largest leak of classified documents in its history." Media coverage of the
leaked documents focused on claims that the U.S. government had ignored reports of torture by
the Iraqi authorities during the period after the 2003 war.[157]

Diplomatic cables release

Main articles: United States diplomatic cables leak, contents, and reactions

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers from Spain (El País), France (Le
Monde), Germany (Der Spiegel), the United Kingdom (The Guardian), and the United States
(The New York Times) started to simultaneously publish the first 220 of 251,287 leaked
confidential—but not top secret—diplomatic cables from 274 US embassies around the world,
dated from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010.[158][159] WikiLeaks plans to release the
entirety of the cables in phases over several months.[159]

The contents of the diplomatic cables include numerous unguarded comments and revelations
regarding: critiques and praises about the host countries of various US embassies; political
manoeuvring regarding climate change; discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing
tension in the Middle East; efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament; actions in the
War on Terror; assessments of other threats around the world; dealings between various
countries; US intelligence and counterintelligence efforts; and other diplomatic actions.
Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak include stark criticism, anticipation,
commendation, and quiescence. Consequent reactions to the US government include sympathy,
bewilderment and dismay. On 14 December 2010 the United States Department of Justice issued
a subpoena directing Twitter to provide information for accounts registered to or associated with
WikiLeaks.[160] Twitter decided to notify its users.[161] The overthrow of the presidency in Tunisia
has been attributed in part to reaction against the corruption revealed by leaked cables.[162][163][164]
2011

Guantanamo files

Main article: Guantánamo Bay files leak

In late April 2011, files relate to the Guantanamo prison were released.

Upcoming leaks

In May 2010, WikiLeaks said they had video footage of a massacre of civilians in Afghanistan
by the US military which they were preparing to release.[165][166]

In an interview with Chris Anderson on 19 July 2010, Assange showed a document WikiLeaks
had on an Albanian oil well blowout, and said they also had material from inside BP,[167] and that
they were "getting enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of a very high calibre" but
added that they have not been able to verify and release the material because they do not have
enough volunteer journalists.[168]

In October 2010, Assange told a leading Moscow newspaper that "The Kremlin had better brace
itself for a coming wave of WikiLeaks disclosures about Russia."[169][170] Assange later clarified:
"we have material on many businesses and governments, including in Russia. It’s not right to say
there’s going to be a particular focus on Russia".[171]

In a 2009 Computer World interview, Assange claimed to be in possession of "5GB from Bank
of America". In 2010 he told Forbes magazine that WikiLeaks was planning another "megaleak"
early in 2011, from inside the private sector, involving "a big U.S. bank" and revealing an
"ecosystem of corruption". Bank of America's stock price fell by 3% as a result of this
announcement.[172][173] Assange commented on the possible impact of the release that "it could
take down a bank or two."[174][175]

In December 2010, Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, told The Andrew Marr Show on the BBC,
that WikiLeaks had information it considers to be a "thermo-nuclear device" which it would
release if the organisation needs to defend itself.[176]

In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details
of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before
being made publicly available at a later date.[177]

Backlash and pressure

Governments

Germany
The home of Theodor Reppe, registrant of the German WikiLeaks domain name, wikileaks.de,
was raided on 24 March 2009 after WikiLeaks released the Australian Communications and
Media Authority (ACMA) censorship blacklist.[178] The site was not affected.[179][180]

People's Republic of China

The WikiLeaks website claims that the government of the People's Republic of China has
attempted to block all traffic to web sites with "wikileaks" in the URL since 2007, but that this
can be bypassed through encrypted connections or by using one of WikiLeaks' many covert
URLs.[181]

Australia

On 16 March 2009, the Australian Communications and Media Authority added WikiLeaks to
their proposed blacklist of sites that will be blocked for all Australians if the mandatory internet
filtering censorship scheme is implemented as planned.[182][183] The blacklisting was removed 30
November 2010.[184]

Thailand

The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) is currently censoring the
website WikiLeaks in Thailand[185] and more than 40,000 other webpages[186] because of the
emergency decree in Thailand imposed as a result of political instabilities (Emergency decree
declared beginning of April 2010[187]).

United States

Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress.[188] On 3

December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo forbidding all
unauthorised federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified
documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites.[189] The U.S. Army, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting
WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",[190]
although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[104] According to a report on the
Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked Britain, Germany and Australia among
others to also consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and
to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.[191] Columbia University students
have been warned by their Office of Career Services that the U.S. State Department had
contacted the office in an email saying that the diplomatic cables which were released by
WikiLeaks were "still considered classified." and that "online discourse about the documents
'would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information.'"[192]

All U.S. federal government staff have been blocked from viewing WikiLeaks.[193] Some
Department of Homeland Security staff say the ban on accessing WikiLeaks on government
computers and other government devices is hampering their work; "More damage will be done
by keeping the federal workforce largely in the dark about what other interested parties
worldwide are going to be reading and analysing." One official says that the ban apparently
covers personal computers also.[194]

As in individual responses, government officials had mixed feelings. Although Hillary Clinton
refused to comment on specific reports, she claimed that the leaks "put people's lives in danger"
and "threatens national security."[13] On the other hand, Robert Gates, a former CIA chief and
Deputy National Security Adviser under George H. W. Bush, argued, "Is this embarrassing? Yes.
Is it awkward? yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."[13]

Iceland

After the release of the 2007 airstrikes video and as they prepared to release film of the Granai
airstrike, Julian Assange has said that his group of volunteers came under intense surveillance. In
an interview and Twitter posts he said that a restaurant in Reykjavík where his group of
volunteers met came under surveillance in March; there was "covert following and hidden
photography" by police and foreign intelligence services; that an apparent British intelligence
agent made thinly veiled threats in a Luxembourg car park; and that one of the volunteers was
detained by police for 21 hours. Another volunteer posted that computers were seized, saying "If
anything happens to us, you know why ... and you know who is responsible."[195] According to
the Columbia Journalism Review, "the Icelandic press took a look at Assange’s charges of being
surveilled in Iceland [...] and, at best, have found nothing to substantiate them."[196]

In August 2009, Kaupthing Bank succeeded in obtaining a court order gagging Iceland’s national
broadcaster, RÚV, from broadcasting a risk analysis report showing the bank's substantial
exposure to debt default risk. This information had been leaked by a whistleblower to WikiLeaks
and remained available on the WikiLeaks site; faced with an injunction minutes before broadcast
the channel ran with a screen grab of the WikiLeaks site instead of the scheduled piece on the
bank. Citizens of Iceland felt outraged that RÚV was prevented from broadcasting news of
relevance.[197] Therefore, WikiLeaks has been credited with inspiring the Icelandic Modern
Media Initiative, a bill meant to reclaim Iceland's 2007 Reporters Without Borders (Reporters
sans frontières) ranking as first in the world for free speech. It aims to enact a range of
protections for sources, journalists, and publishers.[198][199] Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former volunteer
for WikiLeaks and member of the Icelandic parliament, is the chief sponsor of the proposal.

Organisations and companies

Facebook

WikiLeaks claimed in April 2010 that Facebook deleted their fan page, which had 30,000 fans.
[200][201][202]
However, as of 7 December 2010 the group's Facebook fan page was available and had
grown by 100,000 fans daily since 1 December,[203] to more than 1.5 million fans. It is also the
largest growth of the week.[204] Regarding the presence of WikiLeaks on Facebook, Andrew
Noyes, the company's D.C. based Manager of Public Policy Communications has stated "the
Wikileaks Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we encountered any
material posted on the page that violates our policies."[205]
Moneybookers

In October 2010, it was reported that Moneybookers, which collected donations for WikiLeaks,
had ended its relationship with the site. Moneybookers stated that its decision had been made "to
comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by government authorities,
agencies or commissions."[206]

U.S. diplomatic cables leak responses

According to The Times, WikiLeaks and its members have complained about continuing
harassment and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organisations, including
extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats, “covert following and hidden
photography.”[165] Two lawyers for Julian Assange in the United Kingdom told The Guardian
that they believed they were being watched by the security services after the U.S. cables leak,
which started on 28 November 2010.[207]

Furthermore, several companies severed ties with WikiLeaks. After providing 24-hour
notification, American-owned EveryDNS dropped WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December
2010, citing DDoS attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".[62][208] The site's
'info' DNS lookup remained operational at alternative addresses for direct access respectively to
the WikiLeaks and Cablegate websites.[209] On the same day, Amazon.com severed its ties with
WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services, after an intervention by an aide of
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman.[210][211][212] Amazon denied acting under political pressure, citing a
violation of its terms of service.[213] Citing indirect pressure from the U.S. Government, Tableau
Software also dropped WikiLeaks' data from its site for people to use for data visualisation.[214]
[215]

In the days following, hundreds of (and eventually more than a thousand)[216] mirrors of the
WikiLeaks site appeared, and the Anonymous group of Internet activists called on supporters to
attack the websites of companies which opposed WikiLeaks,[217] under the banner of Operation
Payback, previously aimed at anti-piracy organisations.[218] AFP reported that attempts to shut
down the wikileaks.org address had led to the site surviving via the so-called Streisand effect,
whereby attempts to censor information online leads to it being replicated in many places.[219]

On 3 December, PayPal, the payment processor owned by eBay, permanently cut off the account
of the Wau Holland Foundation that had been redirecting donations to WikiLeaks. PayPal
alleged that the account violated its "Acceptable Use Policy", specifically that the account was
used for "activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal
activity."[220][221] The Vice President of PayPal later stated that they stopped accepting payments
after the “State Department told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward.” Later the
same day, he said that his previous statement was incorrect, and that it was in fact based on a
letter from the State Department to WikiLeaks.[222] On 8 December 2010, the Wau Holland
Foundation released a press statement, saying it has filed a legal action against PayPal for
blocking its account used for WikiLeaks payments and for libel due to PayPal's allegations of
"illegal activity".[223]
On 6 December, the Swiss bank, PostFinance, announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange
that it holds, totalling €31,000. In a statement on their website, they stated that this was because
Assange "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when opening the
account.[224] WikiLeaks released a statement saying this was because Assange, "as a homeless
refugee attempting to gain residency in Switzerland, had used his lawyer's address in Geneva for
the bank's correspondence".[225]

On the same day, MasterCard announced that it was "taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can
no longer accept MasterCard-branded products", adding "MasterCard rules prohibit customers
from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any action that is illegal."[226] The next day,
Visa Inc. announced it was suspending payments to WikiLeaks, pending "further investigations".
[227]
In a move of support for WikiLeaks, XIPWIRE established a way to donate to WikiLeaks,
and waived their fees.[228] Datacell, the Swiss-based IT company that enabled WikiLeaks to
accept credit card donations, announced that it will take legal action against Visa Europe and
Mastercard, in order to resume allowing payments to the website.[229]

On 7 December, The Guardian stated that people could donate to WikiLeaks via Commerzbank
Kassel in Germany or Landsbanki in Iceland or by post to a post office box at the University of
Melbourne or at the wikileaks.ch domain.[230]

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay stated that Visa, Mastercard and
Amazon may be "violating Wikileaks' e pluribus unum right to freedom of expression" by
withdrawing their services.[231]

On 21 December, media reported that Apple had removed an application from its App Store,
which provided access to the embassy cable leaks.[232]

As part of its 'Initial Assessments Pursuant to … WikiLeaks', the US Presidential Executive

Office has issued a memorandum to the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies asking
whether they have an 'insider threat program'.[233][234]

Bank of America

On 18 December, Bank of America announced it would "not process transactions of any type
that we have reason to believe are intended for Wikileaks," citing "Wikileaks might be engaged
in activities … inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments". WikiLeaks
responded in a tweet by encouraging their supporters who were BoA customer to close their
accounts. Bank of America has long been believed to be the target of WikiLeaks' next major
release.[235]

Late in 2010, Bank of America approached the law firm of Hunton & Williams to put a stop to
WikiLeaks. Hunton & Williams assembled a group of security specialists, HBGary Federal,
Palantir Technologies, and Berico Technologies. They decided upon a campaign of dirty tricks,
which included "false documents, disinformation, and sabotage." HBGary Federal’s CEO Aaron
Barr wrote Palintir that security companies should track and intimidate people who donate to
WikiLeaks. "Security firms need to get people to understand that if they support the organisation
we will come after them."[236]

During the 5 and 6 February 2011, Anonymous hacked HBGary's web site, copied tens of
thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and
usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Some of the documents taken by Anonymous show
HBGary Federal was working on behalf of Bank of America to respond to WikiLeaks' planned
release of the bank's internal documents. Emails detailed a supposed business proposal by
HBGary to assist Bank of America's law firm, Hunton & Williams, and revealed that the
companies were willing to break the law to bring down WikiLeaks and Anonymous.

"CEO Aaron Barr thought he’d uncovered the hackers’ identities and like rats, they’d scurry for
cover. If he could nail them, he could cover up the crimes H&W, HBGary, and BoA planned,
bring down WikiLeaks, decapitate Anonymous, and place his opponents in prison while
collecting a cool fee. He thought he was 88% right; he was 88% wrong."[236

About

What is Wikileaks ?

WikiLeaks is a not-for-profit media

organisation. Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public. We provide an
innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our
electronic drop box). One of our most important activities is to publish original source material
alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth. We are a
young organisation that has grown very quickly, relying on a network of dedicated volunteers
around the globe. Since 2007, when the organisation was officially launched, WikiLeaks has
worked to report on and publish important information. We also develop and adapt technologies
to support these activities.

WikiLeaks has sustained and triumphed against legal and political attacks designed to silence our
publishing organisation, our journalists and our anonymous sources. The broader principles on
which our work is based are the defence of freedom of speech and media publishing, the
improvement of our common historical record and the support of the rights of all people to create
new history. We derive these principles from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In
particular, Article 19 inspires the work of our journalists and other volunteers. It states that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers. We agree, and we seek to uphold this and the other Articles of
the Declaration.

1.2 How WikiLeaks works

WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles.
Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, we accept (but do not solicit)
anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, we provide a high security anonymous
drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides
maximum protection to our sources. We are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth
out to the public. When information comes in, our journalists analyse the material, verify it and
write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. We then publish both the news
story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyse the story in the context of the
original source material themselves. Our news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of
Wikipedia, although the two organisations are not otherwise related. Unlike Wikipedia, random
readers can not edit our source documents.

As the media organisation has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving
a harm minimisation procedure. We do not censor our news, but from time to time we may
remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original
documents to protect life and limb of innocent people.

We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we
recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any
material. We do not ask for material, but we make sure that if material is going to be submitted it
is done securely and that the source is well protected. Because we receive so much information,
and we have limited resources, it may take time to review a source’s submission.

We also have a network of talented lawyers around the globe who are personally committed to
the principles that WikiLeaks is based on, and who defend our media organisation.

1.3 Why the media (and particularly Wiki leaks) is important

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people.
Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions,
including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive
journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

Scrutiny requires information. Historically, information has been costly in terms of human life,
human rights and economics. As a result of technical advances particularly the internet and
cryptography - the risks of conveying important information can be lowered. In its landmark
ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained
press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.

We believe that it is not only the people of one country that keep their own government honest,
but also the people of other countries who are watching that government through the media.

In the years leading up to the founding of WikiLeaks, we observed the world’s publishing media
becoming less independent and far less willing to ask the hard questions of government,
corporations and other institutions. We believed this needed to change.

WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because we are not motivated by making a
profit, we work cooperatively with other publishing and media organisations around the globe,
instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. We don’t hoard our
information; we make the original documents available with our news stories. Readers can verify
the truth of what we have reported themselves. Like a wire service, WikiLeaks reports stories
that are often picked up by other media outlets. We encourage this. We believe the world’s
media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international
readership.

1.4 How WikiLeaks verifies its news stories

We assess all news stories and test their veracity. We send a submitted document through a very
detailed examination a procedure. Is it real? What elements prove it is real? Who would have the
motive to fake such a document and why? We use traditional investigative journalism techniques
as well as more modern rtechnology-based methods. Typically we will do a forensic analysis of
the document, determine the cost of forgery, means, motive, opportunity, the claims of the
apparent authoring organisation, and answer a set of other detailed questions about the
document. We may also seek external verification of the document For example, for our release
of the Collateral Murder video, we sent a team of journalists to Iraq to interview the victims and
observers of the helicopter attack. The team obtained copies of hospital records, death
certificates, eye witness statements and other corroborating evidence supporting the truth of the
story. Our verification process does not mean we will never make a mistake, but so far our
method has meant that WikiLeaks has correctly identified the veracity of every document it has
published.

Publishing the original source material behind each of our stories is the way in which we show
the public that our story is authentic. Readers don’t have to take our word for it; they can see for
themselves. In this way, we also support the work of other journalism organisations, for they can
view and use the original documents freely as well. Other journalists may well see an angle or
detail in the document that we were not aware of in the first instance. By making the documents
freely available, we hope to expand analysis and comment by all the media. Most of all, we want
readers know the truth so they can make up their own minds.

1.5 The people behind WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. It’s probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is
not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This
rumour was started early in WikiLeaks’ existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies
themselves. WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication
to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The
group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians
and others.

To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the evidence. By definition,
intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants
to do just the opposite. Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the
world without fear or favour.

The great American president Thomas Jefferson once observed that the price of freedom is
eternal vigilance. We believe the journalistic media plays a key role in this vigilance.

1.6 Anonymity for sources

As far as we can ascertain, WikiLeaks has never revealed any of its sources. We can not provide
details about the security of our media organisation or its anonymous drop box for sources
because to do so would help those who would like to compromise the security of our
organisation and its sources. What we can say is that we operate a number of servers across
multiple international jurisdictions and we we do not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be
seized. Anonymization occurs early in the WikiLeaks network, long before information passes to
our web servers. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our
organisation must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity.

However, we also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, via net cafes, wireless
hot spots and even the post so that even if WikiLeaks is infiltrated by an external agency, sources
can still not be traced. Because sources who are of substantial political or intelligence interest
may have their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras, we suggest
that if sources are going to send WikiLeaks something very sensitive, they do so away from the
home and work.

A number of governments block access to any address with WikiLeaks in the name. There are
ways around this. WikiLeaks has many cover domains, such as https://destiny.mooo.com, that
don’t have the organisation in the name. It is possible to write to us or ask around for other cover
domain addresses. Please make sure the cryptographic certificate says wikileaks.org .

2. WikiLeaks’ journalism record

2.1 Prizes and background

WikiLeaks is the winner of:

 the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award

  the 2009 Amnesty International human rights reporting award (New Media)

WikiLeaks has a history breaking major stories in major media outlets and robustly protecting
sources and press freedoms. We have never revealed a source. We do not censor material. Since
formation in 2007, WikiLeaks has been victorious over every legal (and illegal) attack, including
those from the Pentagon, the Chinese Public Security Bureau, the Former president of Kenya, the
Premier of Bermuda, Scientology, the Catholic & Mormon Church, the largest Swiss private
bank, and Russian companies. WikiLeaks has released more classified intelligence documents
than the rest of the world press combined.

2.2 Some of the stories we have broken

 War, killings, torture and detention

 Government, trade and corporate transparency
 Suppression of free speech and a free press
 Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence
 Ecology, climate, nature and sciences
 Corruption, finance, taxes, trading
 Censorship technology and internet filtering
 Cults and other religious organizations
 Abuse, violence, violation

War, killings, torture and detention

 Changes in Guantanamo Bay SOP manual (2003-2004) - Guantanamo Bay’s main operations
manuals
 Of Orwell, Wikipedia and Guantanamo Bay - In where we track down and expose Guantanamo
Bay’s propaganda team
 Fallujah jail challenges US - Classified U.S. report into appalling prison conditions in Fallujah
 U.S lost Fallujah’s info war - Classified U.S. intelligence report on the battle of Fallujah, Iraq
 US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007) - Entire unit by unit equipment list of the U.S army in Iraq
 Dili investigator called to Canberra as evidence of execution mounts - the Feb 2008 killing of East
Timor rebel leader Reinado
 Como entrenar a escuadrones de la muerte y aplastar revoluciones de El Salvador a Iraq - The
U.S. Special Forces manual on how to prop up unpopular government with paramilitaries

Government, trade and corporate transparency

 Change you can download: a billion in secret Congressional reports - Publication of more than
6500 Congressional Research Reports, worth more than a billion dollars of US tax-funded
research, long sought after by NGOs, academics and researchers
 ACTA trade agreement negotiation lacks transparency - The secret ACTA trade agreement draft,
followed by dozens of other publications, presenting the initial leak for the whole ACTA debate
happening today
 Toll Collect Vertraege, 2002 - Publication of around 10.000 pages of a secret contract between
the German federal government and the Toll Collect consortium, a private operator group for
heavy vehicle tolling system
  Leaked documents suggest European CAP reform just a whitewash - European farm reform
exposed
 Stasi still in charge of Stasi files - Suppressed 2007 investigation into infiltration of former Stasi
into the Stasi files commission
 IGES Schlussbericht Private Krankenversicherung, 25 Jan 2010 - Hidden report on the economics
of the German private health insurance system and its rentability

Suppression of free speech and a free press

 The Independent: Toxic Shame: Thousands injured in African city, 17 Sep 2009 - Publication of
an article originally published in UK newspaper The Independent, but censored from the
Independent’s website. WikiLeaks has saved dozens of articles, radio and tv recordings from
disappearing after having been censored from BBC, Guardian, and other major news
organisations archives.
 Secret gag on UK Times preventing publication of Minton report into toxic waste dumping, 16
Sep 2009 - Publication of variations of a so-called super-injunction, one of many gag-orders
published by WikiLeaks to expose successful attempts to suppress the free press via repressive
legal attacks
 Media suppression order over Turks and Caicos Islands Commission of Inquiry corruption report,
20 Jul 2009 - Exposure of a press gagging order from the Turks and Caicos Islands, related to
WikiLeaks exposure of the Commission of Inquiry corruption report
 Bermuda’s Premier Brown and the BCC bankdraft - Brown went to the Privy council London to
censor the press in Bermuda
 How German intelligence infiltrated Focus magazine - Illegal spying on German journalists

Diplomacy, spying and (counter-)intelligence

 U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks, 18 Mar 2008 - Classified (SECRET/NOFORN) 32

page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks. Has been in the worldwide news.
 CIA report into shoring up Afghan war support in Western Europe, 11 Mar 2010 - This classified
CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany
and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. Received international news coverage in print,
radio and TV.
 U.S. Embassy profiles on Icelandic PM, Foreign Minister, Ambassador - Publication of personal
profiles for briefing documents for U.S. officials visiting Iceland. While lowly classified are
interesting for subtle tone and internal facts.
 Cross-border clashes from Iraq O.K. - Classified documents reveal destabalizing U.S. military
rules
 Tehran Warns US Forces against Chasing Suspects into Iran - Iran warns the United States over
classified document on WikiLeaks
 Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts - Vital strategy documents in the Somali war and
a play for Chinese support

Ecology, climate, nature and sciences

 Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement, 8 Dec 2009 - Confidential draft "circle of
commitment" (rich-country) Copenhagen climate change agreement
  Draft Copenhagen Accord Dec 18, 2009 - Three page draft Copehagen "accord", from around
Friday 7pm, Dec 18, 2009; includes pen-markings
 Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 - Over 60MB of emails, documents,
code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written
between 1996 and 2009 that lead to a worldwide debate
 The Monju nuclear reactor leak - Three suppressed videos from Japan’s fast breeder reactor
Monju revealing the true extent of the 1995 sodium coolant disaster

Corruption, finance, taxes, trading

 The looting of Kenya under President Moi - $3,000,000,000 presidential corruption exposed;
swung the Dec 2007 Kenyan election, long document, be patient
 Gusmao’s $15m rice deal alarms UN - Rice deal corruption in East Timor
 How election violence was financed - the embargoed Kenyan Human Rights Commission report
into the Jan 2008 killings of over 1,300 Kenyans
 Financial collapse: Confidential exposure analysis of 205 companies each owing above EUR45M
to Icelandic bank Kaupthing, 26 Sep 2008 - Publication of a confidential report that has lead to
hundreds of newspaper articles worldwide
 Barclays Bank gags Guardian over leaked memos detailing offshore tax scam, 16 Mar 2009 -
Publication of censored documents revealing a number of elaborate international tax avoidance
schemes by the SCM (Structured Capital Markets) division of Barclays
 Bank Julius Baer: Grand Larceny via Grand Cayman - How the largest private Swiss bank avoids
paying tax to the Swiss government
 Der Fall Moonstone Trust - Cayman Islands Swiss bank trust exposed
 Over 40 billion euro in 28167 claims made against the Kaupthing Bank, 23 Jan 2010 - List of
Kaupthing claimants after Icelandic banking crash
 Northern Rock vs. WikiLeaks - Northern Rock Bank UK failed legal injunctions over the
¡Ì24,000,000,000 collapse
 Whistleblower exposes insider trading program at JP Morgan - Legal insider trading in three easy
steps, brought to you by JP Morgan and the SEC

Censorship technology and internet filtering

 Eutelsat suppresses independent Chinese-language TV station NTDTV to satisfy Beijing - French

sat provider Eutelsat covertly removed an anti-communist TV channel to satisfy Beijing
 Internet Censorship in Thailand - The secret internet censorship lists of Thailand’s military junta

Cults and other religious organizations

 Church of Scientology’s ’Operating Thetan’ documents leaked online - Scientology’s secret, and
highly litigated bibles
 Censored Legion de Cristo and Regnum Cristi document collection - Censored internal
documents from the Catholic sect Legion de Cristo (Legion of Christ)
 US Department of Labor investigation into Landmark Education, 2006 - 2006 investigative report
by the U.S. Department of Labor on Landmark Education

Abuse, violence, violation

  Report on Shriners raises question of wrongdoing - corruption exposed at 22 U.S. and Canadian
children’s hospitals.
 Claims of molestation resurface for US judo official
 Texas Catholic hospitals did not follow Catholic ethics, report claims - Catholic hospitals violated
catholic ethics

3. Short essays on how a more inquiring media can make a difference in the
world

3.1 The Malaria Case Study: the antidote is good governance born from a strong
media

Malaria is a case study in why good governance not just good science is the solution to so much
human suffering. This year, the mosquito borne disease will kill over one million people. More
than 80% of these will be children. Great Britain used to have malaria. In North America,
malaria was epidemic and there are still a handful of infections each year. In Africa malaria kills
over 100 people per hour. In Russia, amidst the corruption of the 1990s, malaria re-established
itself. What is the difference between these cases?

Why does Malaria kill so many people in one place but barely take hold in another? Why has
malaria been allowed to gain a foothold in places like Russia where it was previously eradicated?
We know how to prevent malaria epidemics. The science is universal. The difference is good
governance.

Put another way, unresponsive or corrupt government, through malaria alone, causes a children’s
"9/11" every day. [1]

It is only when the people know the true plans and behaviour of their governments that they can
meaningfully choose to support or reject them. Historically, the most resilient forms of open
government are those where publication and revelation are protected. Where that protection does
not exist, it is our mission to provide it through an energetic and watchful media.

In Kenya, malaria was estimated to cause 20% of all deaths in children under five. Before the
Dec 2007 national elections, WikiLeaks exposed $3 billion of Kenyan corruption, which swung
the vote by 10%. This led to changes in the constitution and the establishment of a more open
government. It is too soon to know if it will contribute to a change in the human cost of malaria
in Kenya but in the long term we believe it may. It is one of many reforms catalyzed by
WikiLeaks unvarnished reporting.

3.2 The importance of principled leaking to journalism, good government and a

healthy society

Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better. It can alter the course of
history in the present, and it can lead us to a better future.
Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He
comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic
planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has
sunk in deceiving the American people about the war. Yet the public and the media know
nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the
public ignorant of gross dishonesty practised by their own government. In spite of those secrecy
laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to
journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the
release of the Pentagon Papers shocks the world, exposes the government lying and helps to
shorten the war and save thousands of both American and Vietnamese lives.

The power of principled leaking to call governments, corporations and institutions to account is
amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and
secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which
official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What
repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country,
but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned
against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice
rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the
most effective method of promoting good governance.

Today, with authoritarian governments in power in much of the world, increasing authoritarian
tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable
corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever. WikiLeaks interest is
the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, as a media
publisher WikiLeaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring
feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.

With its anonymous drop box, WikiLeaks provides an avenue for every government official,
every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to damning information that
their institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and
institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, WikiLeaks can broadcast to the world. It is telling that a
number of government agencies in different countries (and indeed some entire countries) have
tried to ban access to WikiLeaks. This is of course a silly response, akin to the ostrich burying its
head in the sand. A far better response would be to behave in more ethical ways.

Authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to

the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even
periodic elections, but of something far stronger - the consciences of the people within them.

3.3 Should the press really be free?

In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
The ruling stated that "paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent
any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to
die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."

It is easy to perceive the connection between publication and the complaints people make about
publication. But this generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the
invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it overlooks all
those who are emancipated by a climate of free speech. Such a climate is a motivating force for
governments and corporations to act justly. If acting in a just manner is easier than acting in an
unjust manner, most actions will be just.

Sufficient principled leaking in tandem with fearless reporting will bring down administrations
that rely on concealing reality from their own citizens.

It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US,
employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media,
auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.

Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some
corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries,
after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government,
the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such
comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.

Considering the largest corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following
properties:

1. The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even
there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
2. All power issues from a central committee.
3. There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and
innocence is not presumed.
4. Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
5. There is no freedom of speech.
6. There is no right of association. Even romance between men and women is often forbidden
without approval.
7. The economy is centrally planned.
8. There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
9. The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how
many times a day they can go to the toilet.
10. There is little transparency and something like the Freedom of Information Act is unimaginable.
11. Internal opposition groups, such as unions, are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized
whenever and wherever possible.

While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand, many of
these multi-national corporations have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms and
protections. This is even more striking when the regional civic laws the company operates under
are weak (such as in West Papua, many African states or even South Korea); there, the character
of these corporate tyrannies is unregulated by their civilizing surroundings.

Through governmental corruption, political influence, or manipulation of the judicial system,

abusive corporations are able to gain control over the defining element of government the sole
right to deploy coercive force.

Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all inside and outside it.
Corporations will behave more ethically if the world is watching closely. WikiLeaks has exposed
unethical plans and behaviour in corporations and this as resulted in recompense or other forms
of justice forms of justice for victims.

3.4 Could oppressive regimes potentially come to face legal consequences as a

result of evidence posted on WikiLeaks?

The laws and immunities that are applied in national and international courts, committees and
other legal institutions vary, and we can’t comment on them in particular. The probative value of
documents posted on WikiLeaks in a court of law is a question for courts to decide.

While a secure chain of custody cannot be established for anonymous leaks, these leaks can lead
to successful court cases. In many cases, it is easier for journalists or investigators to confirm the
existence of a known document through official channels (such as an FOI law or legal discovery)
than it is to find this information when starting from nothing. Having the title, author or relevant
page numbers of an important document can accelerate an investigation, even if the content itself
has not been confirmed. In this way, even unverified information is an enabling jump-off point
for media, civil society or official investigations. Principled leaking has been shown to contribute
to bringing justice to victims via the court system.

What is Wikileaks?

Wikileaks is a self-described "not-for-profit media organization," launched in 2006 for the

purposes of disseminating original documents from anonymous sources and leakers. Its website
says: "Wikileaks will accept restricted or censored material of political, ethical, diplomatic or
historical significance. We do not accept rumor, opinion, other kinds of first hand accounts or
material that is publicly available elsewhere."

More-detailed information about the history of the organization can be found on Wikipedia (with
all the caveats that apply to a rapidly changing Wiki topic). Wikipedia incidentally has nothing to
do with Wikileaks—both share the word "Wiki" in the title, but they're not affiliated.

Who is Julian Assange, and what is his role in the Wikileaks organization?

Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who is said to have served as the editor-in-chief and
spokesperson for Wikileaks since its founding in 2006. Before that, he was described as an
advisor. Sometimes he is cited as its founder. The media and popular imagination currently
equate him with Wikileaks itself, with uncertain accuracy.
In 2006, Assange wrote a series of essays that have recently been tapped as an explanation of his
political philosophy. A close reading of these essays shows that Assange's personal philosophy is
in opposition to what he calls secrecy-based, authoritarian conspiracy governments, in which
category he includes the US government and many others not conventionally thought of as
authoritarian. Thus, as opposed to espousing a philosophy of radical transparency, Assange is not
"about letting sunlight into the room so much as about throwing grit in the machine." For further
analysis, check out Aaron Bady's original blog post.

Why is Wikileaks so much in the public eye right now?

At the end of November 2010, Wikileaks began to slowly release a trove of what it says are
251,287 diplomatic cables acquired from an anonymous source. These documents came on the
heels of the release of the "Collateral Murder" video in April 2010, and Afghan and Iraq War
logs in July 2010 and October 2010, which totaled 466,743 documents. The combined 718,030
are said to originate from a single source, thought to be U.S. Army intelligence analyst Pfc.
Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May 2010, but that's not confirmed.

Has Wikileaks released classified material in the past?

Yes, under an evolving set of models.

Berkman Fellow Ethan Zuckerman has some interesting thoughts on the development of
Wikileaks and its practices over the years, which will be explained in greater detail when the
Berkman Center podcast about Wikileaks is released later this week. In the meantime, here's a
capsule version.

Wikileaks has moved through three phases since its founding in 2006. In its first phase, during
which it released several substantial troves of documents related to Kenya in 2008, Wikileaks
operated very much with a standard wiki model: the public readership could actively post and
edit materials, and it had a say in the types of materials that were accepted and how such
materials were vetted. The documents released in that first phase were more or less a straight
dump to the Web: very little organized redacting occurred on the part of Wikileaks.

Wikileaks's second phase was exemplified with the release of the "Collateral Murder" video in
April 2010. The video was a highly curated, produced and packaged political statement. It was
meant to illustrate a political point of view, not merely to inform.

The third phase is the one we currently see with the release of the diplomatic cables: Wikileaks
working in close conjunction with a select group of news organizations to analyze, redact and
release the cables in a curated manner, rather than dumping them on the Internet or using them to
illustrate a singular political point of view.

What news organizations have access to the diplomatic cables and how did they get them?
According to the Associated Press, Wikileaks gave four news organizations (Le Monde, El Pais,
The Guardian and Der Spiegel) all 251,287 classified documents before anything was released to
the public. The Guardian subsequently shared its trove with The New York Times.

So have all 251,287 documents been released to the public?

No. Each of the five news organizations is hosting the text of at least some of the documents in
various forms with or without the relevant metadata (country of origin, classification level,
reference ID). The Guardian and Der Spiegel have performed analyses of the metadata of the
entire trove, excluding the body text. The Guardian's analysis is available for download from its
website.

Wikileaks itself has released (as of December 7, 2010) 960 documents out of the total 251,287.
The Associated Press has reported that Wikileaks is only releasing cables in coordination with
the actions of the five selected news organizations. Julian Assange made similar statements in an
interview with Guardian readers on December 3, 2010. Cables are being released daily as the
five news organizations publish articles related to the content.

Is each of the five news organizations hosting all the documents that Wikileaks has
released?

No. Each of the five news organizations hosts a different selection of the released documents, in
different forms, which may or may not overlap. It's not clear how much they're coordinating on
releasing new documents, since each appears to have a full set and normally newspapers would
be eager to scoop one another.

How are the five news organizations releasing the cables?

Le Monde has created an application, developed in conjunction with Linkfluence, that hosts the
searchable text of several hundred cables. The text can be searched by the sender (country of
origin, office or official), date range, persons of interest cited in the docs, classification status, or
any combination of the above. Only the untranslated, English text of the cables can be accessed
and cut-and-paste is not available.

El Pais offers access to more than 200 cables, available in the original English or in Spanish
translation, searchable by country of origin and key terms and subjects (such as "Google and
China"). These searches also return El Pais articles written on a given subject, often placed
ahead of the cables in the search listings. The paper also offers a "How to read a diplomatic
cable" feature, explaining what all the abbreviations and technical verbiage mean in plain speak,
posted on November 28, 2010.

The Guardian offers the cable data in several forms: It has performed an analysis of metadata of
the entire 251,287-document trove, and made it available in several forms (spreadsheets hosted
on Google Docs and in downloadable form) as well as infographics.
The Guardian also hosts at least 422 cables on its website, searchable by subject, originating
country, and countries referenced.

The New York Times hosts what it calls a "selection of the documents from a cache of a quarter-
million confidential American diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks intends to make public starting
on November 28. The webpage goes on to say "A small number of names and passages in some
of the cables have been removed by The New York Times to protect diplomats' confidential
sources, to keep from compromising American intelligence efforts or to protect the privacy of
ordinary citizens."

The documents are not searchable and are organized by general subject.

Who is responsible for redacting the documents? What actions did Wikileaks take to
ensure that individuals were not put in danger by publication of the documents?

According to the Associated Press and statements released by Wikileaks and Julian Assange,
Wikileaks is currently relying on the expertise of the five news organizations to redact the cables
as they are released, and it is following their redactions as it releases the documents on its
website. (This cannot be verified without examining the original documents, which we have not
done—nor are we linking to them here.) According to the BBC, Julian Assange approached the
U.S. State Department for guidance on redacting the documents prior to their release. One can
imagine the State Department's dilemma there: assist and risk legitimating the enterprise; don't
assist and risk poor redaction. In a public letter, Harold Koh, legal adviser to the Department of
State, declined to assist the organization and demanded the return of the documents.

Are the documents hosted anywhere else on the Internet? What is the "insurance" file?

In late July 2010, Wikileaks is said to have posted to its Afghan War Logs site, and to a torrent
site an encrypted file with "insurance" in the name. The file, which apparently can still be found
on various peer-to-peer networks, is 1.4 gigabytes and is encrypted with AES256, a very strong
encryption standard which would make it virtually impossible to open without the password.
What is in the insurance file is not known. It has been speculated that it contains the unredacted
cables provided by the original source(s), as well as other, previously unreleased information
held by Wikileaks. There is further speculation, which has been indirectly boosted by Julian
Assange, that the key to the file will be distributed in the event of either the death of Assange or
the destruction of Wikileaks as a functioning organization. However, none of these things is
known. All that is known for sure is that it's a really big file with heavy encryption that's already
in a number of people's hands and floating around for others to get.

What happens if Wikileaks gets shut down? Can it be shut down?

It depends on what's meant by "Wikileaks" and what's meant by "shut down."

Julian Assange has made statements suggesting that if Wikileaks becomes nonfunctional as an
organization, the key to the encrypted "insurance" file will be released (the key itself is not a big
document and could presumably fit into Twitter messages). The actual machination of how such
a "dead man's switch" would release the key is not known. If the key were released, and if the
encrypted insurance file contains unredacted and unreleased secret documents, then those
decrypted files would be available to many people nearly instantaneously. Wikileaks claimed in
August that the insurance file had been downloaded more than 100,000 times.

Wikileaks apparently maintains a small paid staff—who and where is not exactly on a "people"
page, though there used to be a physical P.O. box in Australia where documents could be sent—
and is additionally supported by volunteers, speculated to be at most a few thousand. So, would
it be possible for a motivated organization to disrupt its real-world infrastructure? Yes, probably.
However, at this point, it is not practical to recover the information the organization has already
distributed (which includes the entire trove of diplomatic cables to the press as well as whatever
is in the encrypted insurance file), as well as any other undistributed information the organization
might seek to release. So in terms of the recovery of leaked information, the downfall of
Wikileaks as an organization would matter little.

Furthermore, there appear to be currently more than 1,000 sites mirroring Wikileaks and its
content. Wikileaks has made available downloadable files containing its entire archive of
released materials to date.

Why did wikileaks.org stop working as a way to find the site?

For a traditional website to work it needs a domain name like "website.com" so that people can
find it easily with a Web browser. The domain name system ("DNS") is hierarchical—
information is spread from a zone containing several top-level (root) servers down to zones
containing lower-level servers—but the top level servers do not determine everything held by
servers lower down.

Domain names can stop working for any number of reasons. One common assumption is is that
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which manages certain
top-level protocol and parameter assignments for the Internet, intervened in the case of
Wikileqaks. It did not.

A little technical discussion to explain why: The root zone orchestrated by ICANN is a very
small file — just a mapping between each top-level domain ("TLD") like .org or .ch to the IP
address(es) of servers designated to say more about that TLD (one server, not in ICANN's hands,
keeps track of names under .org, one for names under .ch, etc.). So the only thing ICANN could
do is to all-or-nothing delete .org or .ch, making every domain name with that ending disappear
temporarily.

Note that wikileaks.org went down not because of anything done to its DNS entry within the list
kept by the registry that manages.org domains (full disclosure: I'm on the board of Trustees for
the non-profit Internet Society (ISOC) which is the parent to the Public Interest Registry, which
keeps track of names in .org). Instead, the name server to which its entry pointed (even lower
down the DNS chain) was attacked with a flood of traffic by unknown parties and EveryDNS,
the operator of that name server, chose to stop answering queries about Wikileaks in the hopes
that the attack would stop. (Apparently it did.)
A website also needs hosting, and Wikileaks has apparently had to shift its hosting at least once
after being dropped by a chosen provider: Amazon's commodity hosting service shut down the
site for terms of service violations after being contacted by U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman.

On a more technical level, the Wikileaks website can come under attack, and its means of
collecting money can be made much more difficult.

Jonathan Zittrain is a professor of law and professor of computer science at Harvard, and co-
founder of its Berkman Center for Internet & Society; Molly Sauter is a research assistant at the
Berkman Center. Further updates will appear at www.jz.org