What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?

http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/12/whats-really-in-the-leaked-wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement

What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?
By: Kevin Gosztola Thursday May 12, 2011 11:14 am

- snip -

The New Statesman and others consider the use of the word “owner” to be proof that the organization finds it has “commercial ownership over the information that has been leaked to it.” But, the word “owner” is the term that is used in these agreements. It is standard and may not be proof the organization sees itself as literally owning the information.

Clause by clause:

- snip -

If WikiLeaks truly considers itself to be a business out to make profit instead of an organization with a founder who is a true fighter for peace and justice, it certainly has failed to take many opportunities to make huge gains. Why is the information free on its website? It could set up a paywall like the Wall Street Journal...

- snip -

Coverage of this agreement is just the latest in a long line of attempts to delegitimize and further isolate the organization. They have been accused of endangering lives yet nobody has quantified or provided exact evidence that any persons have been endangered. In many cases, they have been told what they are doing is not journalism. The organization, instead, has had its staff members categorized by the media as a group of “sources,” which means Assange is “a source” and Assange and all those linked to WikiLeaks are much more vulnerable to prosecution from governments especially the US government.

- snip -

WikiLeaks is an organization that makes a promise to whistleblowers that if they have the courage to act as a “hero” WikiLeaks will have the courage to be “merely decent human beings.” For WikiLeaks, this agreement is part of being a decent human being. It is about going to the nth degree to protect the “sources” it fights to keep anonymous and unknown to governments that could strike at them for providing the organization information.

MORE

disappeared.

They really, really want to silence this guy. His old partner must be getting paid to keep talking about how awful Wikeleaks was. They keep digging him up and asking, again, and again, for his opinion. Guess he's the only one they can find.

:kick:

Of course! ;)

familiar sources, were pretty tranparent. What is sad is how the US media is so censored. Most Europeans eg, probably just laughed at what was a feeble attempt to discredit the organization, but here because of how censored the news is, most people know little if anything about this story. That was evident even here when the smears first appeared.

If Wikileaks were in this for the money, where is it? What they need to do is run a fund-raising campaign worldwide and spend the money on PR to counter this campaign which is only going to get worse, as the fake Grand Jury episode demonstrates. Fake, because it has already been established that Wikileaks is a news org., Assange is an editor and publisher and unless the NYT and La Monde et al are spies, then Wikileaks is not. It is an attempt to persecute and silence them, that is all. But the question it raises is 'what are they so determined to hide'? The whole campaign simply makes them look guilty.

Any organization dealing with sensitive info has, or should have, similar agreements.