|
|
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ''See also [[WikiLeaks'' | + | There are '''WikiLeaks leaks''' articles on: |
| | + | * [[WikiLeaks leaks before 2009]] |
| | + | * [[WikiLeaks leaks (2009)]] |
| | + | * [[WikiLeaks leaks (2010)]] |
| | | | |
| − | Although WikiLeaks began as an informative site, it is best known for its recent leaks of US government documents.
| + | * [[United States diplomatic cables WikiLeak]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate content: Americas, organisations and leaders]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate content: Europe]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate content: Middle East and North Africa]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate content: South Asia]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate content: East Asia and Oceania]] |
| | + | * [[Cablegate data, and response]] |
| | | | |
| − | ===Pre-2009===
| |
| − | ====Apparent Somali assassination order====
| |
| − | WikiLeaks posted its first document in December 2006, a decision to assassinate government officials signed by Sheikh [[Hassan Dahir Aweys]].<ref name=Khatchdourian/> ''[[The New Yorker]]'' has reported that {{blockquote|[Julian] Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?†... The document’s authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself.<ref name="Khatchdourian"/>}}
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Daniel arap Moi family corruption====
| + | See also [[WikiLeaks]] |
| − | On 31 August 2007, ''[[The Guardian]]'' (Britain) featured on its front page a story about corruption by the family of the former Kenyan leader [[Daniel arap Moi]]. The newspaper stated that the source of the information was WikiLeaks.<ref>{{cite news | author=| title=The looting of Kenya | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,,2159757,00.html | work=The Guardian | date=31 August 2007| accessdate=28 February 2008 | location=London | first=Xan | last=Rice}}</ref>
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | ====Bank Julius Baer lawsuit====
| + | [[Category:WikiLeaks]] |
| − | {{main|Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit}}
| + | |
| − | In February 2008, the wikileaks.org [[domain name]] was taken offline after the Swiss Bank [[Julius Baer]] sued WikiLeaks and the wikileaks.org [[domain registrar]], Dynadot, in [[Government of California#The Superior Courts of California|a court in]] California, United States, and obtained a [[permanent injunction]] ordering the shutdown.<ref name=injunction>{{cite press release | author=| title=Wikileaks.org under injunction | url=http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.org_under_injunction | archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080306005837/http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.org_under_injunction | archivedate=6 March 2008 | publisher=WikiLeaks | date=18 February 2008 | accessdate=28 February 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/3:2008cv00824/200125/ |title=Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. et al. v. Wikileaks et al |publisher=News.justia.com |date= |accessdate=13 March 2009}}</ref> WikiLeaks had hosted allegations of illegal activities at the bank's [[Cayman Island]] branch.<ref name=injunction/> WikiLeaks' U.S. Registrar, Dynadot, complied with the order by removing its DNS entries. However, the website remained accessible via its numeric IP address, and online activists immediately mirrored WikiLeaks at dozens of alternative websites worldwide.<ref name=autogenerated1>{{cite web|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1039527/judge-rethinks-wikileaks |title=Judge reverses Wikileaks injunction |publisher=The Inquirer |date=2 March 2008 |accessdate=23 September 2009}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] filed a motion protesting the censorship of WikiLeaks. The [[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]] assembled a coalition of media and press that filed an [[amicus curiae]] brief on WikiLeaks' behalf. The coalition included major U.S. newspaper publishers and press organisations, such as the [[American Society of Newspaper Editors]], [[The Associated Press]], the [[Citizen Media Law Project]], [[The E.W. Scripps Company]], the [[Gannett Company]], [[The Hearst Corporation]], the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'', the [[National Newspaper Publishers Association]], the [[Newspaper Association of America]] and [[The Society of Professional Journalists]]. The coalition requested to be heard as a friend of the court to call attention to relevant points of law that it believed the court had overlooked (on the grounds that WikiLeaks had not appeared in court to defend itself, and that no First Amendment issues had yet been raised before the court). Amongst other things, the coalition argued that:<ref name=autogenerated1 /><blockquote>"WikiLeaks provides a forum for dissidents and whistleblowers across the globe to post documents, but the Dynadot injunction imposes a prior restraint that drastically curtails access to Wikileaks from the Internet based on a limited number of postings challenged by Plaintiffs. The Dynadot injunction therefore violates the bedrock principle that an injunction cannot enjoin all communication by a publisher or other speaker."<ref name=autogenerated1 /></blockquote>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The same judge, Judge Jeffrey White, who issued the injunction vacated it on 29 February 2008, citing [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] concerns and questions about [[legal jurisdiction]].<ref>{{cite news | author=Philipp Gollner | work=Reuters| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2927431720080229 | title=Judge reverses ruling in Julius Baer leak case | date=29 February 2008 | accessdate=1 March 2008}}</ref> WikiLeaks was thus able to bring its site [[online]] again. The bank dropped the case on 5 March 2008.<ref>{{cite web
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.informationweek.com/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206902154
| + | |
| − | |title=Swiss Bank Abandons Lawsuit Against WikiLeaks: The wiki had posted financial documents it said proved tax evasion by Bank Julius Baer's clients
| + | |
| − | |first=Thomas
| + | |
| − | |last=Claburn
| + | |
| − | |publisher=InformationWeek
| + | |
| − | |date=6 March 2008}}</ref> The judge also denied the bank's request for an order prohibiting the website's publication.<ref name=autogenerated1 />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The Executive Director of the [[Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]], Lucy Dalglish, commented: <blockquote>
| + | |
| − | "It's not very often a federal judge does a 180 degree turn in a case and dissolves an order. But we're very pleased the judge recognized the constitutional implications in this prior restraint."<ref name=autogenerated1 />
| + | |
| − | </blockquote>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Guantánamo Bay procedures====
| + | |
| − | A copy of ''Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta''–the protocol of the [[United States Army|U.S. Army]] at the [[Guantánamo Bay detention camp]]–dated March 2003 was released on the WikiLeaks website on 7 November 2007.<ref>[http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/11/gitmo "Sensitive Guantánamo Bay Manual Leaked Through Wiki Site"], [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] 14 November 2007</ref> The document, named "gitmo-sop.pdf", is also mirrored at ''[[The Guardian]].''<ref>[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/11/15/gitmosop.pdf specific address] at ''The Guardian.''</ref> Its release revealed some of the restrictions placed over detainees at the camp, including the designation of some prisoners as off-limits to the [[International Committee of the Red Cross]], something that the U.S. military had in the past repeatedly denied.<ref name='Reuters 15 November 2007'>{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= | title=Guantanamo operating manual posted on Internet | date=15 November 2007 | publisher=| url =http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1424207020071114?pageNumber=1 | work=Reuters | pages = | accessdate = 15 November 2007 | language = }}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 3 December 2007, WikiLeaks released a copy of the 2004 edition of the manual,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure_%282004%29|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080403235835/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Camp_Delta_Standard_Operating_Procedure_(2004)|archivedate=3 April 2008 |title=Camp Delta Operating Procedure (2004) |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=13 March 2009}}</ref> together with a detailed analysis of the changes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Changes_in_Guantanamo_Bay_SOP_manual_(2003-2004)|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080404110524/http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Changes_in_Guantanamo_Bay_SOP_manual_(2003-2004)|archivedate=4 April 2008 |title=Changes in Guantanamo SOP manual (2003–2004) |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=13 March 2009}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Scientology====
| + | |
| − | On 7 April 2008, WikiLeaks reported receiving a letter (dated 27 March) from the [[Religious Technology Centre]] claiming ownership of several recently leaked documents pertaining to [[Operating Thetan|OT Levels]] within the [[Church of Scientology]]. These same documents were at the center of [[Scientology vs the Internet#The Xenu revelation|a 1994 scandal]]. The email stated:{{cquote|The Advanced Technology materials are unpublished, copyrighted works. Please be advised that your customer's action in this regard violates United States copyright law. Accordingly, we ask for your help in removing these works immediately from your service.
| + | |
| − | – [[Moxon and Kobrin]]<ref>{{cite web
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_Thetan_documents
| + | |
| − | |title=Church of Scientology collected Operating Thetan Documents, including full text of legal letter.
| + | |
| − | |date=4 June 2008}}{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref>}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The letter continued on to request the release of the logs of the uploader, which would remove their anonymity. WikiLeaks responded with a statement released on [[Wikinews]] stating: "in response to the attempted suppression, WikiLeaks will release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week",<ref>{{cite web
| + | |
| − | |url=http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_warns_Wikileaks_over_documents
| + | |
| − | |title=Church of Scientology warns WikiLeaks over documents
| + | |
| − | |date=4 July 2008}}</ref> and did so.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account contents====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|Sarah Palin email hack}}
| + | |
| − | In September 2008, during the [[United States presidential election, 2008|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 (group)|Anonymous]].<ref>See the article "Anonymous (Group)"</ref> It has been alleged by Wired that contents of the mailbox indicate that she used the private Yahoo account to send work-related messages, in violation of public record laws.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html|publisher=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|title=Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account – Update}}</ref> The hacking of the account was widely reported in mainstream news outlets.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/17/AR2008091703304.html?hpid=topnews|title=Hackers Access Palin's Personal E-Mail, Post Some Online|last=Shear|first=Michael D.|coauthors=Karl Vick|date=18 September 2008|work=The Washington Post |accessdate=18 September 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/palins-e-mail-hacked/|title=FBI, Secret Service Investigate Hacking of Palin’s E-mail|date=18 September 2008|publisher=Fox News|accessdate=18 September 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2980391/Sarah-Palins-email-account-broken-into-by-hackers.html|title=Sarah Palin's email account broken into by hackers |last=Swaine|first=Jon|date=18 September 2008|work=The Daily Telegraph |accessdate=18 September 2008 | location=London}}</ref> Although WikiLeaks was able to conceal the hacker's identity, the source of the Palin emails was eventually publicly identified as [[David Kernell]], a 20-year-old economics student at the University of Tennessee and the son of Democratic Tennessee State Representative [[Mike Kernell]] from Memphis,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://knoxville.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2008/kxhacking100808.htm |title=Federal Bureau of Investigation – Knoxville Division – Press Releases – Department of Justice |publisher=Knoxville.fbi.gov |date= |accessdate=16 November 2009}}</ref> whose email address (as listed on various social networking sites) was linked to the hacker's identity on Anonymous.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/21/160222 | title=Palin Email Hacker Found | work=Slashdot | accessdate=21 September 2008}}</ref> Kernell attempted to conceal his identity by using the anonymous proxy service [http://www.ctunnel.com/ ctunnel.com], but, because of the illegal nature of the access, ctunnel website administrator Gabriel Ramuglia assisted the FBI in tracking down the source of the hack.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation/ | title=Memo to US Secret Service: Net proxy may pinpoint Palin email hackers | work=TheRegister | accessdate=21 September 2008}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====BNP membership list====
| + | |
| − | After briefly appearing on a blog, the membership list of the far-right [[British National Party]] was posted to WikiLeaks on 18 November 2008. The name, address, age and occupation of many of the 13,500 members were given, including several police officers, two solicitors, four ministers of religion, at least one doctor, and a number of primary and secondary school teachers. In Britain, police officers are banned from joining or promoting the BNP, and at least one officer was dismissed for being a member.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7956824.stm|title ='BNP membership' officer sacked |publisher=BBC | accessdate=23 March 2009 | date=21 March 2009}}</ref> The BNP was known for going to considerable lengths to conceal the identities of members. On 19 November, BNP leader [[Nick Griffin]] stated that he knew the identity of the person who initially leaked the list on 17 November, describing him as a "hardliner" senior employee who left the party in 2007.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/19/bnp-list | title=BNP membership list posted online by former 'hardliner' |work=The Guardian |location=UK | accessdate=19 November 2008 | location=London | first=Ian | last=Cobain | date=19 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20081118214827111 | title=BNP Membership List Exposed | publisher=Infoshop News | accessdate=19 November 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1087101/Police-officer-faces-investigation-outed-BNP-supporter-membership-leak.html | title=Police officer faces investigation after being 'outed' as BNP supporter in membership leak | publisher=DailyMail | accessdate=19 November 2008 | location=London | first1=Michael | last1=Lea | first2=Nicola | last2=Boden | date=19 November 2008}}</ref> On 20 October 2009, a list of BNP members from April 2009 was leaked. This list contained 11,811 members.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/bnp-membership-list-wikileaks |title=BNP membership list leaked |work=Guardian |location=UK | accessdate=20 October 2009 |location=London |first=Robert |last=Booth |date=20 October 2009}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===2009===
| + | |
| − | In January 2009, over 600 internal United Nations reports (60 of them marked "strictly confidential") were leaked.<ref>{{cite web|last=Radio |first=Britannia |url=http://britanniaradio.blogspot.com/2009/01/wikileaks-releases-un-bombshell_15.html |title=Britannia Radio |publisher=Britanniaradio.blogspot.com |date=15 January 2009 |accessdate=13 March 2009}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 7 February 2009, WikiLeaks released 6,780 [[Congressional Research Service]] reports.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Change_you_can_download:_a_billion_in_secret_Congressional_reports |title=Change you can download: a billion in secret Congressional reports |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=13 March 2009}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In March 2009, WikiLeaks published a list of contributors to the [[Norm Coleman]] senatorial campaign<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman |title=The Big Bad Database of Senator Norm Coleman |publisher=|date=11 March 2009 |accessdate=17 June 2010}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> and a set of documents belonging to [[Barclays Bank]] that had been ordered removed from the website of ''[[The Guardian]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Guardian:_Censored_Barclays_tax_avoidance_leaked_memos%2C_16_Mar_2009 |title=Barclays Bank gags Guardian over leaked memos detailing offshore tax scam |publisher=WikiLeaks |accessdate=17 June 2010}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Climategate emails====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|Climatic Research Unit email controversy}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In November 2009, controversial documents, including e-mail correspondence between climate scientists, were released (allegedly after being illegally obtained) from the [[University of East Anglia]]'s (UEA) [[Climatic Research Unit]] (CRU).<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change]]|url=http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf|title=Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology 8th Report of Session 2009–10: The disclosure of climate date from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia|publisher=[[The Stationery Office]]|isbn=9780101793421}}</ref> According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server [[hacker (computer security)|hacking]]; one prominent host of the full 120 MB archive was WikiLeaks.<ref>{{cite news |title=WikiLeaks.org aims to expose lies, topple governments |date= 29 November 2009 |work=New York Post |url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wikileaks_org_aims_to_expose_lies_flsLqNMO3B0LEtxL5bNaKL}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-shuts-down-unable-to-plug-funding-gap-20100202-n9z4.html |title=Wikileaks shuts down, unable to plug funding gap (Sydney Morning Herald) |work=Sydney Morning Herald |date= 2 February 2010|accessdate=30 April 2010 | first=Asher | last=Moses}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Internet censorship lists====
| + | |
| − | WikiLeaks has published the lists of forbidden or illegal web addresses for several countries.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 19 March 2009, WikiLeaks published what was alleged to be the [[Australian Communications and Media Authority]]'s blacklist of sites to be banned under [[Internet censorship in Australia|Australia's proposed laws on Internet censorship]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.efa.org.au/2009/03/19/leaked-government-blacklist-confirms-worst-fears/|title=Leaked Government blacklist confirms worst fears|author=Colin Jacobs|publisher=Electronic Frontiers Australia|accessdate=19 March 2009|date=19 March 2009}}</ref> Reactions to the publication of the list by the Australian media and politicians were varied. Particular note was made by journalistic outlets of the type of websites on the list; while the Internet censorship scheme submitted by the [[Australian Labor Party]] in 2008 was proposed with the stated intention of preventing access to [[child pornography]] and sites related to [[terrorism]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/19/australia-internet-censorship-markets-economy-wikileaks.html|title=Aussie Internet Blacklist Has Gray Areas|author=Vivian Wai-yin Kwok|accessdate=19 March 2009|date=19 March 2009|work=Forbes}}</ref> the list leaked on WikiLeaks contains a number of sites unrelated to sex crimes involving minors.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/03/19/1237054961100.html|title=Leaked Australian blacklist reveals banned sites|author=Asher Moses|accessdate=19 March 2009|date=19 March 2009|work=Sydney Morning Herald }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Wikileaks-spills-ACMA-blacklist/0,130061744,339295538,00.htm|title=Wikileaks spills ACMA blacklist|author=Liam Tung|publisher=ZD Net Australia|accessdate=19 March 2009|date=19 March 2009}}</ref> When questioned about the leak, [[Stephen Conroy]], the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in Australia's [[Rudd Labor Government]], responded by claiming that the list was not the actual list, yet threatening to prosecute anyone involved in distributing it.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm?section=australia|title=Leaked blacklist irresponsible, inaccurate: Conroy|publisher=ABC News|author=Nic MacBean|accessdate=19 March 2009|date=19 March 2009|quote="I am aware of reports that a list of URLs has been placed on a website. This is not the ACMA blacklist."
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | He says that the published list purports to be current on 6 August 2008, and contains approximately 2,400 URLs, whereas the ACMA blacklist for the same date contained 1,061 URLs.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "There are some common URLs to those on the ACMA blacklist. However, ACMA advises that there are URLs on the published list that have never been the subject of a complaint or ACMA investigation, and have never been included on the ACMA blacklist," he said.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | "ACMA is investigating this matter and is considering a range of possible actions it may take including referral to the Australian Federal Police. Any Australian involved in making this content publicly available would be at serious risk of criminal prosecution."}}</ref> On 20 March 2009, WikiLeaks published an updated list, dated 18 March 2009; it more closely matches the claimed size of the ACMA blacklist, and contains two pages which have been independently confirmed to be blacklisted by ACMA.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | WikiLeaks also contains details of Internet censorship in Thailand, including lists of censored sites dating back to May 2006.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Internet_Censorship_in_Thailand |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080116070133/http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Internet_Censorship_in_Thailand |archivedate=16 January 2008 |title=Internet Censorship in Thailand |publisher=wikileaks.org |accessdate=17 June 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Bilderberg Group meeting reports====
| + | |
| − | Since May 2009, WikiLeaks has made available reports of several meetings of the [[Bilderberg Group]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Series/Bilderberg_reports |title=Bildeberg Group Documents |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=11 May 2009}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> It includes the group's history<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group_History%2C_1956 |title=Bilderberg Group History, 1956 |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=11 May 2009}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> and meeting reports from the years 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1962, 1963 and 1980.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====2008 Peru oil scandal====
| + | |
| − | On 28 January 2009, WikiLeaks released 86 telephone intercept recordings of Peruvian politicians and businessmen involved in the [[2008 Peru oil scandal|"Petrogate" oil scandal]]. The release of the tapes led the front pages of five Peruvian newspapers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/86_interceptaciones_telefonicas_a_politicos_y_autoridades_peruanos,_m%C3%A1s_del_caso_Petrogate,_2008 |title=86 interceptaciones telefonicas a politicos y autoridades peruanos, más del caso Petrogate, 2008 |publisher=WikiLeaks |date= |accessdate=16 November 2009}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Nuclear accident in Iran====
| + | |
| − | On 16 July 2009, Iranian news agencies reported that the head of Iran's atomic energy organization [[Gholam Reza Aghazadeh]] had abruptly resigned for unknown reasons after twelve years in office.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8153775.stm |title=Iranian nuclear chief steps down |publisher=BBC News |date=16 July 2009 |accessdate=16 October 2010}}</ref> Shortly afterwards WikiLeaks released a report disclosing a "serious nuclear accident" at the Iranian [[Nuclear facilities in Iran#Natanz|Natanz nuclear facility]] in 2009.<ref>{{cite web|last= |first= |url=http://mirror.wikileaks.info/wiki/Serious_nuclear_accident_may_lay_behind_Iranian_nuke_chief%27s_mystery_resignation/ |title=Serious nuclear accident may lay behind Iranian nuke chief's mystery resignation |publisher=wikileaks |date=16 July 2009 |accessdate=16 October 2010}}</ref> The [[Federation of American Scientists]] (FAS) released statistics according to which the number of enriched centrifuges operational in Iran mysteriously declined from about 4,700 to about 3,900 beginning around the time the nuclear incident WikiLeaks mentioned would have occurred.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/wikileaks/ |title=German Cyber-Security Expert: Stuxnet's Target, Natanz Reactor |publisher=www.richardsilverstein.com |date=23 September 2010 |accessdate=2 October 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Clayton |first=Mark |url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100924/ts_csm/328049_1 |title=Stuxnet worm mystery: What's the cyber weapon after? |publisher=Yahoo News |date=25 February 2009 |accessdate=28 September 2010}} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | According to media reports the accident may have been the direct result of a [[cyberattack]] at Iran's nuclear program, carried out with the [[Stuxnet]] computer worm.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/27/6_mysteries_about_stuxnet |title=6 mysteries about Stuxnet |publisher=Blog.foreignpolicy.com |date= |accessdate=28 September 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Paul Woodward |url=http://warincontext.org/2010/09/26/iran-confirms-stuxnet-found-at-bushehr-nuclear-power-plant/ |title=Iran confirms Stuxnet found at Bushehr nuclear power plant|publisher=Warincontext.org |date=22 February 1999 |accessdate=28 September 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Toxic dumping in Africa: The Minton report====
| + | |
| − | In September 2006, commodities giant [[Trafigura]] commissioned an internal report about a [[2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump|toxic dumping incident in the Ivory Coast]],<ref name="wikileaks">{{cite news
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/10/a-gag-too-far/
| + | |
| − | |title=A gag too far
| + | |
| − | |work=Index On Censorship
| + | |
| − | |date=October 2009
| + | |
| − | |accessdate=14 October 2009
| + | |
| − | }}{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref> which (according to the United Nations) affected 108,000 people. The document, called the Minton Report, names various harmful chemicals "likely to be present" in the waste — [[sodium hydroxide]], [[cobalt phthalocyanine sulfonate]], [[coker naphtha]], [[thiol]]s, [[sodium alkanethiolate]], [[sodium hydrosulfide]], [[sodium sulfide]], [[dialkyl disulfide]]s, [[hydrogen sulfide]] — and notes that some of them "may cause harm at some distance". The report states that potential health effects include "burns to the skin, eyes and lungs, vomiting, diarrhea, loss of consciousness and death", and suggests that the high number of reported casualties is "consistent with there having been a significant release of hydrogen sulphide gas".
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 11 September 2009, Trafigura's lawyers, [[Carter-Ruck]], obtained a secret "[[super-injunction]]"<ref>{{cite |title=Minton report secret injunction gagging The Guardian on Trafigura |work=WikiLeaks |url=https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report_secret_injunction_gagging_The_Guardian_on_Trafigura,_11_Sep_2009 |accessdate=15 October 2009}}{{dead link|date=November 2010}}</ref> against ''[[The Guardian]]'', banning that newspaper from publishing the contents of the document. Trafigura also threatened a number of other media organizations with legal action if they published the report's contents, including the [[Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation]]<ref name="wikileaks"/> and ''The Chemical Engineer'' magazine.<ref name="duckett">{{cite news
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.tcetoday.com/trafigura
| + | |
| − | |accessdate=2 December 2010
| + | |
| − | |title=Trafigura story breaks
| + | |
| − | |work=The Chemical Engineer
| + | |
| − | |first=Adam
| + | |
| − | |last=Duckett
| + | |
| − | |date=13 October 2009
| + | |
| − | }}</ref> On 14 September 2009, WikiLeaks posted the report.<ref>{{cite web
| + | |
| − | |url=http://wikileaks.org/leak/waterson-toxicwaste-ivorycoast-%C3%A92009.pdf
| + | |
| − | |title=RE: Caustic Tank Washings, Abidjan, Ivory Coast
| + | |
| − | |accessdate=16 October 2009
| + | |
| − | }} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 12 October, Carter-Ruck warned ''The Guardian'' against mentioning the content of a parliamentary question that was due to be asked about the report. Instead, the paper published an article stating that they were unable to report on an unspecified question and claiming that the situation appeared to "call into question privileges guaranteeing [[freedom of speech|free speech]] established under the [[Bill of Rights 1689|1689 Bill of Rights]]".<ref>Leigh, David (12 October 2009). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament Guardian gagged from reporting parliament]. ''[[The Guardian]]''.</ref> The suppressed details rapidly circulated via the internet and Twitter<ref>Rusbridger, Alan (14 October 2009). [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/14/trafigura-fiasco-tears-up-textbook The Trafigura fiasco tears up the textbook]. ''[[The Guardian]]''.</ref><ref>Higham, Nick (13 October 2009). [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm When is a secret not a secret?] [[BBC News]].</ref><ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009_October_12#the_mysterious_British_House_of_Commons The mysterious British House of Commons]. Wikipedia Reference Desk</ref> and, amid uproar, Carter-Ruck agreed the next day to the modification of the injunction before it was challenged in court, permitting ''The Guardian'' to reveal the existence of the question and the injunction.<ref>{{cite news
| + | |
| − | |title=Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted
| + | |
| − | |work=The Guardian
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question
| + | |
| − | |accessdate=14 October 2009
| + | |
| − | |date=13 October 2009
| + | |
| − | |first=David
| + | |
| − | |last=Leigh
| + | |
| − | | location=London
| + | |
| − | }}</ref> The injunction was lifted on 16 October.<ref>{{cite news
| + | |
| − | |work=The Daily Telegraph
| + | |
| − | |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6350262/Secret-Trafigura-report-said-likely-cause-of-illness-was-release-of-toxic-gas-from-dumped-waste.html
| + | |
| − | |title=Secret Trafigura report said ‘likely cause’ of illness was release of toxic gas from dumped waste
| + | |
| − | |first=Martin
| + | |
| − | |last=Beckford
| + | |
| − | |date=16 October 2009
| + | |
| − | |accessdate=16 October 2009
| + | |
| − | | location=London
| + | |
| − | }}
| + | |
| − | </ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Kaupthing Bank====
| + | |
| − | WikiLeaks has made available an internal document<ref>{{cite web |title=Financial collapse: Confidential exposure analysis of 205 companies each owing above €45M to Icelandic bank Kaupthing, 26 September 2008 |url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Financial_collapse:_Confidential_exposure_analysis_of_205_companies_each_owing_above_€45M_to_Icelandic_bank_Kaupthing%2C_26_Sep_2008 |date=29 July 2009 |work=|publisher=WikiLeaks |accessdate=22 September 2009}}</ref> from [[Kaupthing Bank]] from just prior to the collapse of Iceland's banking sector, which led to the [[2008–2009 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. Kaupthing's lawyers have threatened WikiLeaks with legal action, citing banking privacy laws. The leak has caused an uproar in Iceland.<ref>{{cite web |title=Miklar hreyfingar rétt fyrir hrun |url=http://www.ruv.is/heim/frettir/frett/store64/item292385/ |date=31 July 2009 |publisher=[[RÚV]] |accessdate=22 September 2009}}</ref> Criminal charges relating to the multibillion euro loans to Exista and other major shareholders are being investigated. The bank is seeking to recover loans taken out by former bank employees before its collapse.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jRXbUVXZXzphjcFfhmcjSq_E262A |title=Failed Icelandic bank seeks 197 million euros from former staff |publisher=AFP |date=17 May 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Joint Services Protocol 440====
| + | |
| − | [[Joint Services Protocol 440]] ("JSP 440") is the name of a British 2001 [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defense]] 2,400-page restricted document for security containing instructions for avoiding leaks in the information flow caused by [[hacker (computer security)|hackers]], journalists, and foreign [[spy|spies]].<ref>Tom Chivers. "[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6261756/MoD-how-to-stop-leaks-document-is-leaked.html MoD 'how to stop leaks' document is leaked]" ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' 5 October 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2009.</ref><ref>Kalle Holmberg. "[http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/brittisk-instruktion-mot-lackor-har-lackt-ut-1.968704 Brittisk instruktion mot läckor har läckt ut]" ''[[Dagens Nyheter]]'', 6 October 2009. Retrieved 6 October 2009.</ref> The protocol was posted on WikiLeaks on 3 October 2009.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====9/11 pager messages====
| + | |
| − | On 25 November 2009, WikiLeaks released 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the [[11 September attacks]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://911.wikileaks.org/ |title=Wikileaks 9/11 Pager Data Website |publisher=911.wikileaks.org |date= |accessdate=2010-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34149853/ns/us_news-security/ |title=570,000 pager messages from 9/11 released MSNBC 25 November 2009 |publisher=MSNBC |date=25 November 2009 |accessdate=30 April 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Analysis-of-911-Pager-Data-Paints-Chilling-Picture-78219132.html|title=Analysis of 9/11 Pager Data Paints Chilling Picture|author=Jennifer Millman|publisher=NBC New York|date=1 December 2009 }}</ref> Bradley Manning (see below) commented that those were obvious [[NSA]] intercepts.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/07/wikileaks_arrest/|title=Wikileaks' US army 'leaker' arrested|author=Chris Williams|publisher=TheRegister|date=7 June 2010}}</ref> Among the released messages are communications between [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] officials and [[New York City Police Department]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/wikileaks-pages/|title=Wikileaks Says It Has Half-a-Million 9/11 Pager Messages|author=Kevin Poulsen|publisher=Wired|date=25 November 2009}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===2010===
| + | |
| − | ====U.S. Intelligence report on WikiLeaks====
| + | |
| − | On 15 March 2010, WikiLeaks released a secret 32-page [[U.S. Department of Defense]] Counterintelligence Analysis Report from March 2008. The document described some prominent reports leaked on the website which related to U.S. security interests and described potential methods of marginalizing the organization. WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said that some details in the Army report were inaccurate and its recommendations flawed,<ref name="USarmyintel">{{cite web
| + | |
| − | | url = http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20000469-38.html
| + | |
| − | | title = U.S. Army worried about Wikileaks in secret report
| + | |
| − | | last = Mccullagh
| + | |
| − | | first = Declan
| + | |
| − | | publisher=[[CNET Networks|CNET]] News, CBS Interactive
| + | |
| − | | date = 15 March 2010
| + | |
| − | | accessdate = 15 March 2010
| + | |
| − | }}</ref> and also that the concerns of the U.S. Army raised by the report were hypothetical.<ref name=nytimes>{{cite news|last=Strom |first=Stephanie |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html |title=Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers |publisher=nytimes |date=17 March 2010 |accessdate=30 April 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | The report discussed deterring potential whistleblowers via termination of employment and criminal prosecution of any existing or former insiders, leakers or whistleblowers. Reasons for the report include notable leaks such as U.S. equipment expenditure, human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay and the [[First Battle of Fallujah|battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah]].<ref>{{cite web
| + | |
| − | | url = http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
| + | |
| − | | title = U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
| + | |
| − | | format = PDF
| + | |
| − | }}{{dead link|date=October 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Baghdad airstrike video====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 5 April 2010, WikiLeaks released classified U.S. military footage from a series of attacks on 12 July 2007 in Baghdad by a U.S. helicopter that killed 12, including two [[Reuters]] news staff, [[Saeed Chmagh]] and [[Namir Noor-Eldeen]], on a website called "Collateral Murder". The footage consisted of a 39-minute unedited version and an 18-minute version which had been edited and annotated. Analysis of the video indicates that the pilots thought the men were carrying weapons (which were actually camera equipment). When asked if they were ''sure'' that the men were carrying weapons, they answered in the affirmative.<ref>{{cite news |title=Video Shows U.S. Killing of Reuters Employees |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/middleeast/06baghdad.html
| + | |
| − | |date=6 April 2009 |work=New York Times author=Elisabeth Bumiller; Brian Stelter |accessdate=7 April 2010 }}</ref>
| + | |
| − | The [[United States military|military]] conducted an "informal" investigation into the incident, but has yet to release the investigative materials (such as the sworn statements of the soldiers involved or the battle damage assessment) that were used, causing the report to be criticized as "sloppy."<ref>Khatchadourian, Raffi (9 April 2010) [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/04/the-wikileaks-video-reading-the-report.html The WikiLeaks Video: Reading the Report], ''[[The New Yorker]]''</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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.<ref name=Google>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/current-google-insights-trends-wikileaks-posts-clasified-military-video-masters-1942629.html Current Google Insights trends: Wikileaks posts classified military video, Masters], ''[[The Independent]]'', (12 April 2010)</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | =====Arrest of Bradley Manning=====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|Bradley Manning}}
| + | |
| − | A 22-year-old [[US Army]] [[intelligence analyst]], [[Private First Class|PFC]] (formerly [[Specialist (rank)|SPC]]) [[Bradley Manning]], 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 [[news leak|leaked]] the [[Collateral Murder video|"Collateral Murder" video]], in addition to a video of the [[Granai airstrike]] and around 260,000 [[diplomatic cable]]s, to WikiLeaks.<ref name=wired>{{cite news | url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ | authorlink1=Kevin Poulsen | first1=Kevin | last1=Poulsen | authorlink2=Kim Zetter | first2=Kim | last2=Zetter | title=U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe | newspaper=Wired |date=6 June 2010 |accessdate=15 June 2010}}</ref><ref name=BBCManning>{{cite news | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10254072.stm | title=US intelligence analyst arrested over security leaks | date=7 June 2010 |publisher=BBC News | accessdate=15 June 2010}}</ref> WikiLeaks said "allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."<ref name=BBC>{{cite news | first=Jonathan | last=Fildes | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10255887.stm | title=Hacker explains why he reported 'Wikileaks source' | date=7 June 2010 |publisher=BBC News | accessdate=15 June 2010}}</ref> WikiLeaks have said that they are unable as yet to confirm whether or not Manning was actually the source of the video, stating "we never collect personal information on our sources", but that they have nonetheless "taken steps to arrange for his protection and legal defence."<ref name=BBCManning/><ref name=Fildes8>{{cite news | first=Jonathan | last=Fildes | url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10265430.stm | title=Wikileaks site unfazed by arrest of U.S. army 'source' | date=8 June 2010 |publisher=BBC News | accessdate=15 June 2010}}</ref> On 21 June Julian Assange told ''[[The Guardian]]'' that WikiLeaks had hired three US criminal lawyers to defend Manning but that they had not been given access to him.<ref>{{cite news | first=Ian | last=Traynor | title=WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange breaks cover but will avoid America | newspaper=[[guardian.co.uk]] | date=21 June 2010 | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/21/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-breaks-cover | accessdate=21 June 2010 | location=London}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Manning reportedly wrote, "Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/leak/ |author=Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter |title=U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe |publisher=Wired |date=6 June 2010}}</ref> According to the Washington Post, he also described the cables as "explaining how the first world exploits the third, in detail, from an internal perspective."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060906170.html |author=Ellen Nakashima |title=Messages from alleged leaker Bradley Manning portray him as despondent soldier |work=The Washington Post| date=10 June 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Afghan War Diary====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|Afghan War documents leak}}
| + | |
| − | On 25 July 2010,<ref>{{cite news |title=The Man Who Fell to Earth|author=John Birmingham |url=http://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-john-birmingham-man-who-fell-earth-julian-assange-s-wikileaks-2789 |publisher=The Monthly |date=1 October 2010 |accessdate=25 October 2010 |first=John | last=Birmingham}}</ref> WikiLeaks released to ''[[The Guardian]]'', ''[[The New York Times]]'', and ''[[Der Spiegel]]'' over [http://hotfile.com/dl/57733000/664f6b6/200402009diarywar.html.7z.html 92,000 documents] related to the [[War in Afghanistan (2001–present)|war in Afghanistan]] between 2004 and the end of 2009. The documents detail individual incidents including [[friendly fire]] and civilian casualties.<ref name="guardian1">{{cite news | title=Afghanistan war logs: the unvarnished picture | newspaper=[[guardian.co.uk]] | date=25 July 2010 | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-guardian-editorial?intcmp=239 | accessdate=26 July 2010 | location=London}}</ref> The scale of leak was described by Julian Assange as comparable to that of the [[Pentagon Papers]] in the 1970s. The documents were released to the public on 25 July 2010. On 29 July 2010 WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB "[[WikiLeaks#Insurance_file|insurance file]]" to the Afghan War Diary page, whose decryption details would be release if WikiLeaks or Assange were harmed.<ref name="wired_insurance" /><ref name="telegraph_dns_insuranceaes" /><ref name="cbsnews_diplomaticbomb" />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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. Speaking to a group in London in August 2010, Assange said that the group will "absolutely" release the remaining documents. He stated that WikiLeaks has requested help from the Pentagon and human-rights groups to help redact the names, but has not received any assistance. He also stated that WikiLeaks is "not obligated to protect other people's sources...unless it is from unjust retribution."<ref>{{cite news|title=Pentagon Slams WikiLeaks' Plan to Post More War Logs |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425900461793766.html?mod=WSJ_article_LatestHeadlines#articleTabs%3Darticle|accessdate=13 August 2010|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=12 August 2010|author=Julian E. Barnes|author2=Jeanne Whalen}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | According to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany and Australia among others to consider bringing criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help limit Assange's travels across international borders.<ref>{{cite web|last=Shenon|first=Philip|title=U.S. Urges Allies to Crack Down on WikiLeaks|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-10/a-western-crackdown-on-wikileaks/|publisher=The Daily Beast|accessdate=10 August 2010}}</ref> In the United States, a joint investigation by the Army and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may try to prosecute "Mr. Assange and others involved on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property".<ref>{{cite news |title=Prosecutors Eye WikiLeaks Charges |coauthors=ADAM ENTOUS, EVAN PEREZ |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704488404575441673460880204.html |=Politics and Policy/US |work=The Wall Street Journal date=20 August 2010<!-- 23:54:56 -->|accessdate=21 August 2010 | first1=Adam | last1=Entous | first2=Evan | last2=Perez}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The Australia Defence Association (ADA) stated that WikiLeaks' [[Julian Assange]] "could have committed a serious criminal offence in helping an enemy of the [[Australian Defence Force]] (ADF)."<ref name=smh>{{cite news|url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/assange-may-have-committed-offence-ada-20100728-10vp8.html|title=Assange may have committed offence: ADA|work=The Sydney Morning Herald |date=28 July 2010}}</ref> Neil James, the executive director of ADA, states: "Put bluntly, Wikileaks is not authorised in international or Australian law, nor equipped morally or operationally, to judge whether open publication of such material risks the safety, security, morale and legitimate objectives of Australian and allied troops fighting in a UN-endorsed military operation."<ref name=smh/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | WikiLeaks' recent leaking of classified U.S. intelligence has been described by commentator of ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' as having "endangered the lives of Afghan informants" and "the dozens of Afghan civilians named in the document dump as U.S. military informants. Their lives, as well as those of their entire families, are now at terrible risk of Taliban reprisal."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle|title=WikiLeaks 'Bastards'|work=The Wall Street Journal date=29 July 2010}}</ref> When interviewed, Assange stated that WikiLeaks has withheld some 15,000 documents that identify informants to avoid putting their lives at risk. Specifically, Voice of America reported in August 2010 that Assange, responding to such criticisms, stated that the 15,000 still held documents are being reviewed "line by line," and that the names of "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" will be removed.<ref
| + | |
| − | name="voa2010Aug21">{{cite web|url=http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Embattled-Wikileaks-Founder-Facing-Rape-Charge-in-Sweden-101219394.html |title=Sweden Withdraws Arrest Warrant for Embattled WikiLeaks Founder |publisher=.voanews.com |date=21 August 2010 |accessdate=22 October 2010}}</ref> [[Greg Gutfeld]] of [[Fox News]] described the leaking as "WikiLeaks' Crusade Against the U.S. Military."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,597965,00.html|title=WikiLeaks' Crusade Against the U.S. Military|publisher=Fox News | date=28 July 2010}}</ref> [[John Pilger]] has reported that prior to the release of the Afghan War Diaries in July, WikiLeaks contacted the White House in writing, asking that it identify names that might draw reprisals, but received no response.<ref name="2010aug_pilger">{{cite web|url=http://www.zcommunications.org/why-wikileaks-must-be-protected-by-john-pilger |title=Why Wikileaks Must Be Protected |publisher=Zcommunications.org |date= |accessdate=22 October 2010}}</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/world/19wiki.html WikiLeaks and Pentagon Disagree About Talks] 19 August 2010</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | According to the New York Times, Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders criticized WikiLeaks for what they saw as risking people’s lives by identifying Afghans acting as informers.<ref name="NYT20101028-Burns">{{cite news|last=Burns|first=John|title=WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety|work=The New York Times |date=23 October 2010|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=2|accessdate=28 October 2010}}</ref> A Taliban spokesman said that the Taliban had formed a nine-member "commission" to review the documents "to find about people who are spying."<ref name="NYT20101028-Burns" /> He said the Taliban had a "wanted" list of 1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided, stating "after the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such people."<ref name="NYT20101028-Burns" />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Love Parade documents====
| + | |
| − | Sometime after the [[Love Parade stampede]] in [[Duisburg]], Germany on 24 July 2010, the local news blog ''Xtranews'' published internal documents of the city administration regarding Love Parade planning and actions by the authorities. The city government reacted by acquiring a court order on 16 August forcing ''Xtranews'' to remove the documents from its blog.<ref>Konrad Lischka: [http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/netzpolitik/0,1518,712408,00.html ''Einstweilige Verfügung – Duisburg verbietet Blogger-Veröffentlichung zur Love Parade''] at [[Spiegel Online]] on 18 August 2010 (German)</ref> Two days later, however, after the documents had surfaced on other websites as well, the government stated that it would not conduct any further legal actions against the publication of the documents.<ref>[http://www.wdr.de/themen/panorama/loveparade_2010/aktuell/100818.jhtml ''Loveparade-Dokumente offen im Internet''] at [[Westdeutscher Rundfunk|wdr.de]] (German. Retrieved 26 August 2010.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web|title=Loveparade 2010 Duisburg planning documents, 2007–2010|url=http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Loveparade_2010_Duisburg_planning_documents,_2007-2010|accessdate=21 August 2010}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref>[http://www.news.com.au/technology/wikileaks-releases-documents-on-love-parade-tragedy/story-e6frfrnr-1225908260011 ''WikiLeaks releases documents on Love Parade tragedy''] at news.com.au on 21 August 2010</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Iraq War Logs====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|Iraq War documents leak}}
| + | |
| − | In October 2010, it was reported that WikiLeaks was planning to release up to 400,000 documents relating to the [[Iraq War]].<ref>{{cite news | title=WikiLeaks May Release 400,000 Iraq War Documents| first= | last= | publisher=[[CBS News]]| date=16 October 2010 | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/16/national/main6964276.shtml | accessdate=16 October 2010}}</ref> Julian Assange initially denied the reports, stating: "WikiLeaks does not speak about upcoming releases dates, indeed, with very rare exceptions we do not communicate any specific information about upcoming releases, since that simply provides fodder for abusive organizations to get their spin machines ready."<ref>{{cite news | title=Where do all these claims about WikiLeaks doing something on Iraq today (Monday) come from? | first=Julian | last=Assange | publisher=WikiLeaks| date=18 October 2010 | url=http://www.twitlonger.com/show/6hqu1n| accessdate=18 October 2010}}</ref> ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported on 21 October 2010 that it had received almost 400,000 Iraq war documents from WikiLeaks.<ref>{{cite news | title=Iraq war logs: secret files show how US ignored torture |work=The Guardian |location=UK | date=22 October 2010 | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks | accessdate=22 October 2010}}</ref> On 22 October 2010, [[Al Jazeera]] was the first to release analyses of the leak, dubbed [[Iraq War Logs|The War Logs]]. WikiLeaks posted a [[Twitter|tweet]] that "Al Jazeera have broken our embargo by 30 minutes. We release everyone from their Iraq War Logs embargoes." This prompted other news organizations to release their articles based on the source material. The release of the documents coincided with a return of the main wikileaks.org website, which had been offering no content since 30 September 2010.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The BBC quoted the [[The Pentagon|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 [[Iraq War|2003 war]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture' |publisher=BBC News |date=23 October 2010 |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319 |accessdate=23 October 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ====Diplomatic cables release====
| + | |
| − | {{Main|United States diplomatic cables leak}}
| + | |
| − | {{Wikinewshas |news on this topic|
| + | |
| − | * [[n:Wikileaks to release thousands of secret documents; 'international embarrassment' likely|Wikileaks to release thousands of secret documents; 'international embarrassment' likely]], 27 November 2010
| + | |
| − | * [[n:Files will risk 'countless' lives, Obama administration warns Wikileaks|Files will risk 'countless' lives, Obama administration warns Wikileaks]], 28 November 2010
| + | |
| − | * [[n:Wikileaks website attacked; millions of files to be released tonight|Wikileaks website attacked; millions of files to be released tonight]], 28 November 2010
| + | |
| − | }}
| + | |
| − | On 22 November 2010 an announcement was made by the WikiLeaks twitter feed that the next release would be "7x the size of the Iraq War Logs."<ref>http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/status/6564225640042499</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techeye.net/internet/wikileaks-promises-leak-seven-times-bigger-than-iraq|title=WikiLeaks promises leak "seven times bigger than Iraq"|author=Andrea Petrou}}</ref> U.S. authorities and the media have speculated that they may contain diplomatic cables.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n235797 |title=Telegraph: WikiLeaks to release three million secret U.S. documents – FOCUS Information Agency |publisher=Focus-fen.net |date= |accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref> Prior to the expected leak, the government of the United Kingdom (UK) sent a [[DA-Notice]] to UK newspapers, which requests advance notice from the newspapers regarding the expected publication.<ref name="indexcensorship_DANotice">{{cite web| last =Butselaar| first =Emily| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =Wikileaks: UK issues DA-Notice as U.S. briefs allies on fresh leak| work=| publisher=[[Index on Censorship]]| date=26 November 2010| url =http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/us-uk-wikileaks-d-notice-leak/ |format =| doi =| accessdate=26 November 2010 |archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no }}{{dead link|date=November 2010}}</ref> According to [[Index on Censorship]], "there is no obligation on media to comply". "Newspaper editors would speak to [the] [[Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee]] prior to publication."<ref name="indexcensorship_DANotice" /> The Pakistani newspaper ''[[Dawn (newspaper)|Dawn]]'' stated that the U.S. newspapers ''[[The New York Times]]'' and ''[[The Washington Post]]'' were expected to publish parts of the diplomatic cables on Sunday 28 November, including 94 Pakistan-related documents.<ref name="dawn_cables_prediction">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=WikiLeaks plans to release 94 papers about Pakistan | date=27 November 2010 | publisher=[[Dawn (newspaper)|Dawn]] | url=http://www.dawn.com/2010/11/27/wikileaks-plans-to-release-94-papers-about-pakistan-2.html |accessdate=27 November 2010 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5uXW29Chj |archivedate=26 November 2010 |deadurl=no }}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 26 November, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, Assange sent a letter to the [[United States Department of State|US Department of State]], asking for information regarding people who could be placed at "significant risk of harm" by the diplomatic cables release.<ref name="smh_DeptState_rejects">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=US rejects talks with WikiLeaks | date=28 November 2010 |work=Sydney Morning Herald /[[Agence France Presse|AFP]] | url=http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/us-rejects-talks-with-wikileaks-20101128-18c57.html |accessdate=28 November 2010 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqzdckM |archivedate=28 November 2010 |deadurl=no }}</ref><ref name="Koh_refuses_pdf">{{cite web| last=Koh| first=Harold Hongju| authorlink=Harold Hongju Koh| title=Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange|work=The Washington Post| date=27 November 2010| url=http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Dept_of_State_Assange_letter.pdf |format=PDF| doi= |accessdate=28 November 2010 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqSSqr6 |archivedate=28 November 2010 |deadurl=no }}</ref> [[Harold Hongju Koh|Harold Koh]], [[Legal Adviser of the Department of State]], refused the proposal, stating, "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials."<ref name="Koh_refuses_pdf" />
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 28 November, WikiLeaks announced it was undergoing a massive [[DDoS|Distributed Denial-of-service attack]],<ref>{{Cite news |title= Wikileaks 'hacked ahead of secret US document release' |url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637 |publisher=BBC News |date=28 November 2010 |accessdate=28 November 2010}}</ref> but vowed to still leak the cables and documents via prominent media outlets including ''[[El PaÃs]]'', ''[[Le Monde]]'', ''[[Der Spiegel]]'', ''[[The Guardian]]'', and ''The New York Times''.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8924979961798657 |title=Twitter / WikiLeaks: El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel |publisher=Twitter |date= |accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref> The announcement was shortly thereafter followed by the online publication, by ''The Guardian'', of some of the purported diplomatic cables including one in which United States Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] apparently orders diplomats to obtain credit card and frequent flier numbers of the French, British, Russian and Chinese delegations to the United Nations Security Council.<ref>{{cite web|author=Robert Booth and Julian Borger |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un |title=US diplomats spied on UN leadership|work=The Guardian |location=UK |date= |accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref> Other revelations reportedly include that several Arab nations urged the U.S. to launch a first strike on Iran, that the Chinese government was directly involved in computer hacking, and that the U.S. is pressuring Pakistan to turn over nuclear material to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. The cables also include unflattering appraisals of world leaders.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/11/28/2010-11-28_media_unveils_classified_documents_via_wikileaks_website_in_explosive_release_of.html| author=Helen Kennedy| title=WikiLeaks should be designated a 'foreign terrorist organization,' Rep. Pete King fumes|work=New York Daily News date=29 November 2010}}</ref> U.S. congressman [[Peter T. King]] called for WikiLeaks to be designated as a terrorist organization in response to the leak of the cables.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/WikiLeaks-Republican-Peter-King-Says-WikiLeaks-Should-Be-Designated-A-Terrorist-Organisation/Article/201011415837684?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15837684_WikiLeaks%3A_Republican_Peter_King_Says_WikiLeaks_Should_Be_Designated_A_Terrorist_Organisation|title=WikiLeaks 'Should Be A Terror Organisation' |first1=Rob |last1=Cole|date=29 November 2010 |publisher=[[Sky News]] |accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | On 2 Dec 2010 [[EveryDNS]] dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing [[DDoS]] attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".<ref>RAPHAEL G. SATTER and MALIN RISING (3 Dec 2010) [http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/02/1882168/the-noose-tightens-around-wikileaks.html WikiLeaks dropped by domain name provider], an [[Associated Press]] story syndicated by [[The Charlotte Observer]]</ref> The site's [http://wikileaks.info/ .info] DNS lookup remained operational (alternatives: [http://www.wikileaks.ch www.wikileaks.ch] [http://www.wikileaks.pl www.wikileaks.pl] [http://www.wikileaks.fi www.wikileaks.fi] [http://wikileaks.dataleech.com wikileaks.dataleech.com]), and listed IP address [http://213.251.145.96/ 213.251.145.96] for direct access respectively to the Wikileaks and Cablegate websites.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/12/03/wikileaks-loses-domain-name-after-dos-attacks-40091046/|title=WikiLeaks loses domain name after DoS attacks|author=Darren Pauli|date=2010-12-02|publisher=ZDNet}}</ref> [[Amazon.com]] also severed its ties with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services, after an intervention of an aide of US Senator [[Joseph Lieberman]].<ref>RAVI SOMAIYA and ALAN COWELL (December 3, 2010), [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/world/europe/04domain.html WikiLeaks Struggles to Stay Online After Cyberattacks], The [[New York Times]]</ref><ref name=agedec4>Dylan Welch (December 4, 2010) [http://www.theage.com.au/world/attacks-shut-down-wikileaks-20101203-18jqt.html Attacks shut down WikiLeaks], [[The Age]]</ref><ref name=guadec02>Ewen MacAskill (2 December 2010) [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US political pressure], [[The Guardian]]</ref> Lieberman, who later praised Amazon's decision and called for other companies to follow suit,<ref name=guadec02/> also proposed new legislation targeting similar cases—[[Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act]],<ref name=agedec4/> also known as the the SHIELD Act.<ref>[[Kevin Poulsen]] (December 2, 2010) [http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/ Lieberman Introduces Anti-WikiLeaks Legislation], [[Wired.com]]</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded to the leaks saying, "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy; it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity." Julian Assange is quoted as saying, "Of course, abusive, Titanic organizations, when exposed, grasp at all sorts of ridiculous straws to try and distract the public from the true nature of the abuse."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/11/29/wikileaks/index.html| title=Clinton condemns leak as 'attack on international community'| publisher=CNN| date=29 November 2010}}</ref> [[John Perry Barlow]], co-founder of the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], wrote a [[tweet]] saying: "The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."<ref>By RAPHAEL G. SATTER and PETER SVENSSON
| + | |
| − | (December 3, 2010) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303214.html WikiLeaks fights to stay online amid attacks], an [[Associated Press]] report syndicated by The [[Washington Post]]</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | WikiLeaks and their media partners has started to voluntary censorship cables. Content of 10STATE17263 cable was removed from site for more 24 hours, then appeared back as 1 paragraph instead of original. 07STATE164120 cable was already removed for 12 hours, then appeared back with name of Russian opposition figure Vladirmir Ryzhkov in subject removed. On December 3 WikiLeaks has suspended to provide hourly updates with torrents.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ===Announcements on upcoming leaks===
| + | |
| − | In May 2010, WikiLeaks said they had video footage of a massacre of civilians in Afghanistan by the U.S. military which they were preparing to release.<ref name=campbell/><ref>{{cite news | title=WikiLeaks works to expose government secrets, but Web site's sources are a mystery | first=Joby | last=Warrick |work=The Washington Post| date=19 May 2010 | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051905333.html | accessdate=21 May 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In an interview with [[Chris Anderson (entrepreneur)|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]],<ref>{{cite video|title=Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks|people=[[Chris Anderson (entrepreneur)|Chris Anderson]]|publisher=[[TED (conference)|TED]]|time=11:28|quote=November last year ... well blowouts in Albania ... Have you had information from inside BP? Yeah, we have a lot ... |url=http://www.ted.com/talks/julian_assange_why_the_world_needs_wikileaks.html|date=|ref=Assange2010ted|accessdate=2 August 2010}}</ref> and that they were "getting enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of a very high caliber"<ref>[[#Assange2010ted|Assange TED interview. Event occurs at 13:55]]</ref> but added that they have not been able to verify and release the material because they do not have enough volunteer journalists.<ref>{{cite news|author=By Richard Galant, CNN |url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/16/wikileaks.disclosures/ |title=WikiLeaks founder: Site getting tons of 'high caliber' disclosures - CNN.com |publisher=CNN |date=16 July 2010|accessdate=1 August 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329561/Wikileaks-Russian-corruption-expose-plan-linked-Alexander-Lebedev-bank-raid.html|title=Bank raid could have been warning against planned WikiLeaks Russian corruption expose says Alexander Lebedev |first1=Glen |last1=Owen |first2=Will |last2=Stewart |date=14 November 2010 |newspaper=[[Mail Online]] |accessdate=28 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/WikiLeaks-ready-to-drop-a-bombshell-on-Russia.-But-will-Russians-get-to-read-about-it |title=WikiLeaks ready to drop a bombshell on Russia. But will Russians get to read about it? |publisher=CSMonitor.com |date=26 October 2010 |accessdate=29 November 2010}}</ref> 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".<ref name=Forbes>{{cite news |title=An Interview With WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange |author=Andy Greenberg |newspaper=Forbes |date=29 November 2010 |url=http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/2/ |accessdate=1 December 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | In a 2009 ''[[Computer World]]'' interview, Assange claimed to be in possession of "5GB from Bank of America", and in 2010 told ''[[Forbes]]'' magazine that WikiLeaks was planning another "megaleak" for early in 2011, which this time would be from inside the private sector and involve "a big U.S. bank". Bank of America's stock price fell as a result of this announcement.<ref name=bankofamerica1>{{cite news | title=Bank of America rumored to be in WikiLeaks’ crosshairs | last=Rothacker |newspaper=[[The Boston Herald]]| first=Rick|url=http://news.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1299995 | accessdate=1 December 2010}}</ref><ref name=bankofamerica2>{{cite news|last=Mark|first=Memmott|title=Bank Of America Stock Steadies After WikiLeaks-Related Drop|url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/01/131727190/bank-of-america-stock-steadies-after-wikileaks-related-drop|accessdate=2 December 2010|newspaper=NPR|date=1 December 2010}}</ref><ref name=bankofamerica3>{{cite news|last=De La Merced|first=Michael|title=WikiLeaks’ Next Target: Bank of America?|url=http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks-next-target-bank-of-america/|accessdate=2 December 2010|newspaper=New York Times|date=30 November 2010}}ref>{{cite news|author=By John Carney, CNBC |url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/40471184/ |title=Bank of America's Risky WikiLeaks Strategy |publisher=CNBC |date=2 December 2010|accessdate=d December 2010}}</ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==See also==
| + | |
| − | {{Portal box|Internet}}
| + | |
| − | {{div col|colwidth=15em}}
| + | |
| − | * [[Chilling Effects (group)]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Cryptome]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Digital rights]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Freedom of information]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Freedom of the press]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Information security]]
| + | |
| − | * [[irrepressible.info]]
| + | |
| − | * [[Streisand effect]]
| + | |
| − | {{div col end}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==References==
| + | |
| − | {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==External links==
| + | |
| − | {{Wikiquote}}
| + | |
| − | {{Commons category|Wikileaks}}
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.wikileaks.fi Alternate domain]
| + | |
| − | * [http://wikileaks.info/ WikiLeaks Mirror page]
| + | |
| − | * [http://mirror.infoboj.eu/ WikiLeaks Mirror page]
| + | |
| − | * {{Twitter|wikileaks}}
| + | |
| − | * {{Facebook|wikileaks}}
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2010/06/wikileaks_review.html "Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence†Review"], [[Steven Aftergood]], June 2010
| + | |
| − | * [http://c2047862.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Saturday%20Keynote%20-%20Wikileaks.mp3 Wikileaks Keynote Address at The Next Hope (64kbs)]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=31387 Wikileaks and Freedom of the Press] by Guillermo Fernandez Ampie, ''Havana Times'', 20 Oct 2010
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/22/wikileaks_prepares_largest_intel_leak_in WikiLeaks Prepares Largest Intel Leak in US History with Release of 400,000 Iraq War Docs] – video report by ''[[Democracy Now!]]'', October 2010
| + | |
| − | * [http://fora.tv/2010/04/18/Logan_Symposium_The_New_Initiatives Video] of Julian Assange on a panel at the 2010 Logan Symposium in Investigative Reporting at the UC Berkeley (18 April 2010)
| + | |
| − | * ''Wikileaks vs. the World''. Presentation by WikiLeaks representatives Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt at the 25th [[Chaos Communication Congress]], Berlin, December 2008. [http://chaosradio.ccc.de/25c3_m4v_2916.html online Flash video] and [http://events.ccc.de/congress/2008/wiki/Conference_Recordings#Official_Releases download in higher resolution formats]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/03/13/04/ Leak Proof] Interview with Julian Assange. 2009/03/13
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange Video Interview with Julian Assange] on [[The Colbert Report]] hosted by [[Stephen Colbert]]. 2010/04/12
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.r-bloggers.com/animated-heatmap-of-wikileaks-report-intensity-in-afghanistan/ Animated Heatmap of WikiLeaks Report Intensity in Afghanistan]
| + | |
| − | * [http://www.wlcentral.org/ WL Central]: An unofficial WikiLeaks information resource.
| + | |
