At a basic level, in order to have a successful website which is available to the general public, three things are crucial: a web host, to make the contents of your website available online; a domain name so that people can easily remember how to reach it, and pass this information on to others; and generally, a source of funds.  Aside from difficulties relating to political pressure, internal disputes and allegations of sexual misconduct by its founder, Wikileaks has had all three of these taken away.

After suffering a bombardment of cyber attacks Wikileaks took up residency on Amazon.com’s servers, however, the respite was short lived as Amazon withdrew hosting for the site not long afterwards, citing a breach of their terms of service.  The provider EveryDNS also withdrew its services, removing access to the site via the domain name Wikileaks.org.

This setback was short lived, both due to the support offered by EasyDNS – a competitor of EveryDNS – and due to Wikileaks’ huge popularity.  The availability of access to the site via its IP address spread virally, and the top Google result for Wikileaks pointed directly to its location, bypassing the need for a domain name.  Arguably, the impact of even complete inaccessibility to the site for an extended period of time would be negligible, as the organisation has the support of three of the most prominent newspapers in the World: the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the New York Times.  These organisations have not yet been targeted with action intended to block access and it seems unlikely that they will be.

A major source of funding has also been unavailable since PayPal suspended Wikileaks’ account, compounded by similar moves by MasterCard and VISA Europe.  Additionally, Apple have withdrawn the Wikileaks iPhone app from their online app store, citing their developer guidelines, which provide that:

An app must comply with all local laws.  It may not put an individual or target group in harms way.

Despite the above problems, Wikileaks remains available at a Swiss domain name, wikileaks.ch, having enlisted the services of various hosting providers, including the French company OVH.  With regards to funding, Xipwire, Flattr and Datacell are all also standing their ground in support of the organisation, which is reliant on donations.

What is interesting, and concerning, about the withdrawal of service by these companies is that it illustrates how reliant organisations which operate via a website are on providers who appear to be taking a more active interest in the regulation of online content.  These providers rely on terms of business that allow for the suspension of service under a variety of circumstances, relevant observations here are:

PayPal:

Our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity

Amazon

Wikileaks doesn’t own or otherwise control all the rights to this classified content … it is not credible that the extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that Wikileaks is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that they weren’t putting innocent people in jeopardy.

EveryDNS

[Wikileaks] threatened the stability of the EveryDNS.net infrastructure which enabled access to almost 500,000 other websites

It is not so much the incorporation of such terms as referred to above which has caused concern, but the discretion with which these are enforced.  While MasterCard and VISA have blocked donations to Wikileaks, commentators note that they continue to serve other organisations popularly seen as more worthy of sanctions, such as the Ku Klux Klan. Meanwhile, Facebook, Twitter and numerous other providers are happy to allow Wikileaks to use their services.

The actions discussed above are causing a great deal of concern to proponents of free speech, and an open Internet.  Bill Roth, EVP of LogLogic has suggested that:

“Amazon’s decision to pull the plug on WikiLeaks sets a Dangerous precedent, and flies in the face of 100 years of precedent relating to common carriers. While there’s certainly a moral dilemma associated with WikiLeaks, there’s a genuine concern that common carriers are going to get into the business of censorship”

Dr Joseph Reger, CTO for Fujitsu Technology Solutions, said of Amazon’s decision that deciding on the legality of content “is not the job of providers. It has to be judged by a court of law.”

On a related note, if providers grow in size, pushing smaller competitors out of the market and increasing the barrier to entry, to what extent will the reduced availability of alternatives mean that speech online will become subject to their control?

The debate is ongoing, and is likely to continue to challenge strongly held beliefs worldwide concerning freedom of the press, regulation of the Internet, and transparent government.  We will certainly be watching closely to see how events unfold.

Read more about Wikileaks in our earlier post, and on their website.

These previously unreleased documents, leaked in advance to the media under an agreement that they would not publish until this week, offer detailed accounts of the fighting in Afghanistan.  They reveal unreported incidents of civilian casualties, and allegations of links between Pakistani intelligence services and the Taliban.

Wikileaks made these documents accessible to the New York Times, The Guardian and a German newspaper, Der Spiegel, through a secret website.  The newspapers agreed to simultaneously publish on Monday the 26^th of July.

Wikileaks publishes classified documents and information often connected to governments, and other organizations, and the protection of their sources is of paramount importance.  The organisation employs sophisticated encryption techniques, and tactics you might expect to see in a blockbuster spy film to preserve the anonymity of their sources, combining postal drops and electronic communication in their efforts to reduce risk, and encourage the submission of material.  In addition, their servers are distributed across a number of jurisdictions, and configured to discard logs of activity – leaving little or no material of value available for seizure.  Notable prior leaks include information about the secretive beliefs and activities of members of Scientology, a list of the members of the BNP, and the contents of Sarah Palin’s Yahoo! mailbox.

Despite refusing to accept government or corporate funding, out of fear of compromising its integrity, Wikileaks has nonetheless managed to raise $1 million from the public to meet running costs.  A figure that is sure to rise following the publicity generated by this recent disclosure.

The American defence department is trying to trace the source of leaked information, and believes that it may have started in November with the copying of secret information by someone working inside a US military base.  Some commentators have criticised Wikileaks, suggesting that the disclosure of certain information will endanger lives.  It is alleged that this leak in particular could compromise America’s national security.  However, the founder of the organisation, Julian Assange, confidently rejects these accusations, stating: “We are familiar with groups whose abuse we expose attempting to criticise the messenger to distract from the power of the message”.  He also defends the leak by explaining that the information published was seven months old, and that there will be “no current operational consequence”, although it may lead to further investigation.

Speculation is rife over the potential consequences of the disclosure, but what is clear is that the leaks have encouraged public discourse about the war in Afghanistan.  The documents have been said to demonstrate a lack of military discrimination in the conducting of operations, and John Kerry, the US chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee has said that “However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan”.  Kerry, among others, hopes that the documents will lead to a review of policy.

So far 71,000 of the 90,000 documents have been released, and Assange hopes this will inspire others to reveal and expose further information about the war.  The Wikileaks founder believes that the documents enable people to better understand, and scrutinise, the war in Afghanistan with a view to leading a change in policy for the better.

From a legal and technological standpoint the site’s activity raises complex questions about the inter-jurisdictional reach of affected parties, and illustrates how the Internet as a medium can be a far more effective means of neutralising censorship powers than any legislation, national or international.

Wikileaks, described by itself as a “multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists, and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public”, allows people wishing to share information of a sensitive nature to do so with a wide audience, anonymously.  By, to some extent, removing the risk associated with revealing sensitive information, the site has arguably led to the publication of a wide array of stories that may otherwise not have seen the light of day.  It has been said that in its short lifetime since its creation in 2007, the website has produced more scoops than the Washington Post has in 30 years.

The site drew increased attention recently after founder Julian Assange, along with a variety of experts from different fields, working in conjunction with politicians and activists in Iceland, developed the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.  This proposal was made to the Icelandic Parliament in February, and after passing unanimously last week, stands to make Iceland the World’s free speech capital by offering the strongest protection to those who wish to reveal sensitive information.  The new laws aim to protect the identity of whistleblowers, protect publishers, and provide immunity to intermediaries such as internet service providers.

This is a recent indication of how the law is likely to play only an auxillary role in the censorship of information in future.  Growing ever more important is an understanding that control of the dissemination of material online is rarely a viable option, and instead parties with a strong interest in their reputation should prepare themselves to counter damaging content not by bringing legal action, but by responding in kind – by engaging in discussion.  Knowledge of how, and where, to look for discourse that might damage a reputation, along with an awareness of the risks involved when taking action to remedy this, are crucial to public figures, governments, businesses and in fact anyone whose reputation is important to them.