Wikileaks: Informational Explosion in International Relation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Research paper

Theme: “Wikileaks: Informational Explosion in International Relation”

Majenov Maksut

Almaty 2012



Plan of paper

Introduction

1. Wikileaks mission

2. Goals of Our Research work

3. Thesis

4. Main part

4.1 Wikileaks: Information explosion or The beginning of new era uncensored press

4.2 Consequences and the public reaction to Wikileaks publication

4.3 Comparison of Wikileaks and Television, and other censored news portal

Conclusion

References



Introduction

The world is getting tossed around like confetti these days, but many of us are still in the dark as to what its research work about.

Many of us heard about Wikileaks, but most of us still don't know what it is. At this research we will try to explain the meaning of this organization.

Nowadays, Wikileaks is a whistle-blowing website that publishes sensitive materials from governments and other high-profile organization. //1.

However, world society wonder where do they get their information and how does it work. wikileaks research information

By far the most common and most damaging source of leaks is insiders who secretly collect the information and then send it to WikiLeaks. Insiders might do this out of a sense of justice or as a form of retaliation against an employer.

Why they do it and who are they? WikiLeaks consists of 5 people working full-time and around 800 people other contributors. //2.

They are journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and other who are dedicated to free press.

The founder of this organization is Julian Assange, programmer and developer of software, which has been hacking since the age of 16.

WikiLeaks aims at being a safe place for airing documentation of corporate or governmental misdeed. It is a safe haven for anyone, anywhere in the world, to submit sensitive information that can then be read by the public with the ultimate aims being transparency and justice through public communication.

The main goals of our research work are to introduce the WikiLeaks to society as a new type of free press. //3. We want to prove the statement that WikiLeaks it's not just anti-politician action, but it's the only way to show the truth to people. This organization calls the people to change the societies, which have a power to change something not in the world politics, but first of all inside their mind. //4. These changes inside us can change the world. Our research is connected to community and shows the public reaction to WikiLeaks. Anyway, we can assert that Wikileaks it is small “impulse” to big changes in the world community's mind and mentality.



1. Wikileaks mission

WikiLeaks is the branch of new era of free press or the beginning of a new form of media. //5.

WikiLeaks can become a crucial new part of the digital media ecosystem. During our research work we conclude that our society is ready to continue the work of Assange and others.

We made conclusion that it's not just WikiLeaks anymore, because a new spin-off group called OpenLeaks, formed in part by a splinter faction from within WikiLeaks, says it's launching a new service with much the same mandate as its predecessor -- to make documents public whether governments and companies want them to be or not -- although it plans to be just a distribution point rather than a publisher itself. Another group calling itself BrusselsLeaks is apparently also looking to create the kind of document clearinghouse that WikiLeaks has set up, but it will be focused on information about the European Union.

In this era of real-time publishing and the ubiquitous web, however, the power of that brown envelope has been amplified a thousandfold, and its reach is far broader than was ever possible before -- and that changes the game entirely.



2. Goals of Our Research work

The impact of WikiLeaks on world community.

The impact of WikiLeaks on the world media community has been unmistakable: within a couple of months, articles based on documents from secret bases started popping up in the press.

The publication of confidential information cannot make the world safer and more peaceful, but more transparent! If the leaks are blocked, society will never have a chance to get rid of dominances like endless political hypocrisy, infantilism and lack of respect by politicians towards the citizens of any country. Political arrogance, the sense of impunity and superiority, the petty grudges and personal bias will continue to keep billions of inhabitants of a planet starving. Due to negligence and incompetence, money rarely reaches the ones in need, but is used as a buffer against the opposing politicians, very much like in a childish pillow fight. This fight, with blows below the belt and bluffing as the main manner of maneuver, once again proves that the world to this day remains a major battleground dominated by the belief that a country can only win at the expense of another, that we are all opponents.

WikiLeaks has done a service to humanity. The only way for people to develop truly is to know what leaders do as their representatives. But these leaders keep people in the dark so that they might remain unknowing about important issues that affect their understanding, their beliefs and their lives. Why should it continue to be so important to keep people blind to the truth?



3. Goals of Our Research work

The comparison of WikiLeaks and BBC News.

In order to identify whether information which is provided by WikiLeaks is objective, we have to compare it with another informational resource. At our research work we decided to compare WikiLeaks at the BBC News instance. As we know BBC News is the department of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) responsible for the gathering and broadcasting of news and current affairs. The department is the world's largest broadcast news organization and generates about 120 hours of radio and television output each day, as well as online news coverage. BBC News shows us the current official situation in the world.

WikiLeaks shows us the ugly truth about politics and help to find the answers on some questions which official media doesn't give publicity to people. Nowadays, WikiLeaks is the strongest provocative news, they like a spies works without rules and boards.



4. Main part

4.1 Wikileaks: Information explosion or the beginning of new era uncensored press

Today's world mass media looked at WikiLeaks as a great example of freedom of expression. But there is no deep academic study on this phenomenon. At our work we want to answer to the question: “What Wikileaks is information explosion or the beginning of new era uncensored press.

There are too many questions about it. Is it new branch of press and will it be just daily news, which determine the conventional media within the meaning of media theories or will it, only lead to an era of global disorder and chaos.

We only know that WikiLeaks is a new sensation of information flow in the world's mass media.

Let's analyze Julian Assange as a part of freedom of expression. The WikiLeaks stands on the one line with such a giant of new media such as Facebook and Twitter. They have the same aims and maintain a two way flow of communication and are capable of setting an agenda for the society to debate. The WikiLeaks is not traditional media like print and television.

The official spokesperson for WikiLeaks says that WikiLeaks has changed the role of journalism and made journalists braver, he also says that New York Times came as a surprise and disappointment to me, in order to highlight that it is not same as the early 1970s where the Times was willing to take on the Nixon administration by publishing the Pentagon Papers.

When WikiLeaks released 77,000 Afghan War documents to news organizations in July 2010, the New York Times was accorded the right to publish the scoop on its website. Instead, Hrafnsson said, the Times apparently was so worried about the likely furor over release of the Afghanistan war logs that critical minutes passed, and the Times decided to report the news only after other publications had done so.//6

The scientific world has own opinion about WikiLeaks situation. For instance, scholars like Micha Sifry (2011) say that Julian Assange floated a new culture of Internet freedom and free flow of information beyond any secrecy through WikiLeaks. On the other, David Leigh and Luke Harding (2011), the journalists of repute from Guardian, sarcastically put it like this:

The media and public were torn between those who saw Assanage as a new kind of cyber-messiah and those who regarded him as a James Bond villain. Each extremity projected on to him superhuman powers of good or evil. //7.

The problematic of WikiLeaks as a new type of uncensored press filled million minds. Many writers started analyze the place of this organization in the journalistic world. For example we took the review of one of the most popular contributing editors. He work at popular American January Magazine.

Commenting on the book in a review, the editor Aaron Blanton wrote that -`If the WikiLeaks storm took you with surprise, and left you with unanswered questions the book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy will come close to answering them. At the same time, it delivers a riveting portrait of the culture and personalities that made the WikiLeaks matter not only possible, but perhaps inevitable.

Newspaper columnist and social activist Freddie Kissoon has long been made a target for being a champion of human rights. In yet another review on the same book in Kaieteur news, he has written:

There are times, when Assange thinks that the journalists are mainstream bureaucrats who have loyalty only to themselves while the media people think that Assange is too impressed with his importance. It comes down to what is your goal in life. Assange wanted publication of Governments' misbehavior around the world. The newspapers were not interested in the political consequences of the release of the cables. From reading the book, this seems to be the cause of the confusion. It is clear from this publication that the Guardian and New York Times players do not see Assange as a genuine human rights crusader. It has to do with his behavioral traits, a style in political activists that journalists would not understand. I see a little bit of that every day in the relation between Mark Benschop, which is the closest thing we have to Julian Assange in this country, and the mainstream media.

The new information age has brought an explosion in the proportion of people who can make decisions for themselves about the value of information, and indeed to help spread it, irrespective of traditional assumptions regarding merit, capacity or skill.

In this work the issue of free speech and freedom of information in the media were analyzed. Also was analyzed looking at the role of both journalists and individuals in responding to and accommodating these democratic ideals in both ethical and unethical ways.

Watching Edward Murrow's speech from Good Night and Good Luck, we discussed if and how the media in its many forms uphold the ideal of free speech and the right of the people to `know', or whether, as he asserted, it has rather become a way of deluding, insulating and distracting us from a sense of reality and truth. //8

We also watched Tony Abbott's interview on the 7:30 report, looking at ethics in journalism and how they might collide with their watch-dog function, and obligation to reveal some sense of `truth'. We looked at whether or not the reporter was in the wrong by launching a somewhat public attack on her interviewee in order to obtain a truthful answer, and demonstrating a lack of objectivity in her questioning.//9

Regarding these issues we looked at Wikileaks and the role of investigative journalism in the digital age; whether traditional investigative journalism still has a role in the way in which we gain information, if the individual agendas of large media corporations prevent the survival of investigative journalism, and if the pace of the digital media makes investigative news stories irrelevant or less dependable in information gathering processes.

Wikileaks was discussed as being perhaps the fusion of investigative journalism and its watch-dog function, the digital age, and the democratic vision of free speech, information and a free press. // 10

Whistle blowing, as a way of holding governments and various global institutions accountable, has ethical arguments both for and against. While there is the issue of Wikileaks causing international tension and security issues, it can be tentatively concluded that the people, for whom the media is ideally supposed to stand up for, appreciate the idea that there is a body `protecting' them from any kind of censorship etc.

With a stunning 2 billion persons estimated to be using the Internet and producing 156 million public blogs in 2011, there has been a surge of social networks, user-generated content and micro-blogging that has enabled all Internet users to become public communicators. Along with the spread of the Internet, WikiLeaks' release of a massive number of classified government documents and its initial collaboration with traditional news media has modified the media landscape and raised crucial questions for journalism.

The WikiLeaks episode raised many issues related to freedom of expression, freedom of information, national security, privacy and ethics. The WikiLeaks developments raise basic questions about how journalists do their jobs.

An organization like WikiLeaks should professionalize and depersonalize itself as much as possible. It should hold itself to the highest possible ethical standards. It should act with the utmost discretion in releasing into the public domain otherwise classified information that comes its way only on the basis of an obvious transgression of law or morality.

WikiLeaks is only a symptom of a much larger phenomenon to which governments, businesses and individuals will all have to get accustomed. Our lives have been turned inside out by a digital world of our own spinning. We will need new rules, norms and principles to adjust to this new environment. //11

4.2 Consequences and the public reaction to Wikileaks publication

The Wikileaks's publications have enormous resonance in society that we can to not consider different views about it. Most publications so sensationally that in one way or another has made some changes. The site activity has different opinions: it can be classified as harmful or as useful.

In the article in BBC News Hillary Clinton called Wikileaks' latest release "an attack on the international community".

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wikileaks' actions undermined US foreign policy efforts and amounted to "an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity".

New York Congressman Pete King has called for the US Attorney General to designate Wikileaks a terrorist organization and to prosecute founder Julian Assange for espionage.

Much of the criticism of Wikileaks, though, revolves around the notion that releasing such information risks lives.

Identities of informants could be compromised, spies exposed, and the safety of human rights activists, journalists and dissidents jeopardized when information of their activities is made public, the argument goes.

US military officials contend that allowing enemies access to their strategic and operational documents creates a dangerous environment for American troops serving abroad.

US state department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote in a letter to Wikileaks that the most recent document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".

He accused Wikileaks of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of the lives your actions endanger".

The problem for officials like Mr Koh is proving direct links between the information released and any loss of life.

After the release of an enormous haul of US defense department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents."

Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg says silence puts lives at risk

But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents.

Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is skeptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today program that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak.

"The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

Mr Ellsberg noted that with this release, the newspapers involved co-operated with the US government to ensure that the information they published did not imperil lives.

“I don't think it has been proven that this is dangerous to US troops, for instance. I haven't seen that case made very clearly”

Carne Ross, Former UK ambassador to the UN

New York Times executive editor Bill Keller told the BBC that although his newspaper did not always agree with the advice of US authorities, it had carefully redacted the published documents to remove identifying information.

"Our hope is that we've done everything in our power to minimize actual damage," he said.

Carne Ross, a former UK diplomat at the United Nations, told the BBC that the effects of Wikileaks were largely unknowable at this point.

"I don't think it has been proven that this is dangerous to US troops, for instance. I haven't seen that case made very clearly," he said. "What I think this means is that we need to look at our own mechanisms for democratic accountability and foreign policy. We need to be much, much better."

One thing the experts appear to agree on is that the leaks will make it more difficult for US diplomats and human intelligence operatives to do their jobs. Although that does not present an immediate threat to American lives, strained international relations may create a more dangerous world.

"They embarrass governments with which the US co-operates," Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said of the leaks on the BBC's World Today program.

"At the very least, they will make governments like Pakistan and Yemen and others, which are collaborating with the US in the battle against terrorism, more reluctant to co-operate.

"It's harming some of the vital activities that the US government, the UK government or others engage in, which are protecting us against terrorism."//12

So in the Government side Wikileaks is real problem and make only harm. But we consider research of one agency which can show that American society is suggesting the same.

Most Americans following news about the WikiLeaks website's release of a huge trove of classified documents about U.S. diplomatic relations see the revelations - which have received extensive media coverage - doing more harm than good.

Six-in-ten (60%) of those paying attention to the story say they believe the release of thousands of secret State Department communications harms the public interest. About half that number (31%) say the release serves the public interest, according to the latest News Interest Index survey conducted Dec. 2-5 among 1,003 adults.

In August, the public was more divided about the impact of the release by WikiLeaks of thousands of classified documents about the war in Afghanistan. At that point, 47% of those who had heard at least a little about the story said the release harmed the public interest, while 42% said it served the public interest.

Economic news topped the public's news interest last week with 25% saying they followed news about the economy more closely than any other top story; 52% say they followed economic news very closely, the highest number since mid-summer. Three-in-ten (30%) say they followed the WikiLeaks developments very closely. This was the top story for 7%.

For its part, the media devoted 16% of coverage to the WikiLeaks story, according to a separate analysis by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. Tallying together the economic themes, PEJ found them receiving more than a quarter of coverage: the economy in general (11%), the debate over what to do about the Bush era income tax cuts (11%) and discussions in Washington about how to reduce the federal deficit (7%).

In the survey, nearly two-in-ten (17%) say they followed the debate over tax cuts most closely, while 6% say they followed news about deficit reduction proposals that closely.//13

The harm influence of Wikileaks publications caused a lot of protest from the government and served as a beginning to active actions against the site.

Leaking the content of US diplomatic cables caused dramatically harder reactions in different countries than any other of the earlier actions of WikiLeaks. It made also civil rights organizations reconsider their stand on WikiLeaks.

On December 6th US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that WikiLeaks was under criminal investigation and that there could be prosecutions of individuals for leaking classified documents. Julian Assange, director of WikiLeaks, was arrested 7th December 2010 in Britain and accused of sexual assaults in Sweden. However, he was released 16th December against bail for a home arrest. No charges due to the leaks have been filed so far against him.

WikiLeaks also became as a target of attacks and blocks. Immediately after the documents were published, a denial-of-service (DoS) attack was carried out against the WikiLeaks website. WikiLeaks was blocked by government organizations and service providers in China, UAE, Australia (on a black list), Switzerland (by a US service provider) and in the USA (from Federal Government staff, Library of Congress, Department of Education). Also, in California WikiLeaks was temporarily blocked from all DNS addresses after the cable leaks.

Several financial institutions, including Swiss PostFinance, PayPal, Bank of America, Visa and MasterCard, closed WikiLeaks' accounts shortly after the cables were published. These events were followed by DoS attacks against MasterCard and Visa which were organized by activists defending WikiLeaks. As a consequence of this attack Facebook and Twitter also closed the accounts and pages used by hackers.5 As such, these reactions increased concerns about the tactics of WikiLeaks.

Direct censorship by blocking was not the only restrictive reaction against WikiLeaks. In USA university students as well as government staff and prospective employees were warned by the State Department not to read, print, comment on or make links to WikiLeaks. The reasoning behind this warning was that the data in WikiLeaks is still officially held as classified.

US government reactions to WikiLeaks have hardened over time. Concerning Afghan War Diary, the Pentagon pressured WikiLeaks to return all documents. The Iraq War Logs leak in 2010 was condemned by the US and UK who suggested the disclosures put lives at risk.

The leak of the diplomatic cables in November 2010 naturally caused more reactions in different countries than any other items WikiLeaks had published, since it also touched sensitive political issues for different governments.

US policymakers have been both critical and supportive of WikiLeaks' actions. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried immediately the illegal publication of classified documents from government computers, and defended the need for “confidential space” for diplomatic conversations. In addition, she noted that people's lives could be endangered by confidential data disclosures.

However, other governments' reactions were considerably milder concerning the possible impacts of the leaks. According to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates the leaks were embarrassing but he estimated that they would only have "modest" consequences for US foreign policy.//14

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziиre described WikiLeaks as irritating and annoying for Germany, but not a threat. However, he also defended governments' position to hold secret information, saying "Governments also have to be able to communicate confidentially. Confidentiality and transparency are not mutually exclusive, but rather two sides of the same coin."

In Finland politicians' reactions were controversial. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Alexande Stubb, described the leaks as regrettable and stated "I support transparency and public diplomacy. However, some information between states can be sensitive. This is certainly a difficult situation."//15

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Erkki Tuomioja, emphasized that leaking of diplomatic cables was based on stealing of data and he saw WikiLeaks activities in this case as questionable. On the other hand, one member of the parliament, Annika Lapintie (Left Alliance) proposed a Nobel Prize for WikiLeaks.//16

WikiLeaks actions could not but influence the online community, particularly the social networks. We have considered an article abaout the impact on social networks.

Talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger your job prospects, a State Department official warned students at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs this week.

An email from SIPA's Office of Career Services went out Tuesday afternoon with a caution from the official, an alumnus of the school. Students who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites, the official was quoted as saying.

"[The alumnus] recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter," the Office of Career Services advised students. "Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government."

While the massive disclosure of once-classified documents detailing some of the nation's most tightly-guarded secrets has inflamed allies and enemies alike, the move by the State Department represents a new front in the administration's campaign against leaks.

Philip J. Crowley, spokesman for the State Department, denied in an email message any federal involvement:

This is not true. We have instructed State Department employees not to access the WikiLeaks site and download posted documents using an unclassified network since these documents are still classified. We condemn what Mr. Assange is doing, but have given no advice to anyone beyond the State Department to my knowledge.

When asked why Columbia -- which confirmed to the New York Times earlier today that an email had been sent from its offices -- would have sent the message, Crowley said, "If an employee of the State Department sent such an email, it does not represent a formal policy position."

Now, however, it appears the federal government has moved beyond staunching the flow of leaked information, to suppressing even the very mention of WikiLeaks online by prospective employees.

While republishing the leaked documents could indeed raise legal issues for students, it was the admonition against social media chatter that riled some at Columbia.

"They seem to be unable to make the distinction between having an opinion and having a contractual obligation to keep a secret," said Hugh Sansom, a masters student from New York.

Students were taken aback by the email, said Sansom, who described his non-American classmates -- nearly half of this year's incoming class at Columbia speaks a native language other than English -- as "amused and surprised."

By late in the week, word of the email had reached the blogosphere.

"Seems the ambitious young things studying IR and considering a foreign service careers are being warned not to touch Cablegate," wrote Issandr El Amrani at The Arabist. A comment posted to that story said that Georgetown University had been similarly put on notice.

Stephen D. Biddle, a professor at the school, said that the email amounted to counseling on the university's part.

"It strikes me as entirely plausible that some government officials would take a dim view of people appearing to use WikiLeaks material for professional gain," Biddle said.

But as for commenting on the leaked information on Facebook or Twitter, Biddle acknowledged, "once it's out, it's out.//17

4.3 Comparison of Wikileaks and Television, and other censored news portal

How WikiLeaks works

WikiLeaks has combined high-end security technologies with journalism and ethical principles. Like other media outlets conducting investigative journalism, they accept anonymous sources of information. Unlike other outlets, they provide a high security anonymous drop box fortified by cutting-edge cryptographic information technologies. This provides maximum protection to their sources. They are fearless in our efforts to get the unvarnished truth out to the public. When information comes in, their journalists analyze the material, verify it and write a news piece about it describing its significance to society. They then publish both the news story and the original material in order to enable readers to analyze the story in the context of the original source material themselves. Their news stories are in the comfortable presentation style of Wikipedia, although the two organizations are not otherwise related. Unlike Wikipedia, random readers cannot edit our source documents.//18

As the media organization has grown and developed, WikiLeaks been developing and improving a harm minimization procedure. They do not censor their news, but from time to time they may remove or significantly delay the publication of some identifying details from original documents to protect life and limb of innocent people.//19

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.//20

They 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 their media organization.//21

How TV media work.

TV media control all information which they broadcast, they work with censor, because if they will work without censor it can be not correctly information, or it is confidential information which shall not be disclosed it means that this information not will accept to live broadcast. People afraid be a source of some really important information it is dangerous for their health or lives. If TV will broadcast refusing news, after this government can loss control of society. //22

If we consider some TV channels, they designed for different audiences. For example: TV channel “Habar” always broadcast about “Live in Kazakhstan is very good”, they don't accept news in which Kazakhstan loss reputation and authority as good government.TV channel "Habar" direct objectively influence to people conclusions.//23

If we consider TV channel KTK we see that to live in our government really danger, or we can see how our officials fun, the mess created in the country. //24

Why the media (and particularly Wikileaks) 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 organizations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.//25

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. //26

WikiLeaks has provided a new model of journalism. Because they are not motivated by making a profit, they work cooperatively with other publishing and media organizations around the globe, instead of following the traditional model of competing with other media. They don't hoard our information; they 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. They encourage this. They believe the world's media should work together as much as possible to bring stories to a broad international readership. //27

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 technology-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 organization, 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 organizations, 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. //28

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 cannot 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 organization 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 organization 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. //29



Conclusion

Afterwards we want to summarize the results of our research paper.

First of all, we want to say that we reached the goals and analyzed the WikiLeaks problem in world community. We also think that our research work will be useful for other students to analyze and make other research connected to WikiLeaks problem, because we processed a lot of informational sources and summarized all this information.

Goals of our research work were consider WikiLeaks as a new era of free press or the beginning of a new form of media, as information explosion or the beginning of new era uncensored press.

Secondly, our mission was to identify the consequences and the public reaction to Wikileaks publication, compare Wikileaks and Television, and other censored news portal. We made conclusion that it's not just WikiLeaks anymore, because this organization turned to a new organization called OpenLeaks.

In this work the issue of free speech and freedom of information in the media were analyzed. WikiLeaks organization, which is growing day by day and from the analyze of Julian Assange as a part of freedom of expression we can make a conclusion that only in 2011 year 2 billion persons estimated to be using the Internet and producing 156 million public blogs connected to WikiLeaks theme.

This shows us that with WikiLeaks starts not only digital age, but the democratic vision of free speech, information and a free press.

All the company's actions are aimed at improving the situation in the world and the beginning of administration clear policy of the government. Publications make huge resonance in the society. Limitations and attempts to block the WikiLeaks prove again the validity and provocative of information. Finally, we believe in right impaction of publication such as "impulse" for beginning of new era uncensored press.

TV media published news about events, economics, sport, music when WikiLeaks published refuting news which has statuses like top-secretly, Governments secrets, which negatively influence for people. Information which published from WikiLeaks not objectively influence for negatively opinions of people, its correct information, and people should accept true information, and do conclusions with themselves.



References

1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10757263

2. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/wikileaks/index.html

3. http://gigaom.com/2010/12/04/like-it-or-not-wikileaks-is-a-media-entity/

4. http://pakos.me/2011/03/18/wikileaks-and-why-people-deserve-the-truth/

5. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_GwLDwNw2VAJ:benkler.org/Benkler_Wikileaks_current.pdf+1.+WikiLeaks+is+the+branch+of+new+era+of+free+press+or+the+beginning+of+a+new+form+of+media&hl=ru&gl=kz&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjuEjONOo5p--f9L9ihN2kYhZSJxt0-SVZNM28iwp_RWLUDHulAAXfODFOJ1UWXK5mRWRx-doaN_amE0R9G5DwyjLr-xhFp8nsPrNOTGDJXiVXBPHZQyrXWrEQIX_4psU7fuNWI&sig=AHIEtbR9w_qs77xWkuooBK9m7SEVLMNDiw

6. http://socialmedia.biz/2011/08/29/how-wikileaks-has-changed-the-role-of-journalism/

7. http://januarymagazine.blogspot.com/2011/04/non-fiction-wikileaks-inside-julian.html

8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cfwsfGqgPM

9. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

10. . .http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc5xIW8ipT0-lecture“Uninhibited, Robust and Wide-Open: A Free Press for a New Century”

11. . http://arts1091.unsw.wikispaces.net/W11A+Tutorial+6+Week+7

2097938651. 12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092 .

13. . http://www.people-press.org/2010/12/08/most-say-wikileaks-release-harms-public-interest/

14. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html

15. . http://yle.fi/uutiset/finland_surfaces_in_wikileaks_expose/2178814

16. . http://www.emergingissues.ala.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-and-its-relationship-to-ala/

17. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/state-department-to-colum_n_792059.html

18. http://wikileaks.org/About.html

19. http://rusrep.ru/article/2010/11/29/wikileaks/, http://wikileaks.org/About.html

20. http://www.people-press.org/2010/12/08/most-say-wikileaks-release-harms-public-interest/

21. http://www.people-press.org/2010/12/08/most-say-wikileaks-release-harms-public-interest/

22. http://www.mk.ru/social/article/2010/08/27/525693-svobodyi-ne-hvataet-no-tsenzura-nuzhna.html

23. http://www.khabar.kz/kaz/socium/Shigis_Kazakstan_oblisinin_Abaj_audaninda_birneshe_madeni_shara_zhogari_dengejde_atalip_otti.html

24. http://www.ktk.kz/ru/programs/portret_nedeli/

25. http://rusrep.ru/article/2010/11/29/wikileaks/

26. http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/exclusive/view/53706/

27. http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=wikileaks.org&isc=ALEXADOM

28. http://rusrep.ru/article/2010/11/29/wikileaks/, http://wikileaks.org/About.html

29. http://wikileaks.org/About.html

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...