Guardian piece against Wikileaks

Imo the Guardian article at ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/sep/02/why-i-had-to-leave-wikileaks is a shallow hit piece.

( Read more... )

Wikileaks tried to redact the cables but a Guardian reporter blew it

Here's a link to an excellent article on the latest Wikileaks cable release. I'm putting some quotes here with the most important points first.

The big point is that Wikileaks DID NOT PLAN TO RELEASE THE CABLES UNREDACTED. The files were in processing and password protected -- till a GUARDIAN REPORTER stupidly released the password.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/09/02/wikileaks/index.html

At that point, WikiLeaks decided -- quite reasonably -- that the best and safest course was to release all the cables in full, so that not only the world's intelligence agencies but everyone had them, so that steps could be taken to protect the sources and so that the information in them was equally available.
[... moved ...]
[T]here was nothing intentional about WikiLeaks' publication of the cables in unredacted form. They ultimately had no choice. Ever since WikiLekas was widely criticized (including by me) for publishing Afghan War documents without redacting the names of some sources (though much blame also lay with the U.S. Government for rebuffing its request for redaction advice), the group has been meticulous about protecting the identity of innocents. The New York Times' Scott Shane today describes "efforts by WikiLeaks and journalists to remove the names of vulnerable people in repressive countries" in subsequent releases; indeed, WikiLeaks "used software to remove proper names from Iraq war documents and worked with news organizations to redact the cables." After that Afghan release, the group has demonstrated a serious, diligent commitment to avoiding pointless exposure of innocent people [....]

Imo Wikileaks' mistake was trusting a Guardian reporter with the password. Let's not trust the Guardian's coverage of the result.