Wikileaks, a whistle blower website, encourages and advertises anonymous tipsters to upload confidential documents to its site. But what if that document, or a portion of that document, were privileged by a court order?
Such a scenario could be heading for a disaster with Wikileaks at the helm. Wikileaks is widely known for its fancy San Francisco lawyers working pro bono for its First Amendment rights. Certainly, there is no First Amendment right to violate a court order.
Recently in the news, Wikileaks was credited with leaking a corruption report initiated from an investigation of the Turks and Caicos Islands' former government. Before the report was to be published, a judge in the islands ordered the corruption report redacted (edited) to protect the names of certain individuals who were named therein.
According to the Turks and Caicos governor, the report was hacked from the Turks and Caicos government website, which had published the redacted version. Evidently, some vulnerabilities in the document's format allowed a hacker to uncover the protected text. Subsequently, Shaun Malcolm, a controversial blogger on the islands, uploaded the unredacted document to the Wikileaks website. What makes this even more noteworthy is that Wikileaks published the unredacted document providing a summary of its origin and with a link to the court order enjoining publication of this document.
Recently, Wikileaks described the publisher of this document as "the most influential journal covering the Turks & Caicos Islands" and characterizes its website as exposing corruption that brought "a dramatic UK governance takeover of the Islands on August 14." Both statements are patently false:
On August 14, 2009, Great Britain suspended Turks and Caicos Islands' constitution, basing their decision on corruption charges against former Premier Michael Misick. UK's position regarding its takeover is globally published as: “clear signs of political amorality and immaturity and general administrative incompetence.” Suspension of direct rule in Turks and Caicos is documented in a lengthy Crown investigation report, the document that was published on the Wikileaks site. The corruption investigation clearly was performed and executed by Great Britain.
Furthermore, Wikileaks misinterprets the facts of the order. It represented that their actions were excused because, "A High Court case ensued which initially enjoined all media in the Islands from reporting the redacted findings, however within a few days this restriction was overturned." This is a false statement. The judge in the case ruled to deny the continuing protective order, citing it impossible to prevent or control the leak from spreading by virtue of its publicity from the Wikileaks exposure. In fact, Wikileaks' summary for the publication states, "WikiLeaks has obtained the full report and unredacted the missing text."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Guardian Coup TCI
so tell me burke, how is suspending the nation's constitution, the right to trial by jury, and directly ruling from Westminster, not "a dramatic UK governance takeover"?
I would really like to hear how what wikileaks said is, 'patently false', because you provide no evidence in your article and in the very next paragraph you confirm the takeover.
Maybe in the UK your readers forget what they read the sentence before but it's not 1984 here.
2 - Smitty
No the article says that the "Journal" was not instrumental for the take over, no? It says that UK did the take over and investigation with a lengthy Crown report. Did I read that wrong?
3 - Smitty
Guardian Coup TCI, here is the operative language: "characterizes its website as exposing corruption that brought "a dramatic UK governance takeover of the Islands on August 14."
4 - Too good to blog
This news is confusing to me. I like whistle blowers in a sense because many corporate secrets hurt the little guy. But I also hate the Bush administration's "annonymous" leaks to retaliate. Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney should be behind bars for what they did in the Valerie Plame case. I sorely dislike retaliation whistle blowing especially with regard illegal leaks that put innocent people at risk. Wikileaks should have a limit and standard on that.
5 - Ted
Wikileaks could be an invaluable resource for justice, but just like a news org they need to weigh whether or not certain info could be damaging to those involved, re: exposing the names of people who could then be in danger.
6 - biolizard89
Seems the author of this article is unaware that yes, if release of the court-suppressed document is in the public interest, then freedom of the press does indeed protect that disclosure, court order or not. This applies especially when the court order was used to suppress corruption allegations. The government works for the people, not the other way around. WikiLeaks is doing a service by exposing corruption, and your confused attempt to compare them to the people who leaked Valerie Wilson's identity is not fooling anyone.
7 - Dirty Games
I have often wondered about wikileaks and the concept of "public interest".
It is one thing to blow the whistle on something but another thing completely if the leak causes harm or damage to a person without proper investigation or proof. And seen within the full context of a specific case.
Does wikileaks thoroughly weigh what is in the public interest and when it borders on defamation or libel?
Are the staff at wikileaks all qualified judges to make such a decision?
Do they consider the consequences to a person's good name, future and livelihood when they publish certain documents and especially documents that are protected by a court?
So one has wikileaks apparently trying to uphold ethical standards, yet, is the publication of certain protected documents ethical in itself? Is this not maybe a contradiction?
And can they forever hide behind the First Amendment? - Meaning that if the jurisdiction of a particular case falls in the TCI - would the US laws necessarily protect wikileaks and/or their sources there?
In my own country corruption is rife and structures are in place to blow the whistle on corrupt activities. But one still does not have the right to go against clear court orders or maliciously try and destroy a person's good name. Clear proof and evidence must be provided for allegations before it goes public.
And just between us - the issue of a "hacker" getting hold of a court protected unredacted document that was then made public, smells a bit fishy to me .. Who gave this "hacker" instructions? And why would some "hacker" suddenly have such enormous personal interest in a country with a population of less than 37 000?
Just wondering.
8 - Cindy
DG,
No hackers live in Turks and Caicos?
9 - DG
Dear Cindy
My point being - I cant see a private hacker going out of his way for this. Maybe somebody asked him/her? I.e. gave the hacker instructions?
Again - just wondering.
10 - Clavos
No hackers live in Turks and Caicos?
It's unlikely...
11 - Too good to blog
Somebody must have hacked the documents and given them to the one who posted it. It's in the news -- a hacker broke into the government website document.
12 - RPool
Sorry to intrude from a legal geek. But there is no defense for illegal leaks, whether it be for public interest or "corruption". The case of Lilly Pharm. spells out this exact scenario quite neatly. The leakers defense was public interest and corruption- they lost that argument and the judge said that there is no First Amendment rights afforded to violating a legal order. The case law is clear that illegal leaks are not protected by the constitution. The offenders were charged with a crime. There are dozens of other similar cases. The Lilly case specifically addresses a "do gooder" defense.
13 - Jimmy
"According to the Turks and Caicos governor, the report was hacked"
The Governor said nothing of the sort. Nothing was hacked, it was simply published in an insecure format due to negligence and was therefore legible on the official site to anyone with a modicum of computer knowledge. The hacking allegation is a smear. Mr. Burke (whose "investigative reporting" on any other subject appears nowhere on the internet) I suspect is working for Dr. Cinay. Am I right?
14 - Thor
I am no computer genius but isn't hacked and "using computer knowledge" to find unpublished data, the same thing? This is the problem with the internet, it's the tool for the most unscrupulous, now this author is being attacked in a comment site from someone annonymous -- yet again we see this. The internet world is screwed up and lack of personal sensorship has gone awry. "Jimmy" sounds a bit paranoid.
15 - Jimmy
"it's the tool for the most unscrupulous"
Apparently
16 - Thor
Just thought of something, Cindy+Clavos+Jimmy=The Hacker? Err.... meant to say one with a modicum of internet skills, rather.
17 - Cindy
Thor,
I like hackers*. Hackers have power without bombs--some are techno activists. They are needed to counteract the control exerted by govts and Capitalists. I have connected with some very admirable hackers. Hacktivists for a better world.
*I like dogs. Not vicious guard dogs, though. So, hackers with bad intent (against people) are no friends of mine.
18 - Jimmy
Thor,
I accept your point about my being "annonymous" [sic]. May I take it then that I am actually addressing the ancient Norse God of Thunder? It's an honour.
Give it up Cem.
19 - Thor
Hacking and annonymity? -- Both lofty goals. "God of Thunder," I get that joke attempt. Cem, does that mean something in your language? Why are you trying to insult me?
20 - Clavos
I get that joke attempt.
Good, because it was rather more than an attempt; it was a well-aimed barb.
21 - Jimmy
Thor,
The only thing being insulted here is our intelligence. Cem Kinay is obviously engaging in an astroturf operation to plant sympathetic articles all over the internet by previously unheard of bloggers and "investigative reporters" none of whom appear on any byline prior to August. It is laughably transparent.
22 - Jesse
I trust the journalistic integrity of this site. I can tell you thor and Kimmy or Cindy or whomever, that a lot of reporters have been following this case since the Wikileaks post -- that's where many reporters get their news and leads these days. It's the only place where we can locate the truth in text - not from eye-witness or word-of-mouth. Sure, there are two sides of each story and explanations within many documents. But primary source is our main witness. Everyone has an agenda. When an investigative reporter sees that something doesn't add up and that there's something more behind it -- they start snooping for the "whys". That's their job.
23 - Jesse
By the way, "Thor" I think you missed that this person (I assume using different psuedo names) is referring to you working for Dr. Cem Kinay, the Plaintiff in the case against TCI Journal. "Cem" is his first name not a slur.
24 - Jimmy
"I assume using different psuedo names"
Why?
25 - Tom
I disagree that journalists should get their "news" from leak sites. I think that Wikileaks owes the same publishing integrity as professional news outlets. Investigating it is one thing, but simply a news story because it's posted on Wikileaks? The journalistic greats of our country would not stoop so low. Wikileaks should use some discretion and check out the source and the source's inspiration. There could be a corrupt reason for that person wanting to leak something. Wikileaks does not check their sources or the background of the poster.