The
Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was set to break ties with
WikiLeaks amidst concerns among the foundation’s board, which
includes such well-known figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden,
Laura Poitras, John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald, among others. The
news was confirmed less than a month later when the nonprofit’s
board officially voted to stop accepting U.S. donations for
WikiLeaks, which had been blacklisted for years by Visa, MasterCard
and PayPal after publishing leaked U.S. government documents provided
by Chelsea Manning. WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that
something more nefarious was behind the board’s decision to cut
ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated
accounts linked the FPF’s decision to the fact that many of its
members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and
PayPal co-founder Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has
received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses
and foundations. Pierre Omidyar, prior to the founding of The
Intercept, was known not for any commitment to journalism or free
speech but rather for his connections to the U.S. government and his
role in the financial blockade of WikiLeaks that began in 2010. Sibel
Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and founder of the National Security
Whistleblowers Coalition, told MintPress News that the FPF has a
reputation for being a “very, very partisan organization and
populated with ideologues.” She further asserted that the “number
one reason” for the FPF’s decision was directly related to
Wikileaks’ releases in 2016, namely the DNC leaks and the Podesta
emails.
Part
4 - The fine line between curation and censorship
Omidyar’s
view on leaks and leakers seem to have influenced the opinions of
some of the FPF’s most prominent members. For instance, Glenn
Greenwald, following the publication of the Podesta emails, suggested
in a conversation with Naomi Klein that the Podesta emails should
have been “curated” prior to their release in order to prevent
the outing of potentially sensitive personal information.
Specifically, Greenwald stated: “I think WikiLeaks more or less
at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are
ethically — never mind journalistically — just ethically, as a
human being, justifiable.”
The
idea of “curation” in the publication of leaked documents is
quizzical. Though one’s privacy is important, it is highly
problematic to leave to one person the ability to decide what is and
what isn’t in the public interest. “Curating” leaks gives those
who are in possession of the leaked documents the power to decide
what the public sees and doesn’t see instead of giving the public
the right to decide what is relevant. In many cases, finding a
“balance point” would present a challenge to even the most
ethical and disinterested curator. Such power can easily be abused
and used to shield key information contained in leaks or to hide
crucial context.
For
example, in the case of Chelsea Manning, Wired journalist Kevin
Poulsen published parts of the chat logs between Manning and former
hacker Adrian Lamo in which Manning allegedly admitted having given
the leaked documents to WikiLeaks. However, Poulsen published only a
quarter of the correspondence, claiming that he had not released the
remainder as it contained “personal information” and “national
security secrets” — concerns that were also raised upon the
release of the DNC and Podesta emails.
Yet, the
information Poulsen chose not to publish contained crucial context
that showed that Manning leaked the documents to instigate reforms
and inform the public – not to “cripple the United States’
foreign relations for the foreseeable future,” as Lamo had
suggested in interviews before the chat logs’ full release.
Ironically, it was Glenn Greenwald who publicly skewered Poulsen for
journalistic malice.
However,
Poulsen was merely “curating” the logs as he saw fit – albeit
with the agenda of protecting Adrian Lamo, his long-time associate.
Three years later, Greenwald found himself in a position similar to
that of Poulsen when he came into possession of the Snowden leaks and
became the “curator” of this collection. Now, nearly four years
after receiving the cache, less than 2 percent of the estimated
58,000 files have been made public. If the releases continue at this
snail’s pace, most of those reading this article will have been
dead long before the Snowden cache is made fully public.
Perhaps
this is why Greenwald, despite possessing hundreds of thousands of
secret government documents he received from Snowden, has been able
to travel to and from the United States without issue. Edmonds
pointed this out, stating that “after Greenwald worked
with so many whistleblowers and even though he has technically ‘aided
and abetted’ this supposed illegal, major leak, he’s not touched.
He can come and go [from the United States] as he pleases.”
Meanwhile, Julian Assange has remained arbitrarily detained in the
Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, unable to leave.
Also
troubling is that Snowden – the man who ostensibly risked his
life and freedom to make this information public – has offered no
complaints concerning the glacial pace of the documents’ release,
nor about Omidyar essentially taking ownership of the leaks through
The Intercept.
Former
NSA Intelligence Analyst and Capabilities Operations Officer Russell
Tice once said the following regarding The Intercept and its
possession of the Snowden leaks: “I would be outraged and highly
vocal if I were in Edward Snowden’s shoes. For a journalist whom I
had placed my trust in to go and withhold documents meant for the
public?! For the journalist to make fortune and fame based on my
sacrifices and disclosure?! Forming a lucrative business partnership
with entities who have direct conflicts of interest?! No. That
wouldn’t have been acceptable.”
It’s
possible that Snowden himself may approve of what has amounted to the
censoring of these leaks, as he has also called for the “curation”
of leaked material following the release of the Podesta emails.
Unsurprisingly, this drew a sharp response from WikiLeaks.
While
Edmonds has made the case that Omidyar likely founded The Intercept
to clamp down on the Snowden leaks before they could cause further
damage to the U.S. government — or to his own business — another
motivating factor could well have been a desire to surreptitiously
continue his blockade against WikiLeaks, but by different and more
easily concealed means.
Omidyar
certainly isn’t the only PayPal linked billionaire involved in such
efforts to undermine and discredit WikiLeaks. As Part II of this
investigative series will show, Peter Thiel — a PayPal
co-founder with close ties to the Trump administration — has also
been involved in the creation of an “attack plan” that seeks to
undermine WikiLeaks through a media disinformation campaign and by
working to turn WikiLeaks’ former allies against it. Given the
FPF’s recent decision and the attacks levied against WikiLeaks by
Intercept writers, this plan seems to be well underway.
Correction:
a previous version of this article stated that Pierre Omidyar is a
co-founder of PayPal. While he did not found PayPal, he acquired it
when eBay bought PayPal in 2002.
***
Source,
links:
Read
also:
Comments
Post a Comment