WikiLeaks
is an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret, and classified media from anonymous news sources andnews leaks. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press.[4] Within a year of its launch, the site claimed its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents.[8] The organisation has described itself as having been founded by Chinesedissidents,
as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company
technologists from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and
South Africa.[4] Julian Assange, an Australian Internet activist, is generally described as its director.[9]
WikiLeaks has received praise as well as criticism. The organization won a number of awards, including The Economist's 2008 New Media Award.[10] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International's
UK Media Award, in the category "New Media", for the 2008 publication
of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and
Disappearances",[11] a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[12] In May 2010, New York City's Daily News listed WikiLeaks as first in a ranking of "websites that could totally change the news".[13] Julian Assange was named the Readers' Choice for TIME's Person of the Year for 2010.[14] Several
U.S. government officials have criticized WikiLeaks for exposing state
secrets, harming national security, and compromising international
diplomacy.[15][16][17][18][19] Human
rights organizations such as Amnesty International criticized WikiLeaks
for not adequately redacting the names of civilians working with the
U.S. military.[20] Some
journalists have criticized the lack of editorial discretion when
releasing thousands of documents at once and without sufficient
analysis.[21] Negative public reactions in the United States have characterized the organization as irresponsible, immoral, and illegal.[22][23][24]
In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians and journalists were killed by US forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[25] In October 2010, the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations. In November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing U.S. State department diplomatic cables.
WikiLeaks was originally launched as a user-editable wiki site,
but has progressively moved towards a more traditional publication
model, and no longer accepts either user comments or edits. The site is
available on multiple servers and different domain names following a number of denial-of-service attacks and its severance from different Domain Name System(DNS) providers.[26][27]\\
History
The wikileaks.org domain name was registered on 4 October 2006.
[5] The website was unveiled, and published its first document in December 2006.[28][29] The
site claims to have been "founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists,
mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan,
Europe, Australia and South Africa".[4]
The creators of WikiLeaks have not been formally identified.[30] It has been represented in public since January 2007 by Julian Assangeand others. Assange describes himself as a member of WikiLeaks' advisory board.[31] News reports in The Australian have called Assange the "founder of WikiLeaks".[32] According
to Wired magazine, a volunteer said that Assange described himself in a
private conversation as "the heart and soul of this organisation, its
founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser,
financier, and all the rest".[33] As of June 2009, the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[4] and listed an advisory board comprising Assange,Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, C. J. Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker and Wang Youcai.[34]Despite appearing on the list, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, Khamsitsang said that while he received an e-mail from WikiLeaks, he had never agreed to be an advisor.[35]
WikiLeaks
states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in
Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East,
but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish
to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations."[4][36]
In January 2007, the website stated that it had over 1.2 million leaked documents that it was preparing to publish.[37] An article in The New Yorker said:
One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network.
Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist
noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign
governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a
small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial
tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say,
"[w]e have received over one million documents from thirteen countries."[29][38]
Assange
responded to the suggestion that eavesdropping on Chinese hackers
played a crucial part in the early days of WikiLeaks by saying "the
imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a 2006 investigation into
Chinese espionage one of our contacts were involved in. Somewhere
between none and handful of those documents were ever released on
WikiLeaks. Non-government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as
Tibetan associations were informed (by us)".[39] The
group has subsequently released a number of other significant documents
which have become front-page news items, ranging from documentation of
equipment expenditures and holdings in theAfghanistan war to corruption in Kenya.[40]
The organisation's stated goal is to ensure that whistleblowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents, as happened to Chinese journalist Shi Tao, who was sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[41]
The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.[42] In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.[42] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has
spoken about the benefits of the WikiLeaks project, noting that
"Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for
this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means
long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and
the Middle East."[43]
On 24 December 2009, WikiLeaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[44] and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[45] Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirrors.[46][47] WikiLeaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were covered.[45] WikiLeaks
saw this as a kind of strike "to ensure that everyone who is involved
stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue".[48] While the organisation initially planned for funds to be secured by 6 January 2010,[49] it was not until 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[50]
On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended
WikiLeaks' donation account and froze its assets. WikiLeaks said that
this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason".[51] The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[52] On 18 May 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were back up.[53]
As of June 2010, WikiLeaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[29] but did not make the cut.[54] WikiLeaks
commented, "WikiLeaks was highest rated project in the Knight
challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go
figure”. WikiLeaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award
to "'12 Grantees who will impact future of news' – but not WikiLeaks"
and questioned whether Knight foundation was "really looking for
impact".[54] A
spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks'
statement, saying "WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the
board."[55] However,
he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by
the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them
journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking sites.[55]
On 17 July, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the 2010 Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange because of the presence of federal agents at the conference.[56][57] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[56][58] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conferenceon 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that the site had begun accepting submissions again.[59]
Upon
returning to the US from the Netherlands, on 29 July, Appelbaum was
detained for three hours at the airport by US agents, according to
anonymous sources.[60] The sources told Cnet that
Appelbaum's bag was searched, receipts from his bag were photocopied,
his laptop was inspected, although in what manner was unclear.[60] Appelbaum
reportedly refused to answer questions without a lawyer present, and
was not allowed to make a phone call. His three mobile phones were
reportedly taken and not returned.[60]On 31 July, he spoke at a Defcon conference and mentioned his phone being "seized". After speaking, he was approached by two FBIagents and questioned.[60]
Assange
is quoted as acknowledging that his practice of posting largely
unfiltered classified information online could one day lead the Web site
to have "blood on our hands."[61]
In 2010, at least a dozen key supporters of WikiLeaks have left the website.[62]
Administration
According
to a January 2010 interview, the WikiLeaks team then consisted of five
people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally,
none of whom were compensated.[48] WikiLeaks
has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about €200,000,
mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work
currently done by volunteers were paid for.[48]WikiLeaks
does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal
support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[48] Its only revenue stream is donations, but WikiLeaks is planning to add an auction model to sell early access to documents.[48] According to the Wau Holland Foundation, WikiLeaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[63] An article in TechEYE.net wrote
As
a charity accountable under German law, donations for WikiLeaks can be
made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to
WikiLeaks after the whistleblower website files an application
containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not
pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration [
sic] to WikiLeaks' personnel, corroborating the statement of the site's former German representative Daniel Schmitt (real name
Daniel Domscheit-Berg)
[64] on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.
[63]
Site management issues
Within WikiLeaks, there has been public disagreement between founder and spokesperson Julian Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg,
the site's former German representative who was suspended by Assange.
Domscheit-Berg announced on 28 September 2010 that he was leaving the
organisation due to internal conflicts over management of the site.[65][66][64]
Hosting
WikiLeaks describes itself as "an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking".[67] WikiLeaks is hosted by PRQ,
a Sweden-based company providing "highly secure, no-questions-asked
hosting services". PRQ is said to have "almost no information about its
clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs".[68] The servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden.[69] Julian
Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other
countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal protection to
the disclosures made on the site". He talks about the Swedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection.[69] It
is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority
to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[70] These
laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult to take WikiLeaks
offline. Furthermore, "Wikileaks maintains its own servers at
undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."[68][71]
On 17 August 2010, it was announced that the Swedish Pirate Party will
be hosting and managing many of WikiLeaks' new servers. The party
donates servers and bandwidth to WikiLeaks without charge. Technicians
of the party will make sure that the servers are maintained and working.[72][73]
Some servers are hosted in an underground nuclear bunker in Stockholm.[74][75]
After the site became the target of a denial-of-service attack from a hacker on its old servers, WikiLeaks moved its site to Amazon's servers.[76] Later, however, the website was "ousted"[76] from the Amazon servers, without a public statement from the company.[citation needed] WikiLeaks then decided to install itself on the servers of OVH in France.[77] After
criticism from the French government, the company sought two court
rulings about the legality of hosting WikiLeaks. While the court in Lille immediately
declined to force OVH to shut down the WikiLeaks site, the court in
Paris stated it would need more time to examine the highly technical
issue.[76][78]
WikiLeaks is based on several software packages, including
MediaWiki, Freenet, Tor, and PGP.[79] WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor because of the strong privacy needs of its users.[80]
On 4 November 2010, Julian Assange told Swiss public television TSR that
he is seriously considering seeking political asylum in neutral
Switzerland and setting up a WikiLeaks foundation in the country to move
the operation there.[81][82] According to Assange, Switzerland and Iceland are the only countries where WikiLeaks would feel safe to operate.[83][84]
Financing
WikiLeaks
is dependent on public donations since it is a non-profit organisation.
Its main financing methods include conventional bank transfers and online payment systems. Wau Holland Foundation,
one of the WikiLeaks' main funding channels, stated that they have
received more than €900,000 (US$1.2 million) in public donations between
October 2009 and December 2010, out of which €370,000 has been passed
on to WikiLeaks. Hendrik Fulda, vice president of the Wau Holland
Foundation, mentioned that the donations throughPayPal was twice[vague] as
through normal banks, before PayPal's decision to suspend WikiLeaks'
account. He also noted that donations were never as strong as when
WikiLeaks started publishing leaked diplomatic cables.[85][86]
Name servers
WikiLeaks had been using EveryDNS's services, which led to DDoS attacks on the host.[clarification needed] The
attacks affected the quality of service at EveryDNS, so the company
withdrew their service from WikiLeaks. Pro-WikiLeaks supporters
retaliated by launching a DDoS attack against EveryDNS. Due to mistakes
in the blogosphere, some supporters accidentally mistook EasyDNS for
EveryDNS and attacked it. The attacks caused both EveryDNS and EasyDNS
to experience outages. Afterwards EasyDNS decided to provide WikiLeaks
its name server service.[87]
Name and policies
Despite using the name "WikiLeaks", the website is no longer wiki-based as of December 2010. Also, despite some popular confusion[88] due to both having the term "wiki" in their names, WikiLeaks and Wikipedia have no affiliation with each other;[89][90] i.e. "wiki" is not a brand name. Wikia, a for-profit corporation loosely affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation,
did however purchase several Wikileaks-related domain names (including
"wikileaks.com" and "wikileaks.net") as a "protective brand measure" in
2007.[91]
The "about" page originally read:[92]
To
the user, WikiLeaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can
post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required.
Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can
publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity.
Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively
formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory
articles on leaks along with background material and context. The
political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be
revealed by a cast of thousands.
However,
WikiLeaks established an editorial policy that accepted only documents
that were "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest"
(and excluded "material that is already publicly available").[93] This
coincided with early criticism that having no editorial policy would
drive out good material with spam and promote "automated or
indiscriminate publication of confidential records."[94] It
is no longer possible for anybody to post to it or edit it, as the
original FAQ promised. Instead, submissions are regulated by an internal
review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the
editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers. By
2008, the revised FAQ stated that "Anybody can post comments to it.
[...] Users can publicly discuss documents and analyse their credibility
and veracity."[95] After the 2010 relaunch, posting new comments to leaks was no longer possible.[96]
Verification of submissions
WikiLeaks
states that it has never released a misattributed document. Documents
are assessed before release. In response to concerns about the
possibility of misleading or fraudulent leaks, WikiLeaks has stated that
misleading leaks "are already well-placed in the mainstream media.
WikiLeaks is of no additional assistance."[97] The
FAQ states that: "The simplest and most effective countermeasure is a
worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinise and
discuss leaked documents."[98]
According
to statements by Assange in 2010, submitted documents are vetted by a
group of five reviewers, with expertise in different fields such as
language or programming, who also investigate the background of the
leaker if his or her identity is known.[99] In that group, Assange has the final decision about the assessment of a document.[99]
Legal status
Legal background
The
legal status of WikiLeaks is complex. Assange considers WikiLeaks a
whistleblower protection intermediary. Rather than leaking directly to
the press, and fearing exposure and retribution, whistleblowers can leak
to WikiLeaks, which then leaks to the press for them.[100] Its
servers are located throughout Europe and are accessible from any
uncensored web connection. The group located its headquarters in Sweden
because it has one of the world’s strongest shield laws to protect
confidential source-journalist relationships.[101][102] WikiLeaks has stated that they "do not solicit any information".[101] However,
Assange used his speech during the Hack In The Box conference in
Malaysia to ask the crowd of hackers and security researchers to help
find documents on its "Most Wanted Leaks of 2009" list.[103]
Potential criminal prosecution
The U.S. Justice Department opened a criminal probe of Wikileaks and founder Julian Assange shortly after the leak of diplomatic cables began.[104][105] Attorney General Eric Holder affirmed the probe was “not saber-rattling”, but was "an active, ongoing criminal investigation."[105] The The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[104][106] Several
Supreme Court cases have previously established that the American
constitution protects the re-publication of illegally gained information
provided the publishers did not themselves break any laws in acquiring
it.[107] Federal
prosecutors have also considered prosecuting Assange for trafficking in
stolen government property, but since the diplomatic cables are
intellectual rather than physical property, that approach also faces
hurdles.[108] Any
prosecution of Assange would require extraditing him to the United
States, a step made more complicated and potentially delayed by any
preceding extradition to Sweden.[109] One
of Assange's lawyers, however, says they are fighting extradition to
Sweden because it might lead to his extradition to the United States.[110] Assange's
attorney, Mark Stephens, has "heard from Swedish authorities there has
been a secretly empaneled grand jury in Alexandria [Virginia]" meeting
to consider criminal charges in the WikiLeaks case.[111]
In Australia, the government and the Australian Federal Police have not stated what Australian laws may have been broken by WikiLeaks, but Julia Gillard has
stated that the foundation of Wikileaks and the stealing of classified
documents from the US administration is illegal in foreign countries.[112] Gillard
later clarified her statement as referring to "the original theft of
the material by a junior US serviceman rather than any action by Mr
Assange."[113] Spencer
Zifcak, President of Liberty Victoria, an Australian civil liberties
group, notes that with no charge, and no trial completed, it is
inappropriate to state that WikiLeaks is guilty of illegal activities.[114]
On threats by various governments toward Assange, legal expert Ben Saul argues
that founder Julian Assange is the target of a global smear campaign to
demonise him as a criminal or as a terrorist, without any legal basis.[115]
Insurance file
On 29 July 2010, WikiLeaks added a 1.4 GB "Insurance File" to the Afghan War Diary page. The file is AES encrypted
and has been speculated to serve as insurance in case the WikiLeaks
website or its spokesman Julian Assange are incapacitated, upon which
thepassphrase could be published, similar to the concept of a dead man's switch.[116][117] Following the first few days' release of the US diplomatic cables starting 28 November 2010, the US television broadcaster CBS predicted
that "If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out
to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information
from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have
copies."[118] CBS
correspondent Declan McCullagh stated, "What most folks are speculating
is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would
be especially embarrassing to the US government if it were released."[118]
Investigations, censorship, harassment, and surveillance
According to The Times,
WikiLeaks and its members have complained about continuing harassment
and surveillance by law enforcement and intelligence organisations,
including extended detention, seizure of computers, veiled threats,
“covert following and hidden photography.”[119] Two lawyers for Julian Assange in the United Kingdom told The Guardian that they believed they were being watched by the security services after the US cables leak.[120]
By governments
Police raid on German WikiLeaks domain holder's home
The
home of Theodor Reppe, registrant of the German WikiLeaks domain name,
wikileaks.de, was raided on 24 March 2009 after WikiLeaks released the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) censorship blacklist.[121] The site was not affected.[122][123]
P.R. China
Wikileaks's
website claims that the government of the People's Republic of China
has attempted to block all traffic to web sites with "wikileaks" in the URL since 2007, but that this can be bypassed through encrypted connections or by using one of Wikileaks's many covert URLs.[124]
Potential future Australian censorship
On 16 March 2009, the Australian Communications and Media Authority added
WikiLeaks to their proposed blacklist of sites that will be blocked for
all Australians if the mandatory internet filtering censorship scheme
is implemented as planned.[125][126] The blacklisting was removed 30 November 2010.[127]
Thai censorship
The Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation (CRES) is currently censoring the website WikiLeaks in Thailand[128] and more than 40,000 other webpages[129] because
of the emergency decree in Thailand imposed as a result of political
instabilities (Emergency decree declared beginning of April 2010[130]).
United States
Access to WikiLeaks is currently blocked in the United States Library of Congress.[131] On
3 December 2010 the White House Office of Management and Budget sent a
memo forbidding all unauthorised federal government employees and
contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on
WikiLeaks and other websites.[132] The U.S. Army, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department are considering criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks and Assange "on grounds they encouraged the theft of government property",[133] although former prosecutors say doing so would be difficult.[106] According
to a report on the Daily Beast website, the Obama administration asked
Britain, Germany and Australia among others to also consider bringing
criminal charges against Assange for the Afghan war leaks and to help
limit Assange's travels across international borders.[134]
Iceland
After the release of the 2007 airstrikes video and as they prepared to release film of the Granai airstrike,
Julian Assange has said that his group of volunteers came under intense
surveillance. In an interview and Twitter posts he said that a
restaurant in Reykjavík where
his group of volunteers met came under surveillance in March; there was
"covert following and hidden photography" by police and foreignintelligence services;
that an apparent British intelligence agent made thinly veiled threats
in a Luxembourg car park; and that one of the volunteers was detained by
police for 21 hours. Another volunteer posted that computers were
seized, saying "If anything happens to us, you know why ... and you know
who is responsible."[119] According to the Columbia Journalism Review,
"the Icelandic press took a look at Assange’s charges of being
surveilled in Iceland [...] and, at best, have found nothing to
substantiate them."[135]
In August 2009, Kaupthing Bank succeeded in obtaining a court order gagging Iceland’s national broadcaster, RÚV,
from broadcasting a risk analysis report showing the bank's substantial
exposure to debt default risk. This information had been leaked by a
whistleblower to WikiLeaks and remained available on the WikiLeaks site;
faced with an injunction minutes before broadcast the channel ran with a
screen grab of the WikiLeaks site instead of the scheduled piece on the
bank. Citizens of Iceland felt outraged that RÚV was prevented from
broadcasting news of relevance.[136] Therefore, WikiLeaks has been credited with inspiring the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, a bill meant to reclaim Iceland's 2007 Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans frontières) ranking as first in the world for free speech. It aims to enact a range of protections for sources, journalists, and publishers.[137][138] Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a former volunteer for WikiLeaks and member of the Icelandic parliament, is the chief sponsor of the proposal.
By organisations and companies
Facebook Inc.
WikiLeaks claimed in April 2010 that Facebook deleted their fan page, which had 30,000 fans.[139][140][141] However, as of 7 December 2010 the group's Facebook fan page was available and had grown by 100,000 fans daily since 1 December,[142] to more than 1,300,000 fans. It is also the largest growth of the week.[143] Regarding
the presence of WikiLeaks on Facebook, Andrew Noyes, the company's D.C.
based Manager of Public Policy Communications has stated "the Wikileaks
Facebook Page does not violate our content standards nor have we
encountered any material posted on the page that violates our policies."[144]
Moneybookers Ltd
In October 2010, it was reported that Moneybookers,
which collected donations for WikiLeaks, had ended its relationship
with the site. Moneybookers stated that its decision had been made "to
comply with money laundering or other investigations conducted by
government authorities, agencies or commissions."[145]
After the US diplomatic cables leak
Following
the US diplomatic cables leak, which started on 28 November 2010,
several companies severed ties with WikiLeaks. After providing 24-hour
notification, American owned EveryDNS dropped WikiLeaks from its entries on 2 December 2010, citing DDoS attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure".[26][146] The
site's 'info' DNS lookup remained operational at alternative addresses
for direct access respectively to the WikiLeaks and Cablegate websites.[147] On the same day, Amazon.com severed
its ties with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure
services, after an intervention by an aide of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman.[7][148][149]Amazon denied acting under political pressure citing a violation of its terms of service.[150] Citing indirect pressure from the U.S. Government, Tableau Software also dropped WikiLeaks' data from its site for people to use for data visualisation.[151][152]
In the days following, hundreds of (and eventually more than a thousand[153]) mirrors of the WikiLeaks site appeared and the Anonymousgroup of internet activists, called on supporters to attack the websites of companies which do not support WikiLeaks,[154] under the banner of Operation Payback, previously aimed at anti-piracy organisations.[155] AFP reported that attempts to shut down the wikileaks.org address had lead to the site surviving via the so-called Streisand effect, whereby attempts to censor information online leads to it being replicated in many places.[156]
On 3 December, PayPal, the payment processor owned by eBay, permanently cut off the account of the Wau Holland Foundation that
had been redirecting donations to WikiLeaks. PayPal alleged that the
account violated its "Acceptable Use Policy", specifically that it was
used for "activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct
others to engage in illegal activity."[157][158] The
Vice President of PayPal later stated that they stopped accepting
payments after the “State Department told us these were illegal
activities. It was straightforward.” Later the same day, he said that
his previous statement was incorrect, and that it was in fact based on a
letter from the State Department to WikiLeaks.[159] On
8 December 2010, the Wau Holland Foundation released a press statement,
saying it has filed a legal action against PayPal for blocking its
account used for WikiLeaks payments and for libel due to PayPal's
allegations of "illegal activity".[160]
On 6 December, the Swiss bank, PostFinance,
announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange that it holds,
totalling 31,000 euros. In a statement on their website, they stated
that this was because Assange "provided false information regarding his
place of residence" when opening the account.[161] WikiLeaks
released a statement saying this was due to that Assange, "as a
homeless refugee attempting to gain residency in Switzerland, had used
his lawyer's address in Geneva for the bank's correspondence".[162] On the same day, MasterCard announced
that it "is taking action to ensure that WikiLeaks can no longer accept
MasterCard-branded products", adding "MasterCard rules prohibit
customers from directly or indirectly engaging in or facilitating any
action that is illegal."[163] The next day, Visa Inc. announced it was suspending payments to WikiLeaks, pending "further investigations".[164] In a move of support for WikiLeaks, XIPWIRE established a way to donate to WikiLeaks, and waived their fees.[165] Datacell,
the Swiss-based IT company that enabled WikiLeaks to accept credit card
donations, announced that it will take legal action against Visa Europe and Mastercard, in order to resume allowing payments to the website.[166]
On 7 December 2010, The Guardian stated that people can still donate to WikiLeaks via Commerzbank Kassel in Germany orLandsbanki in Iceland or by post to a post office box at the University of Melbourne or at the wikileaks.ch domain.[167]
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has highlighted that Visa, Mastercard and Amazon may be 'violating WikiLeaks' [e pluribus unum] right to freedom of expression' by withdrawing their services.[168]
Reception