4 ms·

A newspaper has the same problem. What is the difference?

• ceejayoz 14y ago
  We know newspapers have made the decision - every so often, they delay reporting on sensitive matters. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing.
  • foobarqux 14y ago
    Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. One would think that everything reported by Wikileaks is a "sensitive matter". If a report reveals the corruption and war crimes of a dictator that spurs a revolution where life is lost is that a "sensitive matter" whose reporting should be delayed? It seems "sensitive matter" is a euphemism for something that harms the interests of the US/UK.
    • ceejayoz 14y ago
      > Wikileaks redacts the names of people who may be in imminent danger. Not always. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543/wikil...
      • foobarqux 14y ago
        I don't know what specifically what releases the article is referring to do but I assume it is those caused by John Ball (a Guardian newspaper liaison) when he knowingly released the encryption keys for the insurance file. Please correct me if I am wrong. That said there is always a risk in news reporting that you put someone in harm's way. The goal is to minimize that risk while still being able to report the news.
  • freshhawk 14y ago
    Did you watch the video? They address this exact question. It's right at the beginning of their about page as well (http://wikileaks.org/About.html http://wikileaks.org/About.html). So yes, I agree with you completely. Wikileaks should be willing to say whether they'd do the same thing. So we can both be happy that they are willing, have always been willing, and do say that they will do the same thing. In fact they go even further in stating that they do not do this for political reasons.