Taking a Look at Wikileaks

Bradley Manning had access to confidential files and record as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. In the year 2010, Manning revealed confidential information to the website called WikiLeaks. The material contained various sensitive information such as videos of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, and the 2009 Granai airstrike in Afghanistan; 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables; and 500,000 Army reports that came to be known as the Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. The majority of this information was published by the website WikiLeaks or the like. Bradley Manning’s case was somewhat complex because he didn’t initially express his reasoning for doing this and he appeared to have indiscriminately released numerous amounts of government records. Manning’s defense lawyer claimed that WikiLeaks is a valid media outlet, while the opposition claims that Manning was not a whistleblower leaking to a news outlet, but just a fame-seeker who released the information indiscriminately for his own purposes. ("What Bradley Manning Leaked.") Whether WikiLeaks is a valid reporting and journalistic media outlet or not, the case unfolded as the United States’ government began to scrutinize all media and information disclosures to the public.

Julian Assange has been called many names; traitor, anarchist and even a high-tech terrorist, but the proper name for him is hero. WikiLeaks is an organization that truly works for the people. Keeping people informed with the inner workings of government, putting pressure on the press to acknowledge the truth and forcing change within government. WikiLeaks is driving journalism into the future and Assange is the driver.

Some believe that the website simply provides classified information without fully thinking of the consequences of their actions. Politicians, like Hillary Clinton, do not the support the idea of having political secrets dispensed and have spoken up, claiming that “WikiLeaks’ revelations ‘tear at the fabric at of the proper function of responsible government’” (Hillary Clinton qtd. in Singer 465). These accusations are not truly accurate and appear to be biased in favor of a secretive central administration. The allegation that the site “releases documents ‘without regard for the consequences’ is, if not deliberately misleading, woefully ignorant,” especially considering that the site has deliberately stated why they leak their information and know what they are doing (Singer 465). There have been several valuable outcomes of the knowledge that WikiLeaks has given to the public. An example is when the site released details about the corrupt leaders in Tunisia, leading to a successful revolution that “undoubtedly influenced the rest of the Arab World” (Singer 466). After that, the same people that claimed that WikiLeaks was terrible suddenly seemed to be changing sides. Even Hillary Clinton herself, after she had said that the site was careless, was “speaking warmly about one of those outcomes; the movement for reform in the Middle East” (Singer 467). This event just shows how truly helpful sharing information can be, notably when they are government

Founded in 2006 by Australian journalist Julian Assange, the website WikiLeaks had quickly risen in infamy over the past few years (Majerol 19). The controversial website had posted hundreds of thousands of classified documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan war, revealing government cover-ups, a secret assassination unit and the killing of civilians among many things. The release of these confidential documents has produced two opposing views on whether or not WikiLeaks is a good thing (Pilger 18).

The Internet is one of the most widespread ways to exchange data, and a website called WikiLeaks has received a great amount of attention from the knowledge it releases. The details they give are known to be confidential and provide society with an inside view on what is really happening behind of the closed doors of the federal government. The site is based on the “belief that a more transparent government will bring better consequences for all, and that leaking information has an inherent tendency toward greater justice” (Singer 465). WikiLeaks gives its readers a way to honestly know all the significant facts and records that are purposefully kept away from

With the release of the NSA secret documents by Edward Snowden in 2013, a once dystopian concept came to the forefront of American politics: government surveillance. Snowden unveiled the existence of PRISM, a program which allowed the US government to read massive volumes of private information shared between citizens. The government exploited legislation meant to combat terrorism in the post-September 11th era. The media’s immediate reaction in discussing the National Security Agency was to compare it with 1984’s “Big Brother.” This term, originates from the 1949 novel by George Orwell. 1984, his most well read novel has a similar system in place in which the government of Oceania knows every moment of its citizens’ lives: “‘Smith!’

"Snowden" is a biopic about Edward Snowden, the man who is known for exposing the deceits of the NSA. Snowden, a computer wizz, former Central Intelligence Agency employee, and previous contractor for the government, easily became one of the most wanted men in America when he exposed just how little privacy the civilians of Americans had before the issue was resolved. The film "Snowden" can be divided into three parts. First being the story of Snowden's discovery of the government's way of surveillance. Second being Snowden's relationship with Lindsay Mills and how this affected his work with highly classified jobs. Lastly being the story of how Snowden released what he knew and how he was able to get out of the NSA.

Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the

Wikileaks published many enlightening information to the people resulting in hatred from the government. The fear of people knowing the truth and causing controversies scared the government. Although, wikileaks was supporting the first amendment with freedom of press and speech, the government tried to control it. Wikileaks gave the world the power of first amendment and that power scared the government, and caused a small chaos.

I recently saw a movie called CitizenFour which was based on one of the biggest cases of whistle blowing in US history. This whistle blower went by the name Edward Snowden. Snowden worked for the NSA so he had a lot of information that involved the NSA doing "bad" things like tapping into our phone calls, and stuff that had to do with violating our privacy. So what Snowden wanted to do was leak all this information. But he didn't want to keep the info for himself. So he gave the info to the media. So they can release it to the public but at the same time not put anyone in danger like a spy for example. But the New York Time leaked something that wasn't properly blacked out and that caused a big problem. Snowden was charged with a crime that dated back to world war one. I think that what Snowden did wasn't very smart. In the sense that he gave the information to the media. As I watched the movie I asked myself why would he do this. Anyone can take a bribe and that information can go into the wrong hands. SO I think him doing this was a miss call on his part. But again i think that he did this because he didn't want to have all that power in his hand. Maybe he thought that he would be the one to eventually sell this info for his own well-being. I

I disagree with you on calling Julian Assange a hero. I believe some government secrets should remain out of the public’s knowledge. We have to be very careful when we ask to know or see our government in action. We are treading on new territory. Somewhat like Pandora’s Box, you don’t know what you will get when you open it. Do you really want to know everything that’s discussed in White House oval office morning security briefing? And what do you do if it’s something that will have an effect you and your family will you agree or disagree but it’s for the good of the entire country?

As the Hollywood plot unveiled, Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, took sides with Edward Snowden to help him find asylum. Assange and his team have started negotiations with Icelandic and Ecuadorian governments for the political asylum that Snowden pursues . Julian Assange himself lives under political asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London since mid-2012, explained that Snowden had contacted them for

Claimed by its founder to be a non-profit organization/website, Wikileaks was firstly launched in 2006. Some call it an open government group that enables public witnessing (Nayar, 2011; Rosewall & Warren, 2010), while others see it as a representation of a new type of “sovereignty in the global political and economy sphere” (Bodó, 2011, p. 3). The website uses the term “wiki” which was followed after Wikipedia due to its anonymous contributors and

Overall, what Julian Assange did was Illegal in many ways and in many countries, freedom of expression is important and a good act if it expresses legal information and can be used for the benefit of the world. It all comes down to determining and differentiating Julian's acts, he did express his views which counts as freedom of expression, but his means do not justify the end, the way he got a hold of the information is not legal or ethical because he stole, used someone to steal it, or hacked it.

Time and progression are usually concepts that are found to work in unison, and this connection is profoundly present in the development of technology. Human advancements in the creation of life altering machinery has taken leaps and bounds in terms of how it has altered society, yet one has to consider the effects these developments have on already existing methods of a functioning civilization. One example of this phenomenon is the expansion of journalism from a closely knit field providing the news to an entirely open platform, via the internet, offering anyone the chance to spread information with previously unheard of haste. Attempting to impede the ever extending hand of change is an impossible task; however, it leads to an interesting argument about the impact of information sharing—particularly concerning journalism—now that there is such a readily available line of communication that can reach near anywhere in the world. As knowledge now resides a few button clicks away it brings about speculation considering integrity of the author and information that are presented, both of which seem to have been further diminished by the vast range of who can offer news in this modern digital age.