US source protection bill amended to exclude WikiLeaks
The furore surrounding WikiLeaks continues this week, as US Senators reportedly working on a “media-shields” legislation to protect journalists from revealing sources are making amendments to ensure no such protection can be afforded to the whistleblowing site.
According to a report by the NYTimes.com, senators Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein are drafting the amendment to outline that the bill’s protections would “extend only to traditional news-gathering activities and not to websites that serve as a conduit for the mass dissemination of secret documents”.
Quoting Schumer in a statement he claims the amendments will ensure there is no chance of the law ever being used to protect websites like WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks should not be spared in any way from the fullest prosecution possible under the law. Our bill already includes safeguards when a leak impacts national security, and it would never grant protection to a website like this one, but we will take this extra step to remove even a scintilla of doubt.
According to the NYTimes.com report, the new bill would require a person to “exhaust all other means” of getting the names they desire before they could take a journalist to court. But they add the amendment may be unecessary due to the method by which the website sources and stores its information.
According to WikiLeaks, the website uses a technology which makes it impossible to trace the source of documents that are submitted to it. So even if the organisation were compelled to disclose a source, it is not clear that it would be able to do so
Also in WikiLeaks news, the Washington Post reports that the Broadcasting Board of Governors have ordered that the Voice of America “may proceed with reporting on the disclosure of classified documents”. This follows claims that IT personnel at the International Broadcasting Bureau told VOA journalists not to read or email the material on government computers.
The matter was added to the agenda at Friday’s gathering of the new board, which passed a unanimous resolution in closed session that “authorized the Director of the Voice of America to proceed with reporting on the disclosure of classified documents available on the WikiLeaks website in a manner that is consistent with the VOA Charter and the BBG’s statutory mission, and to balance this effort with due consideration for the laws and executive orders” on using classified information.
Similar posts:
- Yahoo News: WikiLeaks embassy cables release prompts new ‘whistleblower bill’
- Computer World: WikiLeaks plans to make leaking easier with new upload system
- WikiLeaks revelations show a mainstream media “too cosy with power”
- White House seeks to advise reporters over WikiLeaks Afghanistan release
- Norwegian newspaper claims to have access to full trove of WikiLeaks cables
August 4th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Disturbing that Schumer is on the wrong side on this one. This is exactly not the time to make a political concession. By definition “traditional journalism” means that that is not the only kind of journalism. They are creating a bill that is already outdated.
August 4th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
This is just killing the messenger. They have a burning problme of a war going wrong. But they are more intent on shooting the whistleblower.
August 4th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
[...] Men vänta, det kommer mer. Idag förespråkade kongressledamot Mike Rogers dödsstraff för de som läcker information. Fantastiskt. Att avslöja krigsförbrytelser borde inte ens vara ett brott. Som om inte det vore nog arbetar nu ett antal senatorer i USA på att ta fram ett lagförslag om källskydd (dvs att journalister inte behöver ange sina källor) där Wikeleaks undantas källskydd. [...]
August 4th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
So, if WikiLeaks posts non-government secrets, about, say, criminal activity by drug cartels, are they to be required to give their sources or head to jail?
Laws should be crafted to ban activities deemed not in the public interest, and should govern everyone equally. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional, would it not? We are all entitled to equal protection under the law.
August 5th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Would wiki leaks be protected by the geneva convention?Doesnt a private individual have the right to stop an organisation by whatever needs necessary if the organisation breaks the rules of war?
Here in the UK several persons where aquitted this month after they destroyed offices of an arms manufacturer as the jury believed that the arms company was complicit in the human rights abuses in Palestine.
Correct me if im wrong.
Thank You.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
[...] could qualify — but one thing that the folks working on the bill now want to make sure: it won’t apply to Wikileaks (sent in by [...]
August 6th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
[...] US source protection bill amended to exclude WikiLeaks [...]
August 18th, 2010 at 7:15 am
[...] could qualify — but one thing that the folks working on the bill now want to make sure: it won’t apply to Wikileaks (sent in by [...]
September 1st, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Wimps. Either you want to protect sources or you don’t. Exceptions are hogwash.
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
The default for public organizations and government = total transparency. The default for private citizens = total privacy. What happened, Democracy?
December 8th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Assange Helps Obama with the new world order and Transparency..