Open Source Analysis of WikiLeaks?
What is the status of open source analytical products derived from purportedly classified sources? Specifically, many institutions and individuals are now publishing reports sourced from the WikiLeaks data sets.
Examples:
The Guardian, in the UK, published some interactive media on their Afghanistan: The War Logs page.
Wired Magazine's Danger Room recently published Open Source Tools Turn Afghanistan Into Illustrated Afghan Meltdown showing how researches have produced graphical representations from the data sets.
In another article last week Danger Room wrote about this in Pentagon to Troops: Taliban Can Read WikLeaks, You Can't.
Would any warnings regarding WikiLeaks, as referenced in the last article, extend to products that may have resulted from that source?
Some of these products look to be very interesting and perhaps worthy of discussion. Could an instructor at (West Point, Naval Academy, Naval War College, and so on) pull up either of the first two links in the classroom to jump start a discussion? Could that instructor download the product?
Leaked classified material is still classified
Leaked classified material is still classified.
Reflect on the consequences of your actions, preferably before you act.
Download WikiLeaks materials onto a government UNCLAS computer, and that computer, media, drive is now classified at the level of the material. If you work for the government or a company with government contracts, think long and hard before poking around the leaked material.
This having been said, I'm still interested in accounts of this stuff that show up in the news.
No brightline answers ....
but here is a thread, Efing Wikileaks, dealing with a 2008 Wikileak; and my post, Belated response to Cavguy post # 8, with links to several resources.
BLUF: The issues become murkier as we go down the chain of transmission, which could involve a number of people before it reaches the Web or media outlets. The possibility of using a conspiracy charge against others in the chain becomes less likely the further removed from the original source.
The current reality is illustrated in this thread, The AIPAC Case - Redux, where the extensive pleadings - leading to a dismissal of charges - are at FAS, USA v. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman ("The AIPAC Case"): Selected Case Files.
The AIPAC case was heavily politicized; but, that element aside, it does exemplify the difficulties in prosecuting downstream classified leakage under current law.
Of course, Van is correct: "Leaked classified material is still classified." - and, if you're an employee of the government or of a company with government contracts, you could get into a republication bind by DLing and then passing on the data.
At this point, specific legal advice (from JMM) ends. Everyone else feel free to pontificate to your hearts' content.
Regards
Mike
Question on How to View Wikileaks
As a graduate student my particular area of study is military propaganda and I am very interested in viewing some of the reports that Wikileaks has reportedly published. However, when on the site I click on links such as this one claiming to be a 2006 overview of Taliban Propaganda in Helmand Province. However, the site instructs me to "see attachment" but as far as I can tell there is no attachment. Can anyone help me figure this out?
Also, in case any academics are interested, I checked with the IRB board for approval to use wikileaks as a source and they responded that until the U.S. military comes out and says that anything in the Afghan War Diaries isnt true that we should consider it to be a legit source.