What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement? - FDL

What’s Really in the Leaked WikiLeaks Confidentiality Agreement?
By: Kevin Gosztola - FDL
Thursday May 12, 2011 11:14 am

<snip>

A leaked confidentiality agreement that those doing “business” with WikiLeaks are expected to sign was obtained and published by the New Statesman. The New Statesman and other news organizations believe they have uncovered another aspect of the WikiLeaks organization that indicates it is unfit to be trusted by whistleblowers. But, for anyone who understands confidentiality agreements there may be nothing extraordinary or even draconian about the agreement.

A confidentiality agreement is essentially a non-disclosure agreement. Included are details noting the “owner of the information,” the “receiver of the information,” a definition of what it considers to be “information,” why the agreement is necessary, what information is covered by the agreement, a definition of the permitted use of the information, any exceptions to the agreement, and penalties that could be imposed if the agreement is breached.

What news organizations seem to be taking issue with, rather ridiculously, is the word “owner” and the idea that WikiLeaks might be marketing this information to media organizations.

The New Statesman and others consider the use of the word “owner” to be proof that the organization finds it has “commercial ownership over the information that has been leaked to it.” But, the word “owner” is the term that is used in these agreements. It is standard and may not be proof the organization sees itself as literally owning the information.

Clause by clause:

“A” stipulates the information that it finds to be covered by the agreement is defined...

<snip>

More: http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/05/12/whats-really-in-the-leaked-wikileaks-confidentiality-agreement/

:kick:

I hope they're paying a lot for these efforts.

And I... LOVE IT.

:hi:

when he rushed into Congress waving his three page edict demanding nearly a trillion dollars of tax payer money, and insisted that what they did with it would be their business.

This is the arrogant attitude of so many governments. And they have been able to operate in secret for so long that they are outraged at the prospect of any lowly citizen daring to ask questions. Anonymous and Wikileaks have stepped into the void left by the compromised media who were supposed to play that role. And apparently it is causing them to have apoplexy. Which only makes you wonder, why? To me it means they have been doing things they should not have been doing.

Yeah, Paulson wanted to fix the entire Economic Meltdown with a three page paper... no questions asked.

:wtf:

:banghead:

:hi: