Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of files from June 1996 to the present

Natsios Young Architects

4 July 2009


wikileaks-note2.htm   Wikileaks Note 2 On the Leaks Industry           July 2, 2009

Date: 4 Jul 2009
Subject: Re: UK journalist request- wikileaks

Dear Annabel,

Have you seen that these emails are being published in 
the spirit of Iranian confessional openness?

I was asked to be the public owner-administrator of the 
Wikileaks website, as listed on WhoIs servers, which I 
agreed to be.

Hoary accusations of CIA complicity are commonplace, and
not to be believed for most are no doubt spread by the spies

How to tell who is who? That can come only with openness, 
for a start, by you and me. I have not yet questioned you 
and your bonafides, just answered emails from a stranger using 
a nom de plume, a generic freelance journalist job title, a
task of writing for Wired UK and an anonymizing email address. 

What can you tell the world about yourself? 

For god's sake lie like the gods' own leakers.


Date: 4 Jul 2009 12:16:52 Subject: Re: UK journalist request- wikileaks Dear John, Thank you for your speedy reply. I have read all of the leaked emails on Cryptome. I just wanted to clarify if you were suggesting that wikileaks was being funded by the CIA or if it had the potential to become a conduit for the CIA. Why did you initially decide to join forces with WL? All the best, Annabel -- Annabel Symington Freelance Journalist London, UK +44 (0) 7939696105
Date: 2 Jul 2009 Subject: Re: UK journalist request- wikileaks Dear Annabel, On the CIA accusation: not by me, although I have warned that any leaks site is very likely to be co-opted by the spies. It is common spy tradecraft to do that, as applied to journalism, media, education, churches, government and so on. If you have not read thme my publication of emails among the founders and supporters of Wikileaks tells more concisely than I can prattle here about our parting: Even so, this prattle: To protect against co-optation, the operator(s) of a leaks site should not be anonymous. Nor should a leaks site conceal its financial and support capabilities. That mimics and validates the behavior of secretkeepers. Whistleblowers should run their own leaks site, and bear the consequences. Otherwise they help perpetuate the faults of unaccountable behavior, again following those who operate in the shadows. Peddling of leaks, true and manufactured, has become a racket in the media and on the web, an outgrowth of excessive secrecy and not least, the campaign for and against it. A vast increase in secrecy has come from the institution of freedom of information policies and politics. Leaks are a way of valorizing the leaked information whether true or false, most often deliberately commingled. Redaction now a necessary cosmetic for enticement. These too are common spy tradecraft. The ancient concept of secrecy has become useless for protection of information due to its arcanity, high cost and confused implementation. There are thousands of types of and regulations for classification of protected information, not just the few publicized, so many that implementators cannot figure out how to abide them, so they do so by indiscriminate broadcasting which inevitably leads to leaks. This fosters overclassification and indeed leads to diminution the usefulness of information protection by making it difficult for cleared personnel to gain access to what is sought -- the cases of US UK and ES terrorist attacks in point. Leaks are not the answer, nor does twiddling with classification offer a way out. Absolute openness is the answer, hear the screams of outrage, a standard to be followed by the abettors of leaks, and, to repeat, most abettors of leaks are camouflaged secretkeepers, some witting some not, out to breed suspicion and doubt in order to boost their own particular axe-grind, reputation and credibility, aw shucks: to boost sales and income. Just doing my part for that ancient duplicity of deity promulgators. For highest of motives, totally selfless you understand. Mind lending a fiver until payday? John
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 10:39:01 Subject: Re: UK journalist request- wikileaks Dear John, Thank you very much for getting back to me. I agree that in some ways there is a contradiction between WL's desire for transparency, it's opaque structure and use of anonymous sources- but how do you overcome that contradiction and operate a viable platform for whistleblowers? I understand that Cryptome operates in a different way from WL, with a diffferent agenda- is one the right way and the other wrong? Could you explain to me why you decided to split from WL? I have heard from other sources that you believed WL to be a CIA pawn- is that true? Many thanks again. Kind regards, Annabel -- Annabel Symington Freelance Journalist London, UK +44 (0) 7939696105