Julian Assange 談為何世界需要WikiLeaks維基解密
Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
wikileaks_assange_latuff.png
講者：Julian Assange
2010年7月演講，2010年7月在TED上線
翻譯：朱學恒
簡繁轉換：朱學恒
後製：洪曉慧
字幕影片後制：謝旻均
關於這場演講
頗富爭議的網站WikiLeaks收集並且張貼機密的文件與影片。根據報導，被美國政府視為偵訊目標的創辦人朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange），這次和TED的Chris Anderson討論這個網站如何運作，達成了什麼目標，以及他的動機為何。這次的對談包含了在巴格達發生的一場美軍空襲影片。
關於朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange）
網路上的活躍份子朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange）是WikiLeaks的發言人，這是一個爭議性，由義工所推動的網站，經常性的出版和評論政府與企業的秘密文件。
為什麼要聽他演講：
你可以說這位出生於澳洲的朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange）將他對於網路安全缺陷的興趣，轉化到更大目標的漏洞上：政府和企業的情報漏洞。他剛滿二十歲不久，就開始利用網路科技來測試和探測管理系統的脆弱防護，雖然他一開始是一名電腦業餘玩家（西元一九九一年，他曾經因為登入澳洲電信電腦系統而被以駭客罪名起訴），他現在拿下了駭客所戴的「白帽」，成為了全世界最矚目的人權份子。
他稱呼自己是「總編輯」。他巡迴世界擔任發言人，但朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange）在WikiLeaks的角色其實更危險：他成為了全世界許多有權勢組織想要消滅的網站的代言人。他的維基百科條目裡面寫著：「他經常四處遷徙。」有些人認為他解密美國軍方影片的動作讓他人身安全受到威脅。經常有人批評他的行為到底是帶來好的影響或是帶來更多壞的影響。國際特赦組織在2009年頒給他國際媒體獎。
朱利安‧阿散井（Julian Assange）在墨爾本大學研習物理和數學。他是最早的開源、免費的通訊埠掃瞄程式Strobe的作者。他也是Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier 這本書的共同作者。
「WikiLeaks三年之內所揭露的秘密比華盛頓郵報三十年來揭露的還要多。」
－Clay Shirky
Julian Assange 的英語網上資料
網站：WikiLeaks
Twitter：@WikiLeaks
[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]
已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄（繁體）（簡體）。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。
Julian Assange 談為何世界需要WikiLeaks
Chris Anderson: Julian歡迎你來。根據報導，你所創辦的WikiLeaks，在過去幾年間所解密的文件，比全世界所有其他媒體解密的總和還要多，這是真的嗎？
Julian Assange: 是啊，這是真的嗎？這真讓人擔心對吧？世界上其他媒體們表現的如此之差，我們這一小群行動派，竟然可以將大量的資訊解密，數量遠勝過世界上其他的媒體總和。
CA: 這是怎麼運作的？人們是怎麼交付這些文件的？你又是如何保障他們的隱私呢？
JA: 就我們所知，對於這些揭密者而言，我們替他們準備了好幾種方法，讓他們可以把訊息傳遞給我們。我們用的是最先進的加密演算法，讓資料在網路上四處轉移，遮掩足跡。更透過司法管轄權的保護，像是瑞典和比利時，獲得他們的法律保護傘。我們可能從郵件獲得情報，就是郵差送的那種實體郵件，可能有加密或是沒有加密，然後我們就會像一般新聞社一樣建檔。建檔說起來容易，卻沒那麼簡單。因為我們所面對的，是巨大的資訊資料庫，要將它對大眾公開，然後準備面對接下來不可避免的法律和政治施壓。
CA: 所以你們還會花時間調查這些文件的可信度，但事實上，你們幾乎永遠不知道消息來源的真實身份。
JA: 沒錯，我們只有極少的狀況會得知對方身份。即使我們在某階段發現對方的真實身份，我們也會儘快摧毀這部分的情報。（手機響起）糟糕。
(眾人笑)
CA: 我想應該是中情局打來問問題的，搞不好他們想要加入TED。
(眾人笑)
我們來找個真正的例子吧！這部分是你幾年前解密的資料，讓我們來播放這份文件，這是幾年前發生在肯亞的故事。你可以告訴我們，你解密了什麼資料，發生了什麼事情嗎？
JA: 我們解密的是Kroll報告。這是一份秘密的情報分析，在2004年肯亞大選之後，由肯亞政府調查完成的。在2004年之前，肯亞的統治者，名叫Daniel arap Moi。他在位將近十八年，算是肯亞的一名軟性獨裁者。當Kibaki掌權時，他是打著集結反貪勢力的大旗，一起在政治上結盟。他們一起完成了這個報告，花了大概兩百萬英鎊，完成了這份和另外一份的報告，然後政府就刻意隱藏這份報告，拿來當作對付Moi的政治工具。他當時是肯亞首富，現在依舊是肯亞首富。這是肯亞新聞界的聖杯，所以我在2007年去了一趟肯亞，設法拿到了這份報告，正好是在選舉之前。全國大選是在十二月二十八號，而我們決定解密報告的時間點，正好是在新總統Kibaki決定和對方，也就是原先他準備要對抗的人，言歸於好，時間正好是他和Daniel arap Moi結盟後三天。於是這份報告成了致命一擊，勒住了Kibaki總統的要害。
CA:這故事長話短說……關於這份報告的情報傳遞到了肯亞，並非是靠著正式媒體，而是用非官方方式，你認為這改變了大選的結果。
JA: 是的，因為這變成衛報的頭版，然後被所有肯亞周邊的國家給報導，包含Tanzanian和南非的媒體，所以這些新聞就從國外流入。過了幾天之後，肯亞的媒體才覺得可以安全的討論這件事，接著這條新聞就在肯亞電視上連續播放了二十天。根據肯亞情報分析指出，這影響了10%的投票結果，也改變了選舉的結果。
CA: 哇！所以你的解密成果，真的改變了這個世界？
JA: 沒錯。
(眾人鼓掌)
CA: 我們接下來要展示一個簡短的影片－Baghdad的空襲影片。原始版本比較長一些，這是一個簡短的版本。我得要先警告各位，這是真槍實彈的影片。
無線電：…看到之後就開火打爛他們！我看到你的部隊了，有四台悍馬，還有…獲得授權。開火。擊殺之後通知我，一起開火吧。射擊射擊！開火！(機槍開火聲)。繼續開火。繼續開火。(機槍開火聲)。繼續開火。Hotel…Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six,我們必須馬上離開！好的，我們剛剛已經攻擊了所有看到的八名人士。還有兩名，我們還在開火。收到，我來處理。這是Two-Six，這是Two-Six，我們已經開始移動。抱歉，發生了什麼事？該死，Kyle。好了，哈哈哈，我打中了。
CA: 這造成了什麼衝擊？
JA: 對於負責這事件的人，是非常嚴重的。我們最後派了兩個人去Baghdad進一步調查研究，原來這不過是三場攻擊中的第一場，都發生在同一個地點。
CA: 也就是十一個人死在那場攻擊中，包含兩名路透社雇員對吧？
JA: 沒錯，兩名路透社雇員，還有兩名少年受傷，總共有十八到二十六個人被射殺。
CA: 解密這段資料，造成了很大的衝擊。你覺得，造成激烈反應的關鍵是什麼？
JA: 我不確定，也許人們從其中看到武力的恐怖。你看到人們輕鬆的在街上走，然後一台阿帕契直升機埋伏在附近，對著每個人射出大量的三十釐米機槍子彈，把這些行為正當化，甚至殺死那些想要救援傷者的人，而且當中還有兩名顯然不是民兵的記者被射殺，而且這就是士兵們整天作的工作。
CA: 我指的是有一位美國情報分析師Bradley Manning遭到逮捕，據說他曾經在聊天室坦承，坦承把影片洩漏給你，還有其他二十八萬份美國大使館影像，這是真的嗎？
JA: 好吧，我們已經否認收到過這些影像。他被控訴的罪名，大概是在五天前被捕，原因是取走十五萬段的影片，外洩五十段的內容。而我們今年稍早所外洩的，是Reykjavik的美國大使館的畫面。這兩件事並不必然有相關，我的意思是，我的確拜訪過該大使館。
CA: 如果你收到了數千份美國駐外的大使外交機密影片…
JA: 我們會把它們全部公開。(CA: 是嗎？)
JA: 沒錯。(CA: 原因是？)
JA: 因為這些影片所洩漏的是真相，像是阿拉伯政府的狀況，這些政府真正侵害人權之處。如果你觀察那些解密的影片，會看到這類的資料。
CA: 我們再把範圍設定的寬一點好了，也就是你的哲學究竟為何？為什麼要鼓勵洩漏秘密情報？
JA: 這問題就跟什麼樣的情報對世界有益一樣。什麼樣的情報可以造成改變？有很多的情報、很多這樣的組織，願意耗費鉅資隱藏這些情報，這才是真正的跡象。只要資訊可以流出，就可能產生正面的影響。因為最瞭解這些情報的組織，它們可是徹頭徹尾瞭解這些資訊，決定要花精力隱藏這些情報，這才是我們在實務中遇到的狀況，這也才是新聞學真正的歷史。
CA: 但這還是有風險的，不管是對相關的個體，或是整個社會而言。情報的洩漏可能會導致意想不到的結果。
JA: 至少我們所解密的部分看不出來。我們有一個傷害免疫政策，我們處理情報是有準則的，與個人隱私相關。有個人足資辨認的資料在其中，而且的確是合法的秘密，像是醫師那邊你的病例，這是真正的秘密。但我們所面對的洩密者，通常都有很強烈的動機。
CA: 他們是有很強烈的動機。但舉例來說，如果有某對父母，兒子正在美軍服役，而他說，你洩漏出來的秘密是應該繼續保密的，因為美國士兵哈哈大笑，嘲笑死者，這會展露出很糟糕的印象，讓全世界數百萬人看到美軍毫無人性，事實上他們不是，我兒子不是。你怎能這麼做？你會怎麼回應？
JA: 是的，我們通常會收到很多這樣的反應。但請不要忘記，Baghdad的居民、伊拉克的居民、阿富汗的居民…他們不需要看這些影片才知道。他們每天睜開眼睛就會看到，這一點也不會改變他們的意見或看法，這是他們每日所見所聞。真正會被改變的，是那些繳稅支撐這一切的人們的看法，這是我們的希望。
CA: 所以你們的工作是，希望將光明照耀到公司和政府的黑暗秘密之中。光明是好事，但你不會覺得有些諷刺嗎？為了要照亮這黑暗，你們卻必需要極度保密你們的消息來源。
JA: 事實上我們不需要。我們目前還沒有WikiLeaks洩密其他線人的狀況，目前還沒發生過這類情形。如果真有這麼一天，我們的確會很為難。但至少，我們目前的運作模式，讓人們覺得道德上受到吸引，來繼續我們的任務，而不是搞砸它。
CA: 我很想知道，就我們所知…我很好奇TED聽眾的看法，可能不只一種看法，對WikiLeaks或是對Julian都一樣。認為他是英雄，人民的英雄，帶來重要的光明；或者是危險的麻煩製造者。哪些人認為他是英雄？哪些人認為他是惹麻煩的人？
JA: 喔，拜託，一定不只這些的。
CA: 這群人很軟弱，Julian，他們很軟弱的。我們得要更努力才行，拿另外一個例子出來。這裡是你們還沒揭露的某個秘密，但我想，這應該會在TED第一次揭露。這是剛發生的一個特殊的事件，對吧？這是什麼？
JA: 這是我們所做的一個例子，幾乎每天都會遇到。去年稍晚，大約十一月的時候，有一連串的油井爆炸，發生在阿爾巴尼亞，就像是墨西哥灣的油井爆炸一樣，但規模稍稍小一點。我們收到一份報告，一份對於發生事件的工程分析。內容分析指出，從其他敵對的石油公司派出的保安，把卡車停在那邊並且引爆，而且阿爾巴尼亞政府也有涉入等等。而這份工程分析，上面沒有任何的稿頭和標題，這對我們來說是一份格外難處理的文件。我們難以調查確認，因為我們無法查證作者和文章主題，所以我們不禁有些懷疑，也許這是競爭對手捏造的謠言。為了避免這樣，我們公佈了部分資料。各位，我們對這文件有些懷疑，我們無法確定，但我們能夠怎麼辦？這份資料看起來很好，感覺應該是正確的，但我們就是無法查證。然後這星期，我們收到了一封信件，也就是撰寫那份報告的公司，想要詢問洩密者是誰。(眾人笑)「嘿！我們想知道是誰洩密。」我們就說，可以告訴我們更多細節嗎？你說的是哪一份文件呢？可以讓我們知道你的合法所有權嗎？你真的是所有人嗎？所以他們寄了這張圖給我們，包含作者的資料，就在微軟的WORD包含的ID裡面，沒錯。(鼓掌)。經常會發生這種事情，這也是我們其中一種作法，靠這樣來查證文件來源，讓所有權人寫信給我們。
CA: 你曾經獲得過某些來自於英國石油內部的情報嗎？
JA: 我們的確獲得過不少，但目前，我們正很努力募款和修改系統。我們的出版速度，在過去幾個月中被縮減到最低。我們一方面重新設計後台系統，因為我們獲得眾多的關切，這是個問題。就像是任何成長中的新創團體一樣，我們受到很大的壓力，因為我們成長的太快，因為這表示我們獲得非常大量的爆料，來自於內線的洩密，往往層級非常高，但我們卻沒有足夠的人力，去處理和調查這些情報。
CA: 而這就是關鍵的瓶頸。自願的記者群和領薪水的記者們。
JA: 沒錯，還有足堪信任的夥伴們。我們這樣的組織很難快速擴張，因為我們所處理的文件。我們得要重組，為了讓工作人員可以處理最高等級的國安機密，然後再來是低安全等級的情報。
CA: 幫我們瞭解你是什麼樣的人吧！你怎麼會踏入這一行？我想我有讀到過，你孩提時去過三十七個不同的學校，這是真的嗎？
JA: 事實上我父母在電影業工作，然後我們又必須躲避邪教，兩個加起來之後就…
(眾人笑)
CA: 心理學家一定會這麼想，這可是偏執狂的好原因。
JA: 你是指電影產業嗎？
(眾人笑)
(鼓掌)
CA: 我的意思是…你早年也是個駭客，很早就開始和當局對抗。
JA: 事實上我是個記者。我很年輕就是個記者中的激進派，我創辦了一本雜誌，在我還是青少年的時候就因它而被起訴。你得要小心使用駭客這個詞，駭客的方法可以應用在不同的地方。很遺憾的，目前多半都是俄羅斯黑幫在用，用來偷盜你外婆帳戶裡面的錢。所以這個名詞跟以前的用法不一樣了。
CA: 不過我當然不會這麼想，你當然沒有在偷某人外婆帳戶裡的錢。但我想請教你的價值觀。你可以告訴我們你的價值觀是什麼？也許你人生中的某個瞬間，決定了這些價值觀？
JA: 我不太確定是哪一個瞬間，但我的價值觀是：慷慨的有能力者不會創造出受害者；他們照顧受害者。這是我父親跟我說的，這也是我從我人生中那些慷慨的能力者身上所學到的。
CA: 慷慨的有能力者不會創造受害者，他們照顧受害者？
JA: 是的。我是個戰鬥派的人，所以我不太擅長照顧這方面。但某些方法，有別的方法照顧受害者，也就是管制那些獵食者、那些犯罪者。我有這樣的想法，一直在我心中，已經很長的一段時間了。
CA: 那趕快利用時間告訴我們，在冰島發生了什麼事情？你在那邊公佈了某些資料，惹上了某家銀行，然後當地的新聞媒體受限不准報導這故事，但他們卻反其道而行，讓你在冰島大獲注目，然後呢？
JA: 這的確是個很好的案例。冰島經歷了財政危機，這對世界上的任何國家都是極大的打擊。他們的銀行相關的規模十倍於其他領域的GDP經濟產出。總之，我們在去年七月公開了這份報告。國家電視臺就在公開播放前五分鐘，被下令禁播。就像電影一樣，禁播令出現在高層桌上，主播嚇呆了。「以前從來沒有過。我們該怎麼作？」那我們就播出這個網站好了，整段新聞的長度用來填補空白。我們在冰島就變得很出名，還在冰島公開演講討論這件事，整個社會都覺得不該再發生這樣的事。結果，我和冰島的某些政治家以及另一些國際法專家合作，我們一起研擬出來一套新的、冰島的新立法，讓它成為一個新的新聞自由豁免之國，擁有全世界最強的新聞保障，以及一個新的獎項，鼓勵言論自由的諾貝爾獎。冰島是個北歐國家，就像挪威一樣，可以切入系統。一個月以前，這被冰島國會全體一致通過。
CA: 哇。
(鼓掌)
Julian，最後一個問題。當你思索未來的時候，你認為這會如何演變？老大哥更嚴格的控制更多秘密，或是我們反過來監督老大哥？或是兩邊都變得更不同？
JA: 我不確定會往哪個方向走。我的意思是，要通過言論自由立法，以及全世界都通過透明法案，有很大的壓力。包含歐盟內部，以及中國和美國，很難看出來會往哪邊走，但也正因此變得更有趣。因為只需一點點努力，我們就可以把天平推向另外一邊。
CA: 看來我得要代表觀眾說話了。Julian，我要跟你說，請小心，願一切祝福你。
JA: 謝謝你，Chris。 (CA: 謝謝你)
(鼓掌)
以下為系統擷取之英文原文
About this talk
The controversial website WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.
About Julian Assange
Internet activist Julian Assange serves as spokesperson for WikiLeaks, a controversial, volunteer-driven website that publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and… Full bio and more links
Transcript
Chris Anderson: Julian, welcome. It's been reported that WikiLeaks, your baby, has ... in the last few years has released more classified documents than the rest of the world's media combined. Can that possibly be true?
Julian Assange: Yeah, can it possibly be true? It's a worry -- isn't it? -- that the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to release more of that type of information than the rest of the world press combined.
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
JA: So these are -- as far as we can tell -- classical whistleblowers. And we have a number of ways for them to get information to us. So we use just state-of-the-art encryption to bounce stuff around the Internet, to hide trails, pass it through legal jurisdictions like Sweden and Belgium to enact those legal protections. We get information in the mail, the regular postal mail, encrypted or not, vet it like a regular news organization, format it -- which is sometimes something that's quite hard to do, when you're talking about giant databases of information -- release it to the public and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks.
CA: So you make an effort to ensure the documents are legitimate. But you actually almost never know who the identity of the source is.
JA: That's right, yeah. Very rarely do we ever know. And if we find out at some stage then we destroy that information as soon as possible. (Phone ring) God damn it.
(Laughter)
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
(Laughter)
So let's take the example, actually. This is something you leaked a few years ago. If we can have this document up ... So this was a story in Kenya a few years ago. Can you tell us what you leaked and what happened?
JA: So this is the Kroll Report. This was a secret intelligence report commissioned by the Kenyan government after its election in 2004. Prior to 2004, Kenya was ruled by Daniel arap Moi for about 18 years. He was a soft dictator of Kenya. And when Kibaki got into power -- through a coalition of forces that were trying to clean up corruption in Kenya -- they commissioned this report, spent about two million pounds on this and an associated report. And then the government sat on it and used it for political leverage on Moi, who was the richest man -- still is the richest man -- in Kenya. It's the Holy Grail of Kenyan journalism. So I went there in 2007, and we managed to get hold of this just prior to the election -- the national election, December 28. When we released that report, we did so three days after the new president, Kibaki, had decided to pal up with the man that he was going to clean out, Daniel arap Moi. So this report then became a dead albatross around president Kibaki's neck.
CA: And -- I mean, to cut a long story short -- word of the report leaked into Kenya, not from the official media, but indirectly. And in your opinion, it actually shifted the election. JA: Yeah. So this became front page of the Guardian and was then printed in all the surrounding countries of Kenya, in Tanzanian and South African press. And so it came in from the outside. And that, after a couple of days, made the Kenyan press feel safe to talk about it. And it ran for 20 nights straight on Kenyan TV, shifted the vote by 10 percent, according to a Kenyan intelligence report, which changed the result of the election.
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
JA: Yep.
(Applause)
CA: Here's -- We're going to just show a short clip from this Baghdad airstrike video. The video itself is longer. But here's a short clip. This is -- this is intense material, I should warn you.
Radio: ... just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up. I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees, uh, out along ... You're clear. All right. Firing. Let me know when you've got them. Let's shoot. Light 'em all up. C'mon, fire! (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Keep shoot 'n. (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Hotel ... Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, we need to move, time now! All right, we just engaged all eight individuals. Yeah, we see two birds, and we're still firing. Roger. I got 'em. Two-Six, this is Two-Six, we're mobile. Oops, I'm sorry. What was going on? God damn it, Kyle. All right, hahaha. I hit 'em.
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
JA: The impact on the people who worked on it was severe. We ended up sending two people to Baghdad to further research that story. So this is just the first of three attacks that occurred in that scene.
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?
JA: I don't know, I guess people can see the gross disparity in force. You have guys walking in a relaxed way down the street, and then an Apache helicopter sitting up in one corner firing 30-millimeter cannon shells on everyone -- looking for any excuse to do so -- and killing people rescuing the wounded. And there was two journalists involved that clearly weren't insurgents because that's their full-time job.
CA: I mean, there's been this U.S. intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, arrested. And it's alleged that he confessed in a chat room to have leaked this video to you, along with 280,000 classified U.S. embassy cables. I mean, did he?
JA: Well, we have denied receiving those cables. He has been charged, about five days ago, with obtaining 150,000 cables and releasing 50. Now, we had released early in the year a cable from the Reykjavik U.S. embassy. But this is not necessarily connected. I mean, I was a known visitor of that embassy.
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
JA: Well, because these sort of things reveal what the true state of, say, Arab governments are like, the true human-rights abuses in those governments. If you look at declassified cables, that's the sort of material that's there.
CA: So let's talk a little more broadly about this. I mean, in general, what's your philosophy? Why is it right to encourage leaking of secret information?
JA: Well, there's a question as to what sort of information is important in the world, what sort of information can achieve reform. And there's a lot of information. So information that organizations are spending economic effort into concealing, that's a really good signal that when the information gets out, there's a hope of it doing some good. Because the organizations that know it best, that know it from the inside out, are spending work to conceal it. And that's what we've found in practice. And that's what the history of journalism is.
CA: But are there risks with that, either to the individuals concerned or indeed to society at large, where leaking can actually have an unintended consequence?
JA: Not that we have seen with anything we have released. I mean, we have a harm immunization policy. We have a way of dealing with information that has sort of personal -- personally identifying information in it. But there are legitimate secrets -- you know, your records with your doctor; that's a legitimate secret. But we deal with whistleblowers that are coming forward that are really sort of well motivated.
CA: So they are well-motivated. And what would you say to, for example, the, you know, the parent of someone -- whose son is out serving the U.S. military, and he says, "You know what, you've put up something that someone had an incentive to put out. It shows a U.S. soldier laughing at people dying. That gives the impression -- has given the impression to millions of people around the world that U.S. soldiers are inhuman people. Actually, they're not. My son isn't. How dare you?" What would you say to that?
JA: Yeah, we do get a lot of that. But remember, the people in Baghdad, the people in Iraq, the people in Afghanistan -- they don't need to see the video; they see it every day. So it's not going to change their opinion. It's not going to change their perception. That's what they see every day. It will change the perception and opinion of the people who are paying for it all. And that's our hope.
CA: So you found a way to shine light into what you see as these sort of dark secrets in companies and in government. Light is good. But do you see any irony in the fact that, in order for you to shine that light, you have to, yourself, create secrecy around your sources?
JA: Not really. I mean, we don't have any WikiLeaks dissidents yet. We don't have sources who are dissidents on other sources. Should they come forward, that would be a tricky situation for us. But we're presumably acting in such a way that people feel morally compelled to continue our mission, not to screw it up.
CA: I'd actually be interested, just based on what we've heard so far -- I'm curious as to the opinion in the TED audience. You know, there might be a couple of views of WikiLeaks and of Julian. You know, hero -- people's hero -- bringing this important light. Dangerous troublemaker. Who's got the hero view? Who's got the dangerous troublemaker view?
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
CA: It's a soft crowd, Julian, a soft crowd. We have to try better. Let's show them another example. Now here's something that you haven't yet leaked, but I think for TED you are. I mean it's an intriguing story that's just happened, right? What is this?
JA: So this is a sample of what we do sort of every day. So late last year -- in November last year -- there was a series of well blowouts in Albania like the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but not quite as big. And we got a report -- a sort of engineering analysis into what happened -- saying that, in fact, security guards from some rival, various competing oil firms had, in fact, parked trucks there and blown them up. And part of the Albanian government was in this, etc., etc. And the engineering report had nothing on the top of it. So it was an extremely difficult document for us. We couldn't verify it because we didn't know who wrote it and knew what it was about. So we were kind of skeptical that maybe it was a competing oil firm just sort of playing the issue up. So under that basis, we put it out and said, "Look, we're skeptical about this thing. We don't know, but what can we do? The material looks good, it feels right, but we just can't verify it." And we then got a letter just this week from the company who wrote it, wanting to track down the source -- (Laughter) saying, "Hey, we want to track down the source." And we were like, "Oh, tell us more. What document, precisely, is it you're talking about? Can you show that you had legal authority over that document? Is it really yours?" So they sent us this screen shot with the author in the Microsoft Word ID. Yeah. (Applause) That's happened quite a lot though. This is like one of our methods of identifying -- of verifying what a material is, is to try and get these guys to write letters.
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP?
JA: Yeah, we have a lot, but I mean, at the moment, we are undergoing a sort of serious fundraising and engineering effort. So our publication rate over the past few months has been sort of minimized while we're re-engineering our back systems for the phenomenal public interest that we have. That's a problem. I mean, like any sort of growing startup organization, we are sort of overwhelmed by our growth. And that means we're getting enormous quantity of whistleblower disclosures of a very high caliber, but don't have enough people to actually process and vet this information.
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
JA: Yep. Yeah, and trusted people. I mean, we're an organization that is hard to grow very quickly because of the sort of material we deal with. So we have to restructure in order to have people who will deal with the highest national security stuff, and then lower security cases.
CA: So help us understand about you personally and how you came to do this. And I think I read that as a kid you went to 37 different schools. Can that be right?
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
(Laughter)
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
JA: What, the movie business?
(Laughter)
(Applause)
CA: And you were also -- I mean, you were also a hacker at an early age and ran into the authorities early on. JA: Well, I was a journalist. You know, I was a very young journalist activist at an early age. I wrote a magazine, was prosecuted for it when I was a teenager. So you have to be careful with hacker. I mean there's like -- there's a method that can be deployed for various things. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's mostly deployed by the Russian mafia in order to steal your grandmother's bank accounts. So this phrase is not -- not as nice as it used to be.
CA: Yeah, well, I certainly don't think you're stealing anyone's grandmother's bank account. But what about your core values? Can you give us a sense of what they are and maybe some incident in your life that helped determine them?
JA: I'm not sure about the incident. But the core values: well, capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims. And that's something from my father and something from other capable, generous men that have been in my life.
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
JA: Yeah. And you know, I'm a combative person, so I'm not actually sort of big on the nurture. But some way -- There is another way of nurturing victims, which is to police perpetrators of crime. And so that is something that has been in my character for a long time.
CA: So just tell us, very quickly in the last minute, the story: what happened in Iceland? You basically published something there, ran into trouble with a bank, then the news service there was injuncted from running the story. Instead, they publicized your side. That made you very high-profile in Iceland. What happened next?
JA: Yeah, this is a great case, you know. Iceland went through this financial crisis. It was the hardest hit of any country in the world. Its banking sector was 10 times the GDP of the rest of the economy. Anyway, so we release this report in July last year. And the national TV station was injuncted five minutes before it went on air. Like out of a movie, injunction landed on the news desk, and the news reader was like, "This has never happened before. What do we do?" Well, we just show the website instead, for all that time, as a filler. And we became very famous in Iceland, went to Iceland and spoke about this issue. And there was a feeling in the community that that should never happen again. And as a result, working with some Icelandic politicians and some other international legal experts, we put together a new sort of package of legislation for Iceland to sort of become an offshore haven for the free press, with the strongest journalistic protections in the world, with a new Nobel Prize for freedom of speech. Iceland's a Nordic country so, like Norway, it's able to tap into the system. And just a month ago, this was passed by the Icelandic parliament unanimously.
CA: Wow.
(Applause)
Last question, Julian. When you think of the future then, do you think it's more likely to be Big Brother exerting more control, more secrecy, or us watching Big Brother, or it's just all to be played for either way?
JA: I'm not sure which way it's going to go. I mean there's enormous pressures to harmonize freedom of speech legislation and transparency legislation around the world -- within the E.U., between China and the United States. Which way is it going to go? It's hard to see. That's why it's a very interesting time to be in. Because with just a little bit of effort we can shift it one way or the other.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful and all power to you.
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
(Applause)