‘Irrelevant’ Assange hits Wikileaks nuclear button

Just as Julian Assange was facing accusations that he is a washed-up egotist, Wikileaks has published all its 251,000 US diplomatic cables without any redactions or attempts to protect sources whose lives could be put at risk.
 
Wikileaks has selectively revealed many of the cables already - but always worked with media partners to ensure that the identity of sources was concealed for their protection and no information which could put lives at risk was disclosed.
 
But the archive newly placed online by Wikileaks in an entirely unprotected, searchable format contains thousands of cables which identify individual activists or are marked 'STRICTLY PROTECT', denoting sources whose lives could be in danger because their identities are revealed within.
 
More than 150 of the cables specifically mention whistleblowers, says the Guardian, which was dropped by Assange as a media partner after it covered the allegations of sexual misdemeanour levelled against him in Sweden.

The paper says the cables also contain references to "people persecuted by their governments, victims of sex offences, and locations of sensitive government installations and infrastructure".

Assange's decision to publish and be damned has provoked an immediate backlash. In a joint statement, Wikileaks' sometime partners the Guardian, the New York Times, El Pais and Der Spiegel said:
 
"We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint editing and clearance process."
 
Press freedom group Reporters Without Borders revoked its support of Wikileaks, saying: "Some of the new cables … show the names of informants in various countries, including Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan.
 
"While it has not been demonstrated that lives have so far been put in danger by these revelations, the repercussions they could have for informants, such as dismissal, physical attacks and other reprisals, cannot be neglected."
 
Wikileaks made its controversial decision after conducting a straw poll of its Twitter followers, which it claimed at one stage was running 100-1 in favour of full disclosure.
 
But why did Assange put the decision to the mob vote in the first place? It seems he blames the Guardian: the newspaper inadvertently (it says) published a password for the full archive, which existed online in an encrypted form.
 
The paper says it was all a cock-up – and that fewer than five people knew where the encrypted version was to be found online anyway. Gawker recently supported the Guardian by suggesting that the password disclosure was as much Wikileaks' fault as anybody's:  Assange should change his passwords more often.
 
Whoever is to blame, Assange has run out of secrets and Wikileaks has not been open to receive new leaks for over a year – there is no longer any way to get material to Assange via the website, says Gawker.
 
Now with all his existing secret material published, Assange looks like a spent force. As John Cook observes in another Gawker post: "You've got no reason to pay attention to Julian Assange anymore.
 
"Bye, Julian." ·