Julian Assange, the world’s most wanted WikiMan, turned up in a live online chat with London’s Guardian newspaper readers on Friday, as Assange’s WikiLeaks site -- the target of an cyber attacks since its leak of 250,000 U.S. embassy cables -- struggled to stay online.
During the chat, Assange claimed that “the cablegate archive” has been disseminated “to over 100,000 people in encrypted form” -- meaning that even if he is caught and WikiLeaks is shut down, the entire “leak” will surface, eventually.
“If something happens to us,” he said, “the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable Gate archives are in the hands of multiple news organizations. History will win.”
The Guardian prefaced the Assange interview by warning the live chat would be “subject to his access to an internet connection -- which is very much a live issue.”
Fortunately, he was able to remain online for an hour. Unfortunately, no one asked Assange the question Interpol is most interested in (“Where are you?”), but there were a few interesting points raised by readers, including how Assange himself could jeopardize the WikiLeaks mission:
Julian, why do you think it was necessary to "give Wikileaks a face"? Don't you think it would be better if the organization were anonymous? This whole debate has become very personal and reduced on you -- "Julian Assange leaked documents,” "Julian Assange is a terrorist,” "Julian Assange allegedly raped a woman,” "Julian Assange should be assassinated,” "Live Q&A with Julian Assange," etc. Nobody talks about WikiLeaks as an organization anymore. Many people don't even realize that there are other people behind WikiLeaks, too. And this, in my opinion, makes WikiLeaks vulnerable because this enables your opponents. If they convince the public that you're an evil, woman-raping terrorist, then WikiLeaks' credibility will be gone. Also, with due respect for all that you've done, I think it's unfair to all the other brave, hard working people behind WikiLeaks, that you get so much credit.
Assange: This is an interesting question. I originally tried hard for the organization to have no face, because I wanted egos to play no part in our activities. This followed the tradition of the French anonymous pure mathematicians, who wrote under the collective allonym, "The Bourbaki". However this quickly led to tremendous distracting curiosity about who and random individuals claiming to represent us. In the end, someone must be responsible to the public and only a leadership that is willing to be publicly courageous can genuinely suggest that sources take risks for the greater good. In that process, I have become the lightening rod. I get undue attacks on every aspect of my life, but then I also get undue credit as some kind of balancing force.
And this one, pertaining to the definition of journalism:
The State Dept is mulling over the issue of whether you are a journalist or not.
