Irony alert: Julian Assange's 'draconian' confidentiality demands
His organization, WikiLeaks, is devoted to revealing whistleblowers' secrets. But WikiLeaks staffers who fail to keep their own mouths shut risk a $20 million fine

The story: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange made his name exposing U.S. government secrets provided by whistleblowers, but despite his commitment to the free flow of information, he forces his own employees to sign a brutally strict confidentiality agreement. The document, obtained by the British magazine New Statesman, imposes a $20 million penalty on any staffer who leaks his secret-spilling website's unpublished material. The rationale: Anyone who does so without authorization owes WikiLeaks the millions it could have made selling the material to broadcasters and publishers.
The reaction: What astonishing hypocrisy, says David Allen Green at Britain's New Statesman. WikiLeaks exists to acquire information that doesn't belong to it, material that Assange then views as his "commercial 'property'" and protects with a "draconian" confidentiality agreement. Now, now — there's nothing draconian, or even unusual, about this nondisclosure agreement, says Kevin Gosztola at WL Central. Wikileaks is just "going to the nth degree to protect the 'sources' it fights to keep anonymous." No, this should shock anyone "who blindly idolized Assange and WikiLeaks simply because they took on governments and powerful people," says Andrew Belonsky at Death + Taxes. Assange is no knight in shining armor — he's just another guy out to make a buck.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Could medics' misgivings spell the end of the assisted dying bill?
Today's Big Question The Royal College of Psychiatrists has identified 'serious concerns' with the landmark bill – and MPs are taking notice
-
The Chelsea Townhouse: London luxury feels right at home
The Week Recommends This boutique hotel strikes the right note between sophisticated and cosy
-
What are the different types of nuclear weapons?
The Explainer Speculation mounts that post-war taboo on nuclear weapons could soon be shattered by use of 'battlefield' missiles
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy