-
Wikileaks:About/zh
From Wikileaks
| English • العربية • Deutsch • Español • Français • 日本語 • 한국어 • Norsk (bokmål) • Polski • Português • Русский • Türkçe • Українська • Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски • 中文 |
* Partial translation of Wikileaks:About. To further this translation see Translation. Template:关于维基解密(Wikileaks) 维基解密(Wikileaks)试图成为大 规模文档泄露与分析的不可追查和不被审查的来源。我们的主要兴趣在于揭露那些仍然在亚洲、前苏联集团、撒哈拉以南非洲与中东地区存在的暴政。同时，对于其 他地区所有期望得到帮助的人，维基解密(Wikileaks)也是他们揭露政府和公司不道德行为的好地方。我们的目标是发挥最大的政治影响力。 Wikileaks使用与维基百科一样易于使用的界面。我们目前已经从持不同政见者社群和匿名消息源接受了超过120万份文档。
我们坚信，政府活动的透明度是减少腐败、建设更好的政府与强大民主国家的关键。各国政府皆可从本国人民与世界人民的监督中受益。我们还l 相信，监督需要公开的信息。历史上，信息曾是代价昂贵的 - 人的生命和人权曾因此收到践踏。但是，随着技术的进步 - 在互联网上，加密技术的发展使得传达敏感信息的风险降低。
Wikileaks所提供的泄漏文档比任何传媒或情报机构提供的更能起到监督作用。Wikileaks为全球社群坚持不懈地研究任何文 档，以确认其可信性、合理性、真实性和有效性提供了一个论坛。社区成员可以解读泄露文档，并向公众进行适当的解释。如果有一份来自中国政府的文件，那么全 中国的持不同政见者以及流亡者就可以自由地对其进行审议和讨论；而假如文件来自伊朗，整个波斯社群也可以对其进行深入的分析。样例在这里。
在具有里程碑意义的五角大楼档案裁决中，美国联邦最高法院判决道："只有自由不受限制的媒体，才能有效揭露政府腐败" 。我们同意这种说法。
我们认为，保持一个政府诚实不仅仅是该国人民的责任，对于其他国家的人民也有权利监督别国政府。这就是为什么建立这样一个全球性的匿名文档揭露途径的时机已经到来。
志愿帮助。几乎任何人都可以做出贡献。
维基解密(Wikileaks)是什么？ 维基解密(Wikileaks)是如何运作的？
Wikileaks是大规模文档泄露与分析的不可追查和不被审查的来源网站。其结合了尖端的保护、匿名加密技术与透明简单的维基介面。
Wikileaks看起来很像维基百科。任何人都可以发表评论。使用并不需要拥有任何特别的电脑知识。告密者可以不受追踪的匿名发布文档。 用户可以公开讨论文档，剖析其可信性和真实性。用户还可以讨论最新材料，阅读并书写解释性的背景材料或相关内容。一份政治相关文件及其真实性，可由数千人 共同厘清。
Wikileaks提供的高阶加密技术保证了匿名性与不可追踪性。由于提供文档人仕的身份泄漏，无论是在政治影响、法律打压或身体暴力上，都可能使他们面临到严重的威胁。因此，采用先进的加密与发布技术可将此类风险降至最低。
对于技术人仕可能想知道的，Wikileaks集成的技术包括改良版的MediaWiki、OpenSSL、Freenet、Tor、、PGP以及我们自己设计的软件。
Wikileaks的信息分布在多个司法管辖区、组织和个人之中。一旦在Wikileaks发布一份文件，基本上就不可能被审查掉。
为何要"维基化"文档泄漏？
有原则的解密曾经使得历史的进程想更好的方向发生改变；它能改变现时的历史发展；它能让我们走向更美好的未来。
Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.
Consider Daniel Ellsberg, working within the US government during the Vietnam War. He comes into contact with the Pentagon Papers, a meticulously kept record of military and strategic planning throughout the war. Those papers reveal the depths to which the US government has sunk in deceiving the population about the war. Yet the public and the media know nothing of this urgent and shocking information. Indeed, secrecy laws are being used to keep the public ignorant of gross dishonesty practiced by their government. In spite of those secrecy laws and at great personal risk, Ellsberg manages to disseminate the Pentagon papers to journalists and to the world. Despite criminal charges against Ellsberg, eventually dropped, the release of the Pentagon papers shocks the world, exposes the government, and helps to shorten the war and save thousands of lives.
The power of principled leaking to embarrass governments, corporations and institutions is amply demonstrated through recent history. The public scrutiny of otherwise unaccountable and secretive institutions forces them to consider the ethical implications of their actions. Which official will chance a secret, corrupt transaction when the public is likely to find out? What repressive plan will be carried out when it is revealed to the citizenry, not just of its own country, but the world? When the risks of embarrassment and discovery increase, the tables are turned against conspiracy, corruption, exploitation and oppression. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Open government exposes and undoes corruption. Open governance is the most effective method of promoting good governance.
Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever.
维基解密(Wikileaks) is a tool to satisfy that need.
维基解密(Wikileaks) reduces the risks of truth tellers and improves the analysis and dissemination of leaked documents.
维基解密(Wikileaks) provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents.
At the same time, 维基解密(Wikileaks) opens leaked documents up to a much more exacting scrutiny than any media organization or intelligence agency could provide: the scrutiny of a worldwide community of informed wiki editors.
In place of a couple of academic specialists, 维基解密(Wikileaks) provides a forum for the entire global community to examine any document relentlessly for credibility, plausibility, veracity and validity. The global community is able to interpret documents and explain their relevance to the public. If a document is leaked from the Chinese government, the entire Chinese dissident community can freely scrutinize and discuss it; if a document is leaked from Somalia, the entire Somali refugee community can analyze it and put it in context.
In an important sense, 维基解密(Wikileaks) is the first intelligence agency of the people. Better principled and less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency, it is able to be more accurate and relevant. It has no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, 维基解密(Wikileaks) relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.
维基解密(Wikileaks) will aid every government official, every bureaucrat, and every corporate worker, who becomes privy to embarrassing information that the institution wants to hide but the public needs to know. What conscience cannot contain, and institutional secrecy unjustly conceals, 维基解密(Wikileaks) can broadcast to the world.
维基解密(Wikileaks) will be the forum for the ethical defection and exposure of unaccountable and abusive power to the people.
Wikileaks的背后都是谁？
维基解密(Wikileaks) 是由中國民運分子, 記者, 數學家, 科技人士所創辦的. 成員來自美國, 台灣, 歐洲, 澳洲以及非洲.
我們還在成立中的 Advisory Board(顧問委員會)的成員包括有記者, 受到政治迫害的代表者, 反貪污分子, 人權分子, 律師, 還有密碼學者.
维基解密(Wikileaks) 目前有超過1,200位的人登記參與. 除了分享資料之外,维基解密(Wikileaks) 需要更多能以組織形態參與的人.
你们与维基百科是什么关系？
出于法律方面的原因，维基解密(Wikileaks) 与维基百科没有任何官方的正式关系。不过，维基解密(Wikileaks) 与维基百科使用了相同的维基用户界面和网站技术；并且，二者在鼓励任何人成为条目作者和编辑者方面，在以此方式下获得更广泛和更精确的共同创作成果方面，它们的指导哲学是完全一致的。二者皆依赖于消息灵通的公民组成的社区。不同的是维基百科是百科全书，而维基解密(Wikileaks)是解密档案。
维基百科为维基解密(Wikileaks)提供了一个很好的范例。维基百科成功地为人们带来准确而更新及时的百科全书条目，让许多人都为之惊叹。维基百科证明了基于一群活跃的社区用户而进行的共同创作，是可以产生大量精准内容的，并且符合快速、民主、透明的原则。维基解密(Wikileaks)致力于提供快速而精确的，基于解密文档的信息传播、查证、分析、说明以及更深解读，以此造福世界各地的人们。
Wikileaks现在的开发状态如何？
维基解密(Wikileaks) has developed a prototype which has been successful in testing, but there are still many demands to be met before we have the scale required for a full public deployment. We require additional funding, the support of further dissident communities, human rights groups, reporters and media representative bodies (as consumers of leaks), language regionalization, volunteer editors/analysts and server operators.
We have received over 1.2 million documents so far.
Anyone interested in helping us out with any of the above should contact us by email.
何时Wikileaks活跃起来？
The extraordinary level of interest in the site has meant that in order to meet global demand our initial public deployment needs many times the capacity originally planned for.
维基解密(Wikileaks) has been running prototypes to a restricted audience but is still several months short of a full launch. This is because we need something that can scale well to an enormous audience. The level of scalability required has been made clear by the immense response to the leak of 维基解密(Wikileaks)' existence - and it's taken us by surprise.
维基解密(Wikileaks) is a based on a very simple concept. However, there is lot of complicated technical work behind making that idea work.
样例文档在哪里？
See our first analysis, based on a leaked document from China about the 2006 war in Somalia: Inside Somalia and the Union of Islamic Courts.
More generally, see Featured analyses for analyses, and for some sample leaks, see Leaked files.
大规模散布机密文档难道不是不负责任的行为吗？
- Aren't some leaks deliberately false and misleading?
- Couldn't leaking involve invasions of privacy?
Providing a forum for freely posting information involves the potential for abuse, but such exposure can be minimized. The simplest and most effective measure here is a worldwide community of informed users and editors who can scrutinize and discuss leaked documents.
On Wikipedia, posting of false material or other irresponsible posting or editing can be reversed by other users, and the results there have been extremely satisfying and reassuring. There is no reason to expect any different from 维基解密(Wikileaks). As discovered with Wikipedia, the collective wisdom of an informed community of users allows for rapid and accurate dissemination, verification and analysis.
Furthermore, as recent history shows, misleading leaks and misinformation already exist in the mainstream media, an obvious example being the lead-up to the Iraq war. Peddlers of misinformation will find themselves undone by 维基解密(Wikileaks), equipped as it is to scrutinize leaked documents in a way that no mainstream media outlet is capable of. A taste of what to expect is provided by this excellent unweaving of the British government's politically motivated additions to an intelligence dossier on Iraq. The dossier was cited by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations the same month to justify the pending US invasion of Iraq.
维基解密(Wikileaks)' overarching goal is to provide a forum where embarrassing information can expose injustice. All our policies and practices will be formulated with this goal in mind.
Is 维基解密(Wikileaks) concerned about any legal consequences?
Our roots are in dissident communities and our focus is on non-Western authoritarian regimes. Consequently we believe a politically motivated legal attack on us would be seen as a grave error in Western administrations. However, we are prepared, structurally and technically, to deal with all legal attacks. We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers. Because we have no commercial interest in the software, there is no need to restrict its distribution. In the very unlikely event that we were to face coercion to make the software censorship friendly, there are many others who will continue the work in other jurisdictions.
揭露符合道德吗？
We favour and uphold ethical behavior in all circumstances. Where there is a lack of freedom and injustice is enshrined in law, there is a place for principled civil disobedience. Each person is an arbiter of justice in their own conscience. Where the simple act of distributing information may expose crime or embarrass a regime we recognize a right, indeed a duty, to perform that act. Such whistleblowing normally involves major personal risk. Like whistleblower protection laws in some jurisdictions, 维基解密(Wikileaks) does much to reduce the risk.
We propose that authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of something far stronger — the consciences of the people within them.
发布真的自由吗？
In its landmark ruling on the Pentagon Papers, the US Supreme Court ruled that "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government." We agree.
The ruling stated that "paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell."
It's easy to perceive the connection between publication and the complaints people make about publication. But this generates a perception bias, because it overlooks the vastness of the invisible. It overlooks the unintended consequences of failing to publish and it overlooks all those who are emancipated by a climate of free speech. Such a climate is a motivating force for governments and corporations to act justly. If acting in a just manner is easier than acting in an unjust manner, most actions will be just.
Injustice concealed cannot be answered. Concealed plans for future injustice cannot be stopped until they are revealed by becoming a reality, which is too late. Administrative injustice, by definition affects many.
Government has ample avenues to restrict and abuse revelation, not limited to the full force of intelligence, law enforcement, and complicit media. Moves towards the democratization of revelation are strongly biased in favor of justice. Where democratized revelations are unjust they tend to affect isolated individuals, but where they are just, they affect systems of policy, planning and governance and through them the lives of all.
Europeans sometimes criticize the freedom of the press in the United States, pointing to a salacious mainstream media. But that is not democratized revelation, rather it is the discovery by accountants that is a lot cheaper to print celebratory gossip than it is to fund investigative journalists. Instead we point to the internet as a whole, which although not yet a vehicle of universal free revelation, is starting to approach it. Look at the resulting instances of, and momentum for, positive political change.
维基解密(Wikileaks) reveals, but is not limited to revelation. There are many existing avenues on the internet for revelation. What does not exist is a social movement emblazoning the virtues of ethical leaking. What does not exist is a universal, safe and easy means for leaking. What does not exist is a way to turn raw leaks into politically influential knowledge through the revolutionary collaborative analysis pioneered by wikipedia.
Sufficient leaking will bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality from their peoples. Daniel Ellsberg calls for it. Everyone knows it. We're doing it.
Wikileaks的创建者为何匿名？
Most people who are involved with 维基解密(Wikileaks) are not anonymous, however, the founders (and obviously our sources) remain anonymous. Our reasons are:
- Some of us are refugees from repressive countries with families still in those countries.
- Some of us are journalists who may be banned from entering these countries for work if our affiliation was known.
Additionally, given that some must be anonymous for reasons outside of their control, an imbalance of representation and exposure is threatened unless all founders remain anonymous. Furthermore, the effort to encourage anonymous sources to release material to the public is enhanced by an ability to empathise via solidarity in anonymity. Anonymity also demonstrates motivation by goals higher than reputation seeking.
Wikileaks是一个中心化的组织吗？
We are regionalizing in an effort to establish a world-wide ethical leaking movement. Regional groups are forming in many countries (see Contact).
Our goal is to build full spectrum of support ranging from business to activists.
While we committed to keep publishing under all circumstances, we will be as open as possible in our policies and practices. The founders have the final say, but this will mainly effect founding documents like the one you are reading now.
Does 维基解密(Wikileaks) support corporate whistleblowers?
It is increasingly obvious that corporate fraud must be effectively addressed. In the US, employees account for most revelations of fraud, followed by industry regulators, media, auditors and, finally, the SEC. Whistleblowers account for around half of all exposures of fraud.
Corporate corruption comes in many forms. The number of employees and turnover of some corporations exceeds the population and GDP of some nation states. When comparing countries, after observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations. Such comparisons can also be illuminating in the case of corporations.
Considering corporations as analogous to a nation state reveals the following properties:
- The right to vote does not exist except for share holders (analogous to land owners) and even there voting power is in proportion to ownership.
- All power issues from a central committee.
- There is no balancing division of power. There is no fourth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
- Failure to submit to any order may result in instant exile.
- There is no freedom of speech.
- There is no right of association. Even love between men and women is forbidden without approval.
- The economy is centrally planned.
- There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
- The society is heavily regulated, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can go to the toilet.
- There is little transparency and freedom of information is unimaginable.
- Internal opposition groups are blackbanned, surveilled and/or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.
While having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand, most corporations have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms and protections. Internally, some mirror the most pernicious aspects of the 1960s Soviet system. This is even more striking when the regional civic laws the company operates under are weak (such as in West Papua or South Korea); there, the character of these corporate tyrannies is unobscured by their surroundings.
维基解密(Wikileaks) endeavors to civilize corporations by exposing uncivil plans and behavior. Just like a country, a corrupt or unethical corporation is a menace to all inside and outside it.
Could oppressive regimes potentially come to face legal consequences as a result of evidence posted on 维基解密(Wikileaks)?
The laws and immunities that are applied in national and international courts, committees and other legal institutions vary, and we can't comment on them in particular. The probative value of documents posted on 维基解密(Wikileaks) in a court of law is a question for courts to decide.
While a secure chain of custody cannot be established for anonymous leaks, these leaks can lead to successful court cases. In many cases, it is easier for journalists or investigators to confirm the existence of a known document through official channels (such as an FOI law or legal discovery) than it is to find this information when starting from nothing. Having the title, author or relevant page numbers of an important document can accelerate an investigation, even if the content itself has not been confirmed. In this way, even unverified information is an enabling jump-off point for media, civil society or official investigations.
Wikileaks在全球都可访问吗？或者说某些暴政政权在一些国家封锁了此站？
中国政府积极的封锁所有到访Wikileaks的方法。中国不仅封锁了 http://维基解密(Wikileaks).org ，同时也封锁了所有包含"维基解密(Wikileaks)"的网址。如， http://维基解密(Wikileaks).org.nz.
加密链接可能可以越过这道封锁。
我们同时拥有数千个代理域名，如 https://destiny.mooo.com 或 https://ljsf.org ，您可以留言给我们以索取更多。访问时请确认加密证书是颁发给 "维基解密(Wikileaks).org" 域的（你会在大部分浏览器上看见一个警告窗口弹出）。
你还可以使用Tor或Psyphon连接本站，但请注意中国政府对上述这些网站的缺省域名也进行了过滤。
我们现在还有另外一些简单的突破中国防火墙的想法，我们希望在以后的阶段整合进本站。
Does 维基解密(Wikileaks).org have any discreet "cover names"?
In many countries with poor press protections, people can not be seen to be emailing or otherwise communicating with 维基解密(Wikileaks).org. To give people greater comfort in communicating with us without downloading additional software, we have a number of cover-domains. For instance, instead of mailing someone@维基解密(Wikileaks).org, you can email someone@destiny.mooo.com (one of our public cover names).
We have a great many cover domains now, some of the "维基解密(Wikileaks)" variety such as http://Wikileaks.de/, but we want to build up our list of good cover domains. For instance, chem.harvard.edu, or london.ibm.com are good cover names, because they are easily recognizable in a non-维基解密(Wikileaks)-related role. Other discreet cover names include http://ljsf.org/ and http://destiny.mooo.com - these two are public light-cover names.
However, name scalpers (or Chinese agents?) have been registering every 维基解密(Wikileaks)-related thing they can think of, not just domain names, but even names such as http://维基解密(Wikileaks).blogspot.com, in order to prevent 维基解密(Wikileaks) using them or to extort money if we want to use them.
If you can create a sub-domain NS record for a globally recognized institution, or can speak to someone who can, please contact us.
If you have an opportunity, you can help us by registering any 维基解密(Wikileaks)-related names you can think of, e.g., domains in your country, blogs, pages on social networking sites, and sending the details to us. (If you have time, you might even put something on them!)
Can I start a Facebook, Orkut, Livejournal, Blog etc. about 维基解密(Wikileaks)?
Please do. Wikileak's needs independent sites to show their support, not only to potential whistleblowers but also to those who do not support press freedoms in and would try to shut us down or persecute our sources. By having a strong, visible support base across many communities, not only amoung journalists and dissidents, we are made strong.
Is anonymity completely protected by the site?
Whistleblowers can face a great many risks, depending on their position, the nature of the information and other circumstances. Powerful institutions may use whatever methods are available to them to withhold damaging information, whether by legal means, political pressure or physical violence. The risk cannot be entirely removed (for instance, a government may know who had access to a document in the first place) but it can be lessened. Posting CD's in the mail combined with advanced cryptographic technology can help to make communications on and off the internet effectively anonymous and untraceable. 维基解密(Wikileaks) applauds the courage of those who blow the whistle on injustice, and seeks to reduce the risks they face.
Our servers are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs. Hence these logs can not be seized. Without specialized global internet traffic analysis, multiple parts of our organization and volunteers must conspire with each other to strip submitters of their anonymity.
However, we will also provide instructions on how to submit material to us, by post and from netcafés and wireless hotspots, so even if 维基解密(Wikileaks) is infiltrated by a government intelligence agency submitters can not be traced.
How does 维基解密(Wikileaks) test document authenticity?
维基解密(Wikileaks) believes that best way to determine if a document is authentic is to open it up for analysis to the broader community - and particularly the community of interest around the document. So for example, let's say a 维基解密(Wikileaks)' document reveals human rights abuses and it is purportedly from a regional Chinese government. Some of the best people to analyze the document's veracity are the local dissident community, human rights groups and regional experts (such as academics). They may be particularly interested in this sort of document. But of course 维基解密(Wikileaks) will be open for anyone to comment.
It is envisaged that people will be able to comment on the original document, in the way you can with a wiki. When someone else comes along to look at the document, he or she will be able to see both the original document and the comments and analysis that have been appended to it in different places.
To some degree, there is a trade-off between censorship and guaranteeing authenticity. 维基解密(Wikileaks) could run a site almost guaranteeing authenticity, but then we would censor out a lot of information that might be very likely to be true - and very much in the public interest to reveal. The world audience is intelligent enough to make up its own mind.
Journalists and governments are often duped by forged documents. It is hard for most reporters to outsmart the skill of intelligence agency frauds. 维基解密(Wikileaks), by bringing the collective wisdoms and experiences of thousands to politically important documents will unmask frauds like never before.
维基解密(Wikileaks) is an excellent source for journalists, both of original documents and of analysis and comment. 维基解密(Wikileaks) will make it easier for quality journalists to do their job of getting important information out to the community. Getting the original documents out there will also be very helpful to academics, particularly historians.
Wikileaks拥有120万文档？
- Where are they from?
- How did people know to leak them to you?
- How many are really groundbreaking as oppose to mundane?
- Where are they? I can't seem to find them on the site?
维基解密(Wikileaks) is unable to comment on specific sources, since we do not collect this information. All we can say is that journalist and dissident communities report successfully using the network.
Some documents that 维基解密(Wikileaks) leaks in future will no doubt seem mundane to some people, but interesting to others. A lot of people don't bother to read the business pages of the daily paper, yet the section is still important enough for the paper to publish it every day.
One of the areas 维基解密(Wikileaks) is currently working on is how to structure ethically leaked information into meaningful, easy to access classifications. Do you break it down by country? By language? By subject? We want it to be reader friendly so obviously this is important to get right as a sort of foundation lattice for incoming information to be attached to.
维基解密(Wikileaks) needs make sure catagorization and analysis systems are robust and encompassing of material in multiple formats, languages and content. We're trickling new material into the wiki as old material is analyzed, expanding our knowledge of what types of catagorization and automation are needed and what kind of organizational processes are needed to motivate and support analysis.
As each analysis nears completion we will trickle in more material. We'll need many thousands of active analysts to transform extensive source material into something journalists can use easily. We do not require that every source document is analyzed, but it is important to get the framework right so political impact is strong.
How do you measure the authenticity of any document?
维基解密(Wikileaks) does not pass judgement on the authenticity of documents. That's up to the readers, editors and communities to do.
How can 维基解密(Wikileaks) provide more exacting scrutiny than many organizations?
The scrutiny will come from the world community's ability to see the original document online, and then analyze and comment on it next to the document.
This will be of great assistance to journalists. It's hard for a journalist to be an expert in all areas they cover. The comments attaching to documents online will provide instant sources for the journalist's comment as well as analyses to consider.
Are you at all worried that 维基解密(Wikileaks) might become a tool for propagandists?
Every day the media publishes the press releases of governments, companies and other vested interests without changing a line. And they often do this without telling readers what is happening.
In many liberal democracies, the present sequence of events is that people get their news about public affairs by politicians, for example, releasing a statement that is carefully crafted for the media (certainly no assurance against propaganda here). The media, which is supposed to be independent then choose to write stories based on the public statement.
维基解密(Wikileaks) is completely neutral because it is simply a conduit for the original document and does not pretend to be the author of the propaganda of a vested interest. But it further increases transparency in that those who make comments and contribute analysis make this readily available with the document but clearly distinguished from it.
维基解密(Wikileaks) will publish original documents that were never crafted to be media statements. The newsworthiness of that will be in the eye of the beholder rather than in eye of the public figure and the journalist.
The potential of 维基解密(Wikileaks) is mass uncensored news. It may be more cumbersome than an online newspaper (or not, if you know what you're looking for!) but it's hard to imagine it being more propagandist than most of the media today.
Have you made any modifications to Tor to ensure security? If so, what are they?
维基解密(Wikileaks) can't discuss details of security matters because we want to do everything possible to help lower the risk of sources being identified. It suffices to say that anonymity for sources is a critical part of the design criteria.
Our modifications are reviewed by experts. At a later stage these reviews may be made public.
Because sources who are of very substantial political or intelligence interest may have their computers bugged or their homes fitted with hidden video cameras or other surveillance technology, we suggest very high-risk leaks are done out of the home.
For the strongest anonymity we use a combination of postal and electronic techniques.
Wikileaks是CIA（中央情报局）的前哨吗？
Wikileaks不是CIA、MI6、FSB或其他情报代理人的前哨站。 Quite the opposite actually. It's a global group of people with long standing dedication to the idea of improved transparency in institutions, especially government. We think better transparency is at the heart of less corruption and better democracies. By definition spy agencies want to hide information. We want to get it out to the public.
Wikileaks被中国政府封锁了吗？
是的，从2007年1月开始的。我们认为这是一个对我们工作的赞扬。We were slowly establishing our work and organization, but in response authoritarian elements in the Chinese government moved to censor us, exposing their contempt for basic human rights their fear of the truth.
We have a number of ways around the block, some of which are very easy. See Internet Censorship for more information.
When and how was the idea for 维基解密(Wikileaks) first formed?
It began with an online dialogue between activists in different parts of the globe. The overwhelming concern of these people was that a great deal of human suffering (through lack of food, healthcare, education and other essentials) stems from government resources being diverted through corruption of governance. This is particularly true in non-democratic and repressive regimes. The founding people behind 维基解密(Wikileaks) thought long and hard about how this problem could be fixed, and particularly about how information technologies could amplify the fix on a world wide scale.
It's interesting to note that one online commentator accused us of being naive in our high level goals. This is effectively praise to us. It takes a little bit of naivety in order to jump in and do something that otherwise looks impossible. Many great advances in science, technology and culture have a touch of naivety at their inception.
We're reminded of Phil Zimmerman, the creator of PGP, the world's first free and freely available encryption software for the masses. At the start of the 1990s when PGP was released, encryption was really only the realm of spy agencies. Governments classified it as a weapon. There was a huge outcry when Zimmerman dared to release this "dangerous" technology for the average person to use.
Fast forward a decade and a half: virtually everyone on the net uses encryption all the time, for everything from secure ordering, online banking to sending private love letters. The somewhat naive vision of a lone computer programmer in Boulder, Colorado, was at the heart of an extremely sensible and practical global revolution in privacy technologies.
维基解密(Wikileaks) may be at the heart of another global revolution - in better accountability by governments and other institutions. We think this document leaking technology will effectively raise standards around the globe. We expect it to encourage citizens aware of consequentially unethical behavior to don the hat of brave whistleblower, even if they have never done so before.
Do users simply type keywords, such as "Ahmadinejad" into a search box?
That Wikipedia-style system is efficient and known by millions. 维基解密(Wikileaks) wants to make it as easy as possible for average people to jump right in and use the 维基解密(Wikileaks) site. That's why we are using something very close to the tried and true formula set up by Wikipedia. We hope to make the system very easy to use for non-technical journalists.
Are there comments for each document, evaluating its content and authenticity?
Where comments have been made, the reader is able to clearly see what are comments (and comments on comments), and to differentiate these from the primary leaked documents. See the "Talk page" at the top of each article for its comments.
What guarantees can you give that revelations won't be traced?
Our submission system is very strong, but some whistleblowers may be traced through the usual investigative focus on those with means, motive and opportunity.
Tracing at-home (as opposed to netcafé) submissions through 维基解密(Wikileaks)' internet submission system would require a pre-existing conspiracy between many 维基解密(Wikileaks) programmers and the Electronic Frontier Foundation or specialized ubiquitous traffic analysis. But this is only part of our full submission system.
For foolproof anonymity and bulk leaks, we provide the postal addresses of eminent persons in various countries who have volunteered to receive encrypted CDs and DVD's from whistleblowers and upload the contents to our servers. Any return address can be used and we are developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs. Neither postal interceptors nor these eminent persons can decode the encrypted submissions. (This protects facilitator and sender alike!)
你们准备使用Tor吗？就像新科学人提及的那样？
Tor was critically mentioned in New Scientist. What New Scientist did not divulge is that the person they quoted, Ben Laurie, is one of our advisory board experts! We use a number of different technologies, including a modified version of Tor and for the highest levels of anonymity, postal drops. Arguments against Tor, rarely themselves cogent, are unlikely to be relevant to 维基解密(Wikileaks).
How many steps are there between my submission and publication?
For online submissions, all a whistleblower needs to do is upload the document and specify the language, country and industry of origin.
The documents go into queue to obscure the date and time of the upload. Internally the document is distributed to backup servers immediately.
However, just like a file uploaded to Wikipedia, unless other people care enough to link it into to rest of the tree of 维基解密(Wikileaks) information, very few will come across it. In this manner only those documents the world finds to be of significance are prominent; those it finds irrelevant are available, but unseen, until perhaps one day they take on an unexpected poignancy.
What is the difference between public and private leaking?
People with access and motive can disclose information privately, typically to malicious interests, or they can disclose it publicly so everyone knows what is going on. Public disclosure can lead to reform and grants a right of reply. Public disclosure gives a warning that that the information has been disclosed. Public disclosure augments justice.
Private leaking is often used to facilitate corruption. For instance, for over a decade during the latter part of the cold war, the head of CIA counter-intelligence, Adrich Ames, privately leaked identifying information about Soviet double agents and informers to the KGB. Between 10 and 20 people were killed or imprisoned as a result. Had Ames disclosed the information publicly, these people would have taken appropriate defensive measures in the first instance. In addition, the CIA would have been encouraged to improve not only its behaviour, but also its operational security and the treatment of its employees.
Why do you say anonymity is not all or nothing?
The Chinese communist party's firewall blocks 90% of traffic for 90% of people. That's all they need to stay in power and it works because it takes a little effort (not too much) to bypass the firewall. Turning that example on its head, we want to protect 90% of truth tellers without any additional configuration, because that's enough to bring down many corrupt regimes. Then for the remaining 10% of truth tellers who are at high risk we have more sophisticated techniques, which require installing software, using a netcafé, or posting CD's etc. (a barrier to entry for this 10%).
We don't force everyone to use time consuming methods that are capable of withstanding the National Security Agency, rather we let truth tellers choose their own balance of risks and opportunities depending on their circumstances.
为何维基解密(Wikileaks)如此重要？
This year, malaria will kill over one million people, over 80% of which will be children. Great Britain used to have malaria. In North America, malaria was epidemic and there are still a handful of infections each year. In Africa malaria kills over 100 people per hour. In Russia, amidst the corruption of the 1990s, malaria re-established itself. What is the difference between these cases? We know how to prevent malaria. The science is universal. The difference is good governance. Put another way, bad government, through malaria alone, will bring the deaths of seven jumbo-jets full of children in the next 24 hours. A children's 9-11 every day. [1]
Good government doesn't sit on its hands while children die. Good government answers the sufferings of its people.
Is the answer to global warming new technology, reducing the carbon economy or something else? Good government can find out and deploy the answer. In surveying the world see we that nearly everything we cherish depends on good government -- be it political, economic or academic freedoms, food supply, health, education & research, the environment, stability, equality, peace and happiness -- all are dependent on good government. [2]
Political history and the current state of humanity shows that the first requirement of good government is open government.
Open government is strongly correlated to quality of life[3]. Open government answers injustice rather than causing it. Plans by an open government which are corrupt, cause injustice or do not alleviate suffering are revealed and so opposed before implementation. If unjust plans can not reach implementation then government can only be a force for justice!
There can be no democracy without open government and a free press. It is only when the people know the true plans and behavior of government can they meaningfully choose to support them. Historically, the most resilient forms of democracy are those where publication and revelation are protected. Where that protection does not exist, it is our mission to provide it.
维基解密(Wikileaks) is the strongest way we have of generating the true democracy and good governance on which all mankind's dreams depend.
注释
- ↑ Malaria once prevailed throughout the United States and southern Canada (Bruce-Chwatt, 1988). As recently as 1890, the census recorded more than 7,000 malaria deaths per 100,000 people across the American South and more than 1,000 malaria deaths per 100,000 people in states such as Michigan and Illinois. It is important to note that diagnoses and reporting did not meet today's standards. By 1930, malaria had been controlled in the northern and western United States and generally caused fewer than 25 deaths per 100,000 people in the South. In 1970, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Advisory Panel on Malaria recommended that the United States be included in the WHO official register of areas where malaria had been eradicated. In Canada, vivax malaria became widespread at the end of the 18th century, when refugees from the southern United States settled in large numbers as far north as "the Huron" in the aftermath of the American War of Independence. Malaria was further spread with the building of the Rideau Canal (1826-1832) (Duncan, 1996). By the middle of the 19th century, malaria extended as far north as 50°N. In 1873, the great malarious district of western Ontario was only a fraction of a large endemic area, extending between Ontario and the state of Michigan.
- http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm
- http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/367/RBMInfosheet_6.htm
- http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm
- http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm
- http://www.rbm.who.int/cmc_upload/0/000/015/367/RBMInfosheet_6.htm
- http://www.malariasite.com/malaria/Pregnancy.htm
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16445228
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10900914
- ↑ Every significant decision from a declaration of war, to vaccination programs for children, from pervasive Chinese censorship to the oppression of the Tibetan people, from incentives for investment to taxes on candy, from oil exploration rights to the protection of fur seals, from American hostages in Iran to torture in Guantanamo Bay, from the path of a highway to pollution controls, from medical research to breast cancer screening programs, from media diversity to local content provisions, from the funding of science to the ethical treatment of kittens, from the temperature of milk pasteurization to what drugs are legal, from the power of unions to the type of ingredients listed on a packet of potato chips is function of governance.
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders
Personal tools
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
★★AIDS RIGHTS 艾滋病人权 http://www.aidsrights.net（中国大陆需要代理）
★★北京忆通律师事务所（李劲松律师，李苏滨律师）http://www.bj580.com
★★伯阳法律援助网（常伯阳律师）http://www.by148.com
★★《权利》电子邮件网络非常鼓励具有行动力的文章供大家分享和引起支持！
1，所有帖子没有注明"不可转载"的，一律可以转载；转发本邮件成员文章，请注明"转自《权利》http://groups.google.com/group/ChinaRights"。
2，《权利》公共发言，请发电子邮件到 ChinaRights@googlegroups.com
3，订阅：https://groups.google.com/group/ChinaRights/subscribe
4，要退订此论坛，请发邮件至 ChinaRights-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
5，群发邮件，慎重发言，文明用语，切忌只言片语不明不确！
6，备份查询：http://chinarightsgroup.blogspot.com/
7，联系：gongchangbeijing@gmail.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
没有评论:
发表评论