비하인드뉴스 - 위키리크스를 탄압한 FBI 비밀작전, 오미디알, 글렌그린월드

[피터 김]

피에르 오미디알에 대한 FBI 내부폭로자, 그리고 위키리크스를 무력화시키려던 그의 공격

FBI Whistleblower on Pierre Omidyar and His Campaign to Neuter Wikileaks By Whitney Webb Jan 20, 2018 - 7:53:58 AM

January 19th 2018

강력한 힘의 지배자를 위협하는 문서를 폭로해온 세계적 투명성기구인 위키리크스 WikiLeaks는 편집장인 줄리안 아산지 (Julian Assange)와 마찬가지로 이전과 같이 압박감을 느낀다. 이제 Wikileaks를 침묵시키기 위한 싸움은 강력한 정부 인사들에 의해서뿐만 아니라 내부자 고발자 보호를 위해 일하고있다는 아울렛 및 조직을 포함한 언론 매체들에 의해서도 수행되고 있습니다.

이 3 부작 시리즈가 보여주려고하는 것처럼, 그 언론매체와 조직은 그들이 관심을 갖는 공공의 이익이 아니라 특수한 이해 관계의 손에 의해 은밀하게 인도되고 있습니다. 파트 1은 언론 자유, 인터셉트 The Intercept, 위키리크스 WikiLeaks를 침묵시키기위한 오랜 싸움에서 두 조직에 강력하게 영향을 미친 도당 조직에 초점을 둡니다.

WikiLeaks, the transparency organization known for publishing leaked documents that threaten the powerful, finds itself under pressure like never before, as does its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange. Now, the fight to silence Wikileaks is not only being waged by powerful government figures but also by the media, including outlets and organizations that have styled themselves as working to protect whistleblowers.

As this three-part series seeks to show, these outlets and organizations are being stealthily guided by the hands of special interests, not the public interest they claim to serve. Part I focuses on the Freedom of the Press Foundation, The Intercept, and the oligarch who has strongly influenced both organizations in his long-standing fight to silence WikiLeaks.

2017 년 11 월 중순 - 데일리비스트지 The Daily Beast는 FPF (언론자유 재단 Freedom of the Press Foundation)가 WikiLeaks와의 관계를 깨기위한 재단 이사회의 걱정거리를 보도했는데, FPF 재단은 엘스버그 Daniel Ellsberg, 에드 스노우든 Edward Snowden, 로라 포이트라스 Laura Poitras, 존쿠삭 John Cusack, 글렌그린월드 Glenn Greenwald 등도 저해대상 목표로 간주했습니다. 첼시 매닝 (Chelsea Manning)이 제공한 유출된 미국 정부 문서를 발표한 후 비자, 마스터 카드 및 페이팔에 의해 수년간 블랙리스트에 올랐던 위키리크스 WikiLeaks에 대한 미국 기부금 수령을 공식적으로 중단하기로 비영리 단체 이사회가 공식 결정한 것은 불과 한달도 되기 전이었다고 보도는 확인했다.

Mid-November, 2017 -  The Daily Beast ran an exclusive report detailing how the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was set to break ties with WikiLeaks amidst concerns among the foundation's board, which includes such well-known figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald, among others. The news was confirmed less than a month later when the nonprofit's board officially voted to stop accepting U.S. donations for WikiLeaks, which had been blacklisted for years by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal after publishing leaked U.S. government documents provided by Chelsea Manning.

FPF재단은 위키리크스 (WikiLeaks)가 은행 봉쇄를 우회할 수 있도록 해주긴 했지만 -  그때는 위키리크스에 따르면 그들이 이미 투명성기구의 자금 중 약 95 %를 탕진한 뒤였다 - 재단 이사회는 그들의 창립 임무를 종결시키는 결정을 만장일치로 했다.

지난 월요일 FPF는 WikiLeaks와의 관계를 끊는 것을 공식화했다. 그들은 은행이용 폐쇄를 우회하기 위해 오로지 암호화폐 cryptocurrencies 지불에 의지하게 했으며 또 다른 비밀스런 자금 수단을 추진할 수밖에 없었다. FPF의 이사인 Trevor Timm은 위키 리크스 (WikiLeaks)의 Julian Assange 편집장에게 전자 메일을 통해 재단의 파트너쉽 종료 이유는 "주요 지불 프로세서의 금융 봉쇄가 더 이상 효과가 없기 때문이고, 우리는 곧 WikiLeaks 독자를 대신하여 기부금 중계 작업을 중단할 것이다, "라고 거짓을 말했다.

Even though the FPF had been founded to allow WikiLeaks to circumvent the banking blockade - which, according to WikiLeaks, sapped nearly 95% of the transparency organization's funds - the board's decision to end its founding mission was unanimous.

Last Monday, the FPF made it official, severing its ties with WikiLeaks, leaving it to rely on cryptocurrencies and other esoteric means of funding in order to get around the banking blockade. Journalist Trevor Timm, the FPF's director, told WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief Julian Assange in an email that the foundation's reason for ending the partnership was "that the financial blockade by the major payment processors is no longer in effect, and as such, we will soon cease processing donations on behalf of WikiLeaks readers."

"WikiLeaks에 대한 재정적인 검열은 여러가지로 가해지고 있는데, 우리는 소송 제소를 포함해 대응을 하고 있다고 ,"말하며 Assange는 Timm에게 다음과 같이 덧붙여 말했습니다 :

FPF는 우리를 대신하여 기부금을 받는 것에 대한 비판을 받고 있지만 그 역할이 그 재단의 기능입니다. 재단이 정치적 압력에 굴복하면 그때부터 문제의 일부가 되는 것이다. 그들은 문제를 풀기 위해 고안된 것이며 또 다른 가짜 자유언론 단체도있다.

아산지 Assange는 자신의 개인 트위터에 그 전말을 공개함으로써 대중과 정보를 교환했는데, 이후 삭제되었습니다

"The financial censorship of WikiLeaks is ongoing in various ways, as is our litigation in response," Assange told Timm in response, adding that:

The FPF faces criticism for receiving donations on our behalf, but that is its function. If it bows to political pressure it becomes part of the problem it was designed to solve and yet another spurious free-speech organization - of which there are plenty."

Assange had made the exchange public by publishing it on his personal Twitter, but it has since been deleted.

실제로 WikiLeaks에 대한 압력은 세션스 Jeff Sessions 법무 장관이 Assange의 체포를 "우선 순위"라고 부르고 CIA 책임자인 폼페오 Mike Pompeo가 위키리크스를 비국가 적대 정보서비스라고 표명하면서 극심한 열병 수준에 이르렀습니다. 지난 목요일 전직 CIA 분석가이자 내부자인 존 키리아코 (John Kiriakou)는 "미국인들은 Assange의 머리를 큰 접시에 담기를 원한다, "는 그의 신랄한 분석을 밝혔다. 이 모든 것은 Wikileaks의 거대한 지진과 같은 폭로로 인해서 촉발된 것인데, 파데스타 Podesta 전자 메일 및 민주당전국위 DNC 비리 폭로가 엄청난 타격이었으며, 그 해의 미국 대통령 선거에 앞서 2016 년에 공개한 것은 물론이고 최근에 "볼트 Vault 7"및 "Vault 8" 릴리스에서 CIA가 전세계 해킹의 원흉이며, 막대한 가공할 해킹력으로 세계 전산시스템을 해치는 실상이 폭로되면서 미국지배층의 역린을 건드린 것이다. 

Indeed, the pressure against WikiLeaks has reached fever pitch, with Attorney General Jeff Sessions' calling Assange's arrest a "priority" and CIA Director Mike Pompeo labeling it a non-state hostile intelligence service. Last Thursday, former CIA analyst and whistleblower John Kiriakou stated his belief that "the Americans want Assange's head on a platter." All of this has followed Wikileaks' publication of the Podesta emails and DNC leaks in 2016 prior to that year's U.S. presidential election, as well as its more recent publication of CIA hacking secrets in the "Vault 7" and "Vault 8" releases.

위키리크스를 탐사보도권에서 제거하기로 결정하다 Voting WikiLeaks off the investigative island

Timm의 설명은 친절한듯 보였지만, WikiLeaks는 트위터를 통해 이사회의 중계역할 중지 결정의 배후에 더 나쁜 것이 있음을 제시했습니다. 일단 뉴스가 공개되었을때 WikiLeaks와 관련 계정은 FPF의 결정을 한 사람들이 이베이 eBay 억만 장자이며 페이펄 PayPal 소유자인 오미디알 Pierre Omidyar이 자금을 조달한 조직에서 일한다는 사실에 링크했습니다. 또한 FPF 자체도 Omidyar와 그의 여러 사업체 및 재단으로부터 많은 돈을 받았습니다.

Though Timm's explanation seemed benign enough, WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that something more nefarious was behind the board's decision to cut ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated accounts linked the FPF's decision to the fact that many of its members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and PayPal owner Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses and foundations.

WikiLeaks✔@wikileaks

오늘날, 실질적으로 Paypal의 Omidyar와 연결되어있는 "Freedom of Press"재단 FPF은 정치적 압력으로 WikiLeaks의 기부금 중계를 중단하기로 결정했습니다.

Today, the "Freedom of Press" Foundation, which is now substantially linked to Paypal's Omidyar, has, after political pressure, decided to terminate processing of WikiLeaks' donations.

Alternatives created here: https://wikileaks.org/donate

Background: https://pastebin.com/raw/qnB5gMam

2:07 AM - Jan 10, 2018

• 158158 Replies
• 1,9821,982 Retweets
• 1,9591,959 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

WikiLeaks는 최근 트윗에서 Omidyar의 영향이 FPF의 결정뿐만 아니라 최근 몇 달 동안 일부 FPF 회원이 WikiLeaks, 특히 Assange에 대해 개시한 비정상적인 공격에 대한 책임이 있다고 제시했습니다. 이 멤버들 중 가장 노골적인 인물 중에 Omidyar 소유의 Intercept에 고용된 FPF 이사 미카 리 Micah Lee입니다.

WikiLeaks, in recent tweets, has suggested that Omidyar's influence was responsible not only for the FPF's decision but also for the unusual attacks that some FPF members have launched against WikiLeaks, particularly Assange, in recent months. The most outspoken of these members has been FPF director Micah Lee, who is employed by the Omidyar-owned publication, The Intercept.

작년 2 월 미카 리는 Assange를 "강간범, 거짓말쟁이 & 파시스트와 동맹 파시스트"라고 지칭했다. 사실 Assange는 강간 혐의로 기소되지 않았고 또 Assange는 결코 성폭행을 저지르지 않았다고 주장했다. 강간 수사가 미국에 대한 인도를 보장하기 위해 Assange를 잡는 수단 이었다는 것을 보여주는 충분한 증거가 있는데, 그것은 이미 허구였음이 스웨덴 검찰로부터 드러난 것이다. Lee의 다른 트윗을 기반으로 한 "맹방의 파시즘 주의자들"은 표면 상으로 DNC와 클린턴의 캠페인 위원장인 파데스타 John Podesta의 Wikileaks의 간행물이 Assange의 축복과 함께 Trump 캠페인을 돕기 위해 명시적으로 수행되었음이 이멜 폭로를 통해 제기되었다.

In February of last year, Lee called Assange a "rapist, liar & ally to fascists" in a tweet - despite the fact that Assange was never charged with rape, his alleged accusers have also claimed that Assange had not sexually assaulted them, and there is abundant evidence suggesting that the rape investigation was a means of ensnaring Assange to ensure his extradition to the United States. Based on Lee's other tweets, the "ally to fascists" charge ostensibly refers to Lee's belief that Wikileaks' publications of emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta was done explicitly, with Assange's blessing, to aid the Trump campaign.

리는 또 WikiLeaks가 러시아 정부에 피해를 주는 정보를 발표했음에도 불구하고 Assange가 "푸틴 팬"이라고 주장했다. 리는 또한 아산지가 근거가 없는 황당한 주장까지 했는데, 아산지 편집장이 크렘린과 직접적인 관계를 가질 수 있음을 암시했다. Lee는 다른 트윗에서 푸틴에게 트럼프로 연결하는데 있어서 아산지를 엮어넣는 " 러시아게이트" 모략을 저질렀다.

Lee has also claimed that Assange is a "Putin fanboy" who doesn't care "about government transparency if the government in question is Russia," even though WikiLeaks has published information damaging to the Russian government while Putin was president. Lee also intimated that Assange may have a direct relationship to the Kremlin, an outlandish claim for which there is no basis.

Lee, in other tweets, has also perpetuated the "Russiagate" conspiracy in attempts to link Assange to Trump to Putin.

10 Jan Micah Lee✔@micahfleeReplying to @micahflee

그러나 위키리크스 WL의 음모 이론이 사실 일지라도 미국이 특히 푸틴을 공격하기 위해 OCCR에 자금을 지원했다 할지라도, 그래서 어쨋다는 것인가?

WL은 민주당 전국위 DNC 전자 메일의 출처가 문서가 진짜인한에 누가 누출했는지는 중요하지 않다고 주장하지 않습니까? 그 위선은 강하다.

But even if WL's conspiracy theory were true, and the US funded OCCR specifically to attack Putin, so what?

Doesn't WL argue that it doesn't matter who their source for DNC emails are as long as the docs are real? The hypocrisy is strong.

Micah Lee✔@micahflee

The day after WL attacked the journalists, Putin himself cited WL's conspiracy to dismiss the scandal.

"Besides," Putin said, "we now know from WikiLeaks that officials and state agencies in the United States are behind all this."https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html ...

3:22 AM - Jan 10, 2018 

아산지가 서방국의 비밀을 폭로하므로써 러시아는 어떻게 혜택을 입었는가  How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West's Secrets

미국 관리들은 Assange와 WikiLeaks 는 아마도 러시아의 정보 기관과 직접적인 관계가 없을 것이라고 말한다. 그러나 위키 리크 스 (WikiLeaks)와 크렘린 (Kremlin)의 의제는 종종 뒤셖여있었다.

American officials say Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But the agendas of WikiLeaks and the Kremlin have often dovetailed.

nytimes.com

• 88 Replies
• 7373 Retweets
• 224224 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

이 같은 음모론은 1 년 넘게 횡행했지만, 그 주장을 뒷받침할 구체적인 증거를 제시하지 못했고 전직 국가 정보원 제임스 클래퍼 (James Clapper) 전 국장과 전 CIA 국장 마이클 모렐 (Michael Morell)과 같은 정부 관리들에 의해 시작됐다.

This same conspiracy theory, which has produced no concrete evidence to support its claims after more than a year, was initiated by top government officials such as the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director Michael Morell, among others.

Other members of FPF as well as some other Intercept writers (see here and here) have echoed these claims as well, attacking Assange for allegedly siding with Trump over Clinton in the 2016 election even though Assange never declared support for Trump. Ironically, many of these same journalists have themselves proven to be very partisan in their writings and on social media, undermining the claim of Lee and others that the FPF is "non-partisan."

시벨 에드먼즈 (FBI whistleblower) 내부 고발자겸 국가보안 고발자 연대 (National Security Whistleblowers Coalition) 설립자는 민트프레스 뉴스 (MintPress News)와의 인터뷰에서 FPF는 "매우 당파적인 조직"으로 명성을 얻었으며 이데올로기가 자리 잡고 있다고 평했다. 그녀는 FPF의 결정을 위한 "가장 중요한 이유"가 2016 년 Wikileaks의 발표, 즉 DNC 폭로와 Podesta 이메일과 직접적으로 관련이 있다고 주장했다.

에드먼즈는 이렇게 덧붙였다 :

Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, told MintPress News that the FPF has a reputation for being a "very, very partisan organization and populated with ideologues." She further asserted that the "number one reason" for the FPF's decision was directly related to Wikileaks' releases in 2016, namely the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails.

Edmonds added :

Assange는 그들의 기준을 위반했으며 이는 기본적으로 보복 대응이었습니다. [FPF에 있는] 모든 개인은 이데올로그라고 알려져 있으며, 분열과 정복의 이 게임에 속합니다. 그들의 역할은 좌익을 대표하는 것이고 줄리안 어산지는 이것에 도전했다. 선거 이전에 이 조직의 많은 구성원이 Assange를 지원했습니다. 이것이 왜 하룻밤에 바뀌었는지 묻는 것이 중요합니다. "

Assange violated their criteria and this is basically their pay-back. All of the individuals [on the FPF] are known to be ideologues, are into this game of divide and conquer. Their role is to represent the left and Julian Assange challenged this. Before the election, many of the members of this organization supported Assange. It's important to ask why this changed over night."

비방하고 틀림없이 거짓 주장에도 불구하고 역사적으로 WikiLeaks와 Assange를 방어해온 다른 FPF 회원들은 Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg와 Edward Snowden을 포함한 폭로 인사들에 대한 미카 리 Lee의 비난에 관해 침묵했다. FPD 회원들은 Omidyar의 영향이 WikiLeaks와의 관계를 단절한 이사회의 결정뿐만 아니라 Omidyar의 영향력이 이 공격에 영향을 미쳤지만 Omidyar와 그의 정치적 관계에 대한 그의 관계 및 그의 명백한 영향에 대한 면밀한 조사는 부인했습니다. FPF의 가장 저명한 회원 중 일부는 WikiLeaks의 우려하는 태도에 신뢰를 안겨줍니다.

Despite the slander and demonstrably false claims, other FPF members who have historically defended WikiLeaks and Assange were silent regarding Lee's accusations, including Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. Though FPF members have denied that Omidyar's influence has had a role in these attacks, as well as in the board's decision to cut ties with WikiLeaks, a closer examination of Omidyar and his ties to the U.S. political establishment - as well as his apparent influence on some of the FPF's most prominent members - gives credibility to WikiLeaks' concerns.

오미디알의 커넥션과 의제  Omidyar's connections and agenda

이베이, 인터셉트 억만장자 창설자, 오미디알 Billionaire founder of eBay and The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar. (Tim Shaffer/Reuters)

Pierre Omidyar, prior to the founding of The Intercept, was known not for any commitment to journalism or free speech but rather for his connections to the U.S. government and his role in the financial blockade of WikiLeaks that began in 2010.

실제로, 공개적으로 이용 가능한 기록을 보자면 오미디알 Omidyar가 미국 정치 기득권들과 긴밀한 관계를 맺고 있음을 보여줍니다. 예를 들어 Omidyar는 Google의 Eric Schmidt, Facebook의 Mark Zuckerberg 또는 Amazon의 Jeff Bezos보다 2009 년에서 2013 년 사이에 Obama 백악관을 자주 방문했습니다. 그는 또한 클린턴 전세계 이니셔티브에 3,000 만 달러를 기부했습니다. 그는 2014 년에 우크라이나의 민주적 선거 정부를 전복시키기 위해 일했던 국무부와 직접적으로 공동 투자한 단체들 (명백하게 일부 파시즘 단체)을 지냈다. 그는 USAID, 특히 해외에서 미국의 안보 이익을 진전시키는 것을 목표로 한 해외 프로그램에 자금을 계속 지원했다.

Indeed, publicly available records reveal Omidyar's close connections to the U.S. political establishment. For example, Omidyar made more visits to the Obama White House between 2009 and 2013 than did Google's Eric Schmidt, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg or Amazon's Jeff Bezos. He has also donated $30 million to the Clinton global initiative. He directly co-invested with the State Department, funding groups - some of them overtly fascist - that worked to overthrow Ukraine's democratically elected government in 2014. He continues to fund USAID, particularly its overseas program aimed at "advancing U.S. national security interests" abroad.

Omidyar는 여러 가지 이유로 미국 정치 조직의 이익을 향상시키는 데에 지대한 관심을 가지고 있습니다. The Intercept의 설립에 관한 Omidyar의 배경에 대해 처음으로 언급한 Sibel Edmonds는 PayPal 간부가 "CIA와 NSA와 함께 동숙하는 처지이다, "고 국방부에 대해서도 언급했다. Snowden은 The Intercept, Omidyar는 "재무부뿐만 아니라 CIA와도 PayPal의 직접적인 파트너십에 관한 정보를 포함하고 있습니다."

Omidyar has a vested interest in advancing the interests of the U.S. political establishment for a variety of reasons. Sibel Edmonds, who was among the first to note Omidyar's background upon The Intercept's founding, noted that the PayPal executive "has been in bed with the CIA and NSA" and even the Department of Defense - further noting that the Snowden documents that The Intercept, and thus Omidyar, controls "contain information about PayPal's direct partnership not only with the Treasury Department but also the CIA."

Edmonds는 Greenwald가 Omidyar의 CIA 및 기타 정부 기관과 2013 년에 열띤 교류를 통해 Twitter에서 장기간 파트너십을 체결했음을 확인했다고 밝혔다.

Omidyar는 또한 스노우든의 전 고용주인 부즈 앨런 해밀턴 (Booz Allen Hamilton)과 잘 연결되어 있다. 부즈 앨런 해밀턴 (Booz Allen Hamilton)은 이전의 국가 정보국장인 제임스 클래퍼 (James Clapper) 전 마이클 맥코넬 (Michael McConnell) 전 NSA 국장이 "세계에서 가장 수익성있는 스파이 조직"으로 알려진 회사이며, 또 주요 정부 계약자이다.  하미의 본국에서 운영되는 벤처 캐피탈 펀드 인 Omidyar의 Ulupono Initiative는 부즈 앨런 해밀턴 (Booz Allen Hamilton)과 국방부 (Department of Defense)가 중요한 지분을 가지고 있는 펜타곤의 가장 중요한 계약자 공모 중 하나를 공동으로 주관합니다. 또한 전 부즈 알렌 해밀턴 (Booz Allen Hamilton) 부사장인 카일 다타 (Kyle Datta)는 Omidyar의 Ulupono Initiative 의 포괄적 동업자이다.

Edmonds further stated that Greenwald had confirmed Omidyar's long-running partnership with the CIA and other government agencies on Twitter during a heated exchange between the two in 2013.

Omidyar is also well-connected to Snowden's former employer Booz Allen Hamilton, a major government contractor known as the "world's most profitable spy organization," whose former executives include James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, and Michael McConnell, former Director of the NSA. Omidyar's Ulupono Initiative, a venture capital fund that operates in his home state of Hawaii, cosponsors one of the Pentagon's most important contractor expos, in which Booz Allen Hamilton - and the Department of Defense - have a major stake. In addition, a former Booz Allen Hamilton vice president, Kyle Datta, is General Partner of Omidyar's Ulupono Initiative.

Also striking was Omidyar's decision to accept Snowden's former boss at Booz Allen Hamilton, Robert Lietzke, into the Omidyar Fellows program in 2015 after personally interviewing Lietzke as part of the program's application process. What was unusual in Lietzke's case was that Omidyar also oversees The Intercept, which has exclusive publishing rights over the Snowden cache - which was taken from under Lietzke's nose at Booz Allen Hamilton by his former employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden himself has remained silent on Omidyar's decision, despite the mixed signals it sent and continues to serve as the president of the FPF - which, as mentioned, is also funded by Omidyar.

The Intercept was founded in 2014 with some $250 million in seed money from Omidyar. Its first hires were Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, the only journalists in possession of the full Snowden cache. According to former Intercept writers, Omidyar - despite funding and founding an enterprise dedicated to "fearless" and "adversarial" journalism - is "shockingly [un]interested in the actual journalism" of the paper. If this portrayal of Omidyar's interest - or rather, lack of interest - in journalism is accurate, it is strange that he would also fund organizations - like the FPF, the Center for Public Integrity, and ProPublica - ostensibly dedicated to investigative journalism, transparency, and the First Amendment.

Omidyar's supposed devotion is also hard to square with the fact that he and PayPal were a major part of the financial blockade against WikiLeaks, which - as mentioned above - deprived WikiLeaks of 95% of its revenue at the time. Though Omidyar -- and now the FPF -- have argued that the blockade has long been lifted, WikiLeaks haspublicly disagreed, maintaining that it remains in effect. Interestingly, when Omidyar was asserting that the blockade had ended, the FPF - at the time - had also publicly disagreed with his assessment and claimed that the blockade was still in full effect.

Omidyar has also, in the past, been rather candid about his views on leakers. He asserted in 2009 that organizations that publish stolen - or leaked - information "should help catch the thief" and shouldn't publish such information in the first place. Omidyar even defended this view after The Intercept's founding and refused to speak in "absolutes" about whether or not a source should be turned in - a troubling perspective to have in light of The Intercept's debacle in the Reality Winner case.

Jul 16, 2009 Loic Le Meur  ✔@loic

what do you guys all think about the Twitter business model getting hacked and published without their consent?

Pierre Omidyar✔@pierre

@loic I said ystrdy: @techcrunch and anybody else who pubs stolen info should help catch the thief. Shldnt pub in the 1st place.

5:15 PM - Jul 16, 2009

• 5555 Replies
• 8989 Retweets
• 5252 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

What then caused him to create The Intercept, only a few years after making that assertion? Given Omidyar's connections to the U.S. government, particularly the NSA, and top government contractors, including Snowden's former employer, it was likely an effort to privatize and thus thwart or slow the publication of the Snowden leaks in which PayPal is allegedly implicated - and not a sudden change of heart.

Edmonds went a step further, stating that:

The Intercept is a continuation of that blockade [of WikiLeaks]. [It] was set up with that purpose. Specifically, it was set up to block true, real information and put forth narrative that has already gotten the approval of special interests including the U.S. government. It made perfect sense for him [Omidyar] to move from that to setting up a news organization and posing as an outlet for investigative reports depending on whistleblowers."

정보수집 큐레이터와 검열 사이의 미세한 경계 The fine line between curation and censorship

글렌그린월드가 홍콩의 그의 호텔에서 기자에게 말하다  Glenn Greenwald speaks to reporters at his hotel in Hong Kong Monday, June 10, 2013. (AP/Vincent Yu)

Omidyar's view on leaks and leakers seem to have influenced the opinions of some of the FPF's most prominent members. For instance, Glenn Greenwald, following the publication of the Podesta emails, suggested in a conversation with Naomi Klein that the Podesta emails should have been "curated" prior to their release in order to prevent the outing of potentially sensitive personal information. Specifically, Greenwald stated: "I think WikiLeaks more or less at this point stands alone in believing that these kinds of dumps are ethically - never mind journalistically - just ethically, as a human being, justifiable."

Listen to Greenwald's conversation with Naomi Klein

유출된 문서의 출판에서 "정보수집, 큐레이션 (curation)"에 대한 아이디어는 당황스럽다. 개인의 프라이버시는 중요하지만, 공익에 무엇이 무엇인지, 무엇이 아닌지를 결정하는 능력을 한 사람에게 남겨두는 것이 매우 문제가 됩니다. "수집된 정보 curating"누설은 유출된 문서를 소유하고있는 사람들에게 대중에게 무엇이 관련이 있는지를 결정할 권리를 부여하는 대신에 대중이 보거나 보지 않는 것을 결정할 수있는 권한을 부여합니다. 대부분의 경우, "균형점"을 찾는 것은 가장 윤리적이고 무관심한 큐레이터에게조차도 도전 과제가 됩니다. 그러한 힘은 쉽게 남용되어 누수에 포함된 핵심 정보를 보호하거나 중요한 상황을 은폐하기위해 적용됩니다.

The idea of "curation" in the publication of leaked documents is quizzical. Though one's privacy is important, it is highly problematic to leave to one person the ability to decide what is and what isn't in the public interest. "Curating" leaks gives those who are in possession of the leaked documents the power to decide what the public sees and doesn't see instead of giving the public the right to decide what is relevant. In many cases, finding a "balance point" would present a challenge to even the most ethical and disinterested curator. Such power can easily be abused and used to shield key information contained in leaks or to hide crucial context.

For example, in the case of Chelsea Manning, Wired journalist Kevin Poulsen published parts of the chat logs between Manning and former hacker Adrian Lamo in which Manning allegedly admitted having given the leaked documents to WikiLeaks. However, Poulsen published only a quarter of the correspondence, claiming that he had not released the remainder as it contained "personal information" and "national security secrets" - concerns that were also raised upon the release of the DNC and Podesta emails.

Yet, the information Poulsen chose not to publish contained crucial context that showed that Manning leaked the documents to instigate reforms and inform the public - not to "cripple the United States' foreign relations for the foreseeable future," as Lamo had suggested in interviews before the chat logs' full release. Ironically, it was Glenn Greenwald who publicly skewered Poulsen for journalistic malice.

However, Poulsen was merely "curating" the logs as he saw fit - albeit with the agenda of protecting Adrian Lamo, his long-time associate. Three years later, Greenwald found himself in a position similar to that of Poulsen when he came into possession of the Snowden leaks and became the "curator" of this collection. Now, nearly four years after receiving the cache, less than 2 percent of the estimated 58,000 files have been made public. If the releases continue at this snail's pace, most of those reading this article will have been dead long before the Snowden cache is made fully public.

Perhaps this is why Greenwald, despite possessing hundreds of thousands of secret government documents he received from Snowden, has been able to travel to and from the United States without issue. Edmonds pointed this out, stating that "after Greenwald worked with so many whistleblowers and even though he has technically ‘aided and abetted' this supposed illegal, major leak, he's not touched. He can come and go [from the United States] as he pleases." Meanwhile, Julian Assange has remained arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy in London for seven years, unable to leave.

Also troubling is that Snowden - the man who ostensibly risked his life and freedom to make this information public - has offered no complaints concerning the glacial pace of the documents' release, nor about Omidyar essentially taking ownership of the leaks through The Intercept.

Former NSA Intelligence Analyst and Capabilities Operations Officer Russell Tice once said the following regarding The Intercept and its possession of the Snowden leaks:

I would be outraged and highly vocal if I were in Edward Snowden's shoes. For a journalist whom I had placed my trust in to go and withhold documents meant for the public?! For the journalist to make fortune and fame based on my sacrifices and disclosure?! Forming a lucrative business partnership with entities who have direct conflicts of interest?! No. That wouldn't have been acceptable."

It's possible that Snowden himself may approve of what has amounted to the censoring of these leaks, as he has also called for the "curation" of leaked material following the release of the Podesta emails. Unsurprisingly, this drew a sharp response from WikiLeaks.

Edward Snowden✔@Snowden

Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.

6:21 AM - Jul 29, 2016

• 587587 Replies
• 6,5096,509 Retweets
• 12,83912,839 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Jul 29, 2016 Edward Snowden✔@Snowden

Democratizing information has never been more vital, and @Wikileaks has helped. But their hostility to even modest curation is a mistake.

WikiLeaks✔@wikileaks

Opportunism won't earn you a pardon from Clinton & curation is not censorship of ruling party cash flows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_curation ...

7:48 AM - Jul 29, 2016

• 285285 Replies
• 1,0221,022 Retweets
• 1,5771,577 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

While Edmonds has made the case that Omidyar likely founded The Intercept to clamp down on the Snowden leaks before they could cause further damage to the U.S. government - or to his own business - another motivating factor could well have been a desire to surreptitiously continue his blockade against WikiLeaks, but by different and more easily concealed means.

Omidyar certainly isn't the only PayPal linked billionaire involved in such efforts to undermine and discredit WikiLeaks. As Part II of this investigative series will show, Peter Thiel - a PayPal co-founder with close ties to the Trump administration - has also been involved in the creation of an "attack plan" that seeks to undermine WikiLeaks through a media disinformation campaign and by working to turn WikiLeaks' former allies against it. Given the FPF's recent decision and the attacks levied against WikiLeaks by Intercept writers, this plan seems to be well underway.

Correction: a previous version of this article stated that Pierre Omidyar is a co-founder of PayPal. While he did not found PayPal, he acquired it when eBay bought PayPal in 2002.

Top Photo | WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leaves after greeting supporters outside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, May 19, 2017 (AP/Frank Augstein)

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News.  She has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish; her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, and 21st Century Wire among others. She currently resides in Southern Chile.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/fbi-whistleblower-on-pierre-omidyar-campaign-to-neuter-wikileaks/236414/