WikiLeaks has sought and followed legal counsel in recent times:
- The submissions page now reads: “WikiLeaks accepts a range of material, but we do not solicit it."
- The word “classified” has been deleted from a description of the kinds of material it accepts.
- An earlier assertion stated: “Submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law". Now modified to the slightly less assuring: “Submitting documents to our journalists is protected by law in better democracies.”
- W-leaks has also started tossing about the words "news" and "journalist" on its pages, presumably to rebadge, in case they ever need to call upon the US first amendment in a big way.
On the other hand, the recent strategic switch, stemming, we assume, from frustration over the continued cult status of W-leaks, was all Assange's work, with nary a legal mind needed.
- Putting both big toes into journalistic waters, and reflecting Assange's strategic partnership arrangement with MSM for garnering maximum impact for the cache of diplomatic cables, Wikileaks no longer describes itself as being the passive recipient and publisher of raw data. Nowadays its primary work is filtering and analyzing documents, even though that work has been, in the case of the cables, performed by MSM journalists, rather than W-leaks. More accurately describing the re-branding, the site also states: “journalists write news stories based on the material, and then provide a link to the supporting documentation to prove our stories are true.”
Now, to stay in business, all they need are a couple of mega-leaks per year from any country in the world, from the public or private sectors.
What are the odds of such a juicy and lucrative deluge?