bjbjLULU GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, the new furor over WikiLeaks. Ray Suarez has that
story. RAY SUAREZ: For nearly two years, the online organization WikiLeaks and five media
partners in the U.S. and Europe have been publishing U.S. diplomatic cables that offered
insights into policy-making and titillating gossip about world leaders. But the latest
document dump of more than a quarter-million cables has brought new controversy. Because
of what was described as a series of technical errors, the latest release disclosed the names
of people, activists, human rights advocates and dissidents who had spoken confidentially
to U.S. diplomats. WikiLeaks' media partners, including The New York Times, Britain's Guardian,
and several non-government and human rights organizations, condemned the disclosures,
saying they could put sources at risk. For more, we go to Kim Zetter, who has been covering
the story for Wired. And, Kim, how was this release different from the pattern set up
earlier by WikiLeaks? KIM ZETTER, Wired: Well, when WikiLeaks and its media partners began
publishing the cables back in November, they used what WikiLeaks called harm minimization,
which was blacking out the names of intelligence sources, informants who had spoken with U.S.
diplomats. In this latest dump of the cable database, WikiLeaks hasn't blacked out any
of those names. So what we have are about between 2,000 and 3,000 names of people identified
by U.S. diplomatic sources whose identity should have been -- should have been protected.
We have about 150 whistle-blowers identified, about 1,000 activists named in the documents.
So, previously, all of these would have been blacked out and protected. RAY SUAREZ: And
how does WikiLeaks explain this different approach? KIM ZETTER: Well, WikiLeaks is saying
that they are releasing the database because it's already out there anyway. It was released
inadvertently in part by WikiLeaks supporters. And it was -- there was a pass phrase that
was protecting the document, but that was also published. So, WikiLeaks essentially
was saying the cat is out of the bag, and so we're just going to release it anyway.
RAY SUAREZ: Britain's Guardian newspaper was criticized by WikiLeaks for sort of midwifing
this release. Has WikiLeaks pivoted, taken the emphasis off the Guardian, and started
to say, well, this is what it intended to do anyway, sort of changed its tone? KIM ZETTER:
No. It still is laying blame at the Guardian's feet. What happened here was, last year, WikiLeaks
had made available this cache of cables to the Guardian when they were discussing collaboration.
And they had told a Guardian editor that the -- the file itself would be on a WikiLeaks
subdirectory server, and it would be available for only a short period of time. Julian Assange,
WikiLeaks' founder, had given the Guardian editor a pass phrase to open the file. And
the editor assumed that the pass phrase itself, the password, would expire after a certain
time along with the file. And, of course, that's not the case. That's not how it works.
WikiLeaks was supposed to remove the documents -- or was supposed to remove the file from
that server after the Guardian accessed it, and never did. So the file was always left
online. RAY SUAREZ: So, just to be clear, the entire file of documents and the password
were at one time just sitting there on the Internet if somebody wanted to look at it?
KIM ZETTER: The password wasn't on the WikiLeaks server. The file was. What happened was, the
Guardian actually published the password in a book that it published back in February
about its collaboration with WikiLeaks. And it's unclear exactly why they felt it necessary
to disclose the password at that point. But they thought that it was no longer a relevant
password. RAY SUAREZ: Earlier, you talked about the names of sources and other people
that diplomats have spoken to over the years. Has this, for some of them, moved beyond annoyance
or embarrassment to something that may even put them in jeopardy? KIM ZETTER: Yes, it's
unclear presently if it has actually affected anyone. But the risk is there. I mean, these
people have been identified. Many of them are in repressive regimes who could arrest
them, who could torture them. So, it's really unclear at this point what might happen to
them. The U.S. diplomatic -- the U.S. State Department had been notifying people prior
to publication -- prior to this latest publication about the risk that their names might be exposed.
But it's unclear whether or not those people can actually be protected. RAY SUAREZ: After
the blast from WikiLeaks, the Guardian, for its part, said the decision to public was
Julian Assange's and his alone. But they added, interestingly, "We're learning in numerous
ways how hard it is in a digital age to keep control of information." Do you find that's
true? KIM ZETTER: Yes. And, you know, it's kind of clear that this was an inevitability
in regards to WikiLeaks, because WikiLeaks is so -- such a disjointed organization. People
join it, they leave it on a regular basis. And so it's unclear exactly how they can maintain
constant and consistent control over the data that they have, especially if they're sharing
it with media partners. RAY SUAREZ: Now that it's all out there, what have they got left?
Does it lose some of its power once it's all released? KIM ZETTER: Well, I think that it's
250,000 cables, and people are still going through them. So, I think that people will
be finding gems within them for many weeks, maybe even months, to come. It's unclear what
else WikiLeaks has in its cache besides these documents. If this is, you know, the final
sort of burst of WikiLeaks' secrets, then it remains to be seen what else might be exposed
from this. RAY SUAREZ: Kim Zetter of Wired magazine, thanks for joining us. KIM ZETTER:
Thanks for having me. hn+2 hn+2 hn+2 hn+2 gdn+2 hn+2 hn+2 hn+2 hn+2 gdn+2 urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags
country-region urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags place GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, the new
furor over WikiLeaks Normal Microsoft Office Word GWEN IFILL: Finally tonight, the new
furor over WikiLeaks Title Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8