A Word from Wikileaks

Although we have declined more requests for comment about Wikileaks than we have responded to, some participants in the project feel that we have said too much.

Jay Lim of Wikileaks sent the following advisory email today:

“Who’s side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped.”

“You know full well if you make n comments about us and m negative ones about us it’ll only be the negative comment that is reported — since everyone else has only positive things to say and by your position at FAS there is an expectation of positive comment. You are not a child. As a result of your previous criticism it seem you are becoming the ‘go to’ man for negative comments on Wikileaks. Over the last year, our most quoted critic has not been a right wing radio host, it has not been the Chinese ambassador, it has not been Pentagon bureaucrats, it has been you Stephen. You are the number one public enemy of this project. On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page. Some friend of openness!”

“We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don’t, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond.”

“Jay Lim”

var gaJsHost = ((“https:” == document.location.protocol) ? “https://ssl.” : “http://www.”);
document.write(unescape(“%3Cscript src=’” + gaJsHost + “google-analytics.com/ga.js’ type=’text/javascript’%3E%3C/script%3E”));

var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker(“UA-3263347-1″);

No Responses to “A Word from Wikileaks”

  1. dan tynan February 22, 2008 at 1:17 PM #

    let me get this straight.

    wikileaks reveals documents that present corporations, governments, and other authorities in a bad light, under the guise of free and open speech.

    BUT… they don’t want you exercising the same rights to reveal opinions that cast wikileaks in a bad light.

    do these guys not understand the definition of irony? because they certainly seem to be the living embodiment of it.

    what I really want to know is, what do they really mean by “we will…. be forced to respond.” what are they gonna do, get a judge to pull your DNS listings?

    - dan tynan

  2. Glen Ropella February 22, 2008 at 1:26 PM #

    Though Jay Lim’s e-mail is off base, you have to consider that WikiLeaks is under a pretty severe amount of stress these days. So, I’d take that e-mail as the kind of outburst we’re all susceptible to in stressful times. We’re all on the same team, here.

  3. Paul February 22, 2008 at 1:58 PM #

    It’s nice that this guy doesn’t have anything to worry about greater than what Steven thinks. What’s the bug up his tuchus?

  4. Randy February 22, 2008 at 4:53 PM #

    This is a petty thing to do – for you folks to publish an e-mail that is clearly intended to be private. Now you can make the idiotic argument that Wiki does the same thing, but this is not a life or death situation, or a government or company trying to cover up misdeeds, etc.
    It sounds like Steven has some personal vendetta against this group at Wikileaks, which is his and their business, but evidently this Stephen wants some help from his “peeps”!
    I would give it some thought and think about why you folks would even publish this, and then hope that someone does not do some digging on your activities and personal e-mails. Then it would be “different”, right Steven?

  5. Chris February 22, 2008 at 10:19 PM #

    Sending a pissy email to the owner of a website that has been consistently critical of what you do, and on top of it you place a veiled threat at the end, and you would expect that to remain private?

    It is apparent that the owners of wikileaks are not interested in improving their website, but instead only want the love and adoration of gushing sychophants.

  6. Nemo February 24, 2008 at 12:26 AM #

    Angry email != court ordered censorship. Doesn’t it say

    “On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page.”

    Irony would be if they attempted to edit that entry. Which they certainly could do. Yet the comment remains. Just because information is free and open doesn’t mean it isn’t supposed to piss you off.

  7. Tlaloc February 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM #

    Personally I though Mr. Aftergoode’s take on the wikileaks issue was quite fair. His conclusion seemed reasonable. I don’t take his lack of partisan cheerleading to be a bad thing. Wikileaks is an interesting concept but should not expect people to feign total support when they have reasonable reservations.

    That said I tend to agree with the commentor above that this email is probably a product of stress. It might have been best simply to ignore it.

  8. KC February 27, 2008 at 9:07 PM #

    If the site search is working correctly, there have been two prior posts about Wikileaks here. How can that be construed to be “constant harping”?

  9. Stephen March 11, 2008 at 1:22 AM #

    “Constant Harping,” spelled HAARP…I am sure we are all aware of the program…a lot of coincidences going around these days…then again, I do not believe in coincidences…

  10. Saki June 12, 2010 at 1:33 AM #

    “You are the number one public enemy of this project. On top of everything else, your quote is the only critical entry on our Wikipedia page. Some friend of openness!””

    Ok Wikileaks, in the name of openness, what do you need $600,000 a year for? Becasue it sure as hell isn’t server costs all of it, so what is it you spend all that money on? Traveling the world on business class staying in luxury suits @ 5 star hotels?

    If you are all about openness, I suggest you tell the world why you need such a huge amount of money!

  11. JKAllen July 26, 2010 at 6:24 AM #

    Wikileaks likes to endanger me and my co-workers on a daily basis. I’m all for the 1st amendment, but some information needs to remain out of the hands of our government’s enemies.

  12. M July 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM #

    Wikileaks is irresponsible, dangerous and bad!
    The Company should take them out and shut them down for endangering Americans and the lives of those who help the Americans in Afghanistan against the evil Taliban.
    What a bunch of spinless gutless troublemakers who deserve to be sent behind Taliban line swithout any weapons.
    Schweinhund und Dummkopf!
    Let us all email Wikileaks to complain and see how we can shut them down asap!!!!

  13. mtex February 7, 2011 at 9:14 PM #

    Sir, it was today revealed that the above person, “Jay Lim”, is merely a pseudonym for Julian Assange himself:


  14. logic February 8, 2011 at 9:20 AM #

    About mtex’s posting above:
    The website Cryptome alleges “Jay Lim” is a pseudonym for Julian
    Assange but the provided proof does not say so.
    The cited proof is a book excerpt from former WL member Daniel
    Domscheit-Berg. The excerpt says:

    “I don’t know wether some of the names are real people or alter
    egos of Julian Assange. ‘Jay Lim’ for instance, is responsible for
    legal questions. Jay Lim? Someone Chinese, maybe? I’ve never met
    him. Nor did I ever have any contact with Chinese dissidents who,
    as rumour had it, were involved in setting up Wikileaks.”

    I wish people would stick to the facts instead of misleading
    reporting that wastes everybodies time.

  15. mtex February 8, 2011 at 4:42 PM #

    about logic’s posting above:
    In the webpage I linked to it is John Young from Cryptome who points out that Jay Lim is one of Assange’s pseudonyms, not DDB. John Young, not DDB, writes:

    “On page 2 “Jay Lim” is a pseudonym for Assange. Here is “Lim” corresponding with Steven Aftergood, Secrecy News (link) and commenting on a post in Wired (link)”.

    I wish people would stick to the facts instead of wasting their time cherry-picking information so as to mislead everybody.

  16. logic February 10, 2011 at 1:45 AM #

    mtex: Stop lying by twisting the facts.

    As I wrote, Cryptome says on the linked page that Lim is Assange.
    The provided excerpts from Domscheit-Berg’s book provided as proof
    for this allegation on the same page clearly do not support this.

    With the repetition of the allegation of your first post you are now
    showing you did not erroneously misreading the Cryptome posting
    but use it for propaganda against the provided facts.
    That is called lying in by book.

  17. John Young February 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM #

    Not to duck culpability for the Lim = Assange claim, it was the source of the excerpts who made that claim, not Cryptome. Below the DDB book excerpts Cryptome provide comments on messages by Jay Lim on the WL-Volunteers mail list. None of the 400 or so messages specifically stated Lim was Assange or vice versa. However Assange has stated he uses pseudonyms as a common practice as do many if not all experienced security practitioners — and do scoundrels of all stripes such as me. Look, pseudonymous sock puppets are loose upon the Internet, social media, chat rooms, BBs, email, forums like this one, as they have always been in RL. To boost ad revenue, hits, followers, fans, enemies, mayhem, law and order, braggardy, shameless accusations, and all the ancient devices for wedding malice and goodwill. The Wikileaks furor is a cathartic, a purgative, a welcome diversion from the same old shit, oh, sorry, I forgot this is Secrecy News where nothing ill-tempered is permitted. Hello, Steven or whoever runs this joint, nice haircut.

  18. Steven Aftergood February 11, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

    Hi John. Thanks for the clarification.

  19. logic February 12, 2011 at 10:13 PM #

    Regarding the first version of the Cryptome article which has been
    the base for previous postings – only Domscheit-Berg as a former
    WL member and writer of the book excerpts was in a position
    to “reveal” something about Lim’s identity. And Domscheit-Berg said
    in the same excerpts he does not know if Lim is Assange – and
    therefore no relevation.

    Now we can start to make guesses and John’s addendum on the
    Cryptome page argues some points to show why it is likely for him
    that Lim is Assange. But that is an opinion, no proof.

    Blog comments are nowadays full of shills who lie to suck up for
    some government/corporate money.
    Thankfully John has documented cases like http://bit.ly/gkO8Pw
    on his page. I think there is no need for being careless with the
    truth because there are more than enough people trying to bend
    it as hard as they can.