Wikileaks disclosure of a six-year archive of thousands of documents gave the Taliban and other militant groups insights into American military tactics and techniques, showed how the United States protects its troops in war zones and revealed the names of Afghan informants and how the military cultivates them.
Frank Rich of New York Times summed up the sentiment of many of his colleagues saying “They are historical documents describing events largely predating the current administration,” Rich wrote. “They contain no news. They will not change the course of the war.”
I think,the latest leak from WikiLeaks signals a seminal change for investigative journalism as even talked about at Mashable.
However, The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel, after being given early access by WikiLeaks, published excerpts but excluded those that identified individuals or compromised operations. The Times also agreed to forward a request by the administration urging WikiLeaks not to post online any documents that would put informants in jeopardy.
Wikileaks allows people to anonymously post documents on the web, saying its aim is to promote transparency. I wonder, could this be authentic and how far could this be true and justified.
As of now, Human rights groups have urged WikiLeaks to redact names of Afghans helping American forces from thousands of leaked US military documents, leading to a charged retort from the website's founder, says AFP via Wall Street Journal.
911 pager messages and Sarah Palin email links with more about the Reuters journalist were among the many leaks that went unnoticed.
Technology and the media with websites like Wikileaks are reflections of Internet's freedom of Speech and information. Do post in your views.
The Tech column restarts after a long gap - No excuses there:-)