No, Wikileaks deserves it here. Contract forces recipient to acknowledge material is stolen, including origin. That's the risk
they should have sent unsolicited without acknowledging origin. E.g., "hey this fell off the back of a truck."
-
-
instead, signing a contract appears like concocted ploy to ensure company lawyers reject their solicitation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Has their disclosure agreement been published? It's hard to discuss without knowing what they're asking for
-
it doesn't matter what contract says, only that it identifies docs as stolen from CIA. That is enough to kill it.
-
corporate legal doesn't want to or can't deal with leaked data?
-
correct, it's illegal to do so, fruit of a poisoned tree. And Assange is forcing them to acknowledge it's illegal.
-
I'm not US, but isn't that just re admissibility of evidence. Thanks for the discussion. Let's hope they figure it out
-
I'm substituting terms for brevity on Twitter. It opens a host of nasty legal issues. Yes, hope USG reports soon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would be disappointed if they use disclosure as means of grandstanding. I hope they are trying to fix these ASAP
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.