<story><title>WikiLeaks offers $100k for details of Obama’s trade deal</title><url>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/06/02/wikileaks-offers-100000-for-details-of-obamas-trade-deal/?hpid=z2</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jpwagner</author><text>&lt;i&gt;What&amp;#x27;s wrong with that?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the past, Wikileaks has not been the moral arbiter.  If a whistleblower decides that exposing information is in the public interest, that is on them, Wikileaks provides a medium.&lt;p&gt;Here, whether or not information should remain secret, there is an incentive to expose it.  Wikileaks has decided what deserves to be public -- it&amp;#x27;s irrelevant if I, personally, agree with that judgment when I say: this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium.</text></item><item><author>kauffj</author><text>An individual holds information that is in the public good to be released.&lt;p&gt;Said individual is threatened with significant harm by states if the information is released.&lt;p&gt;Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that.&lt;p&gt;Financial compensation shifts the balance to make dangerous humanitarian disclosures more self-interested. It means that more information that should be public becomes public.&lt;p&gt;What&amp;#x27;s wrong with that?</text></item><item><author>ohitsdom</author><text>TPP details definitely need to be in the public, but I&amp;#x27;m surprised WikiLeaks is offering a bounty. Have they done this before? Not that I can recall. And I would think offering money would change the tone of prosecuting the &amp;quot;whistle-blower&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;d be hard to claim that you are a whistle-blower when you are receiving money- that seems a lot more like standard espionage to me.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DSMan195276</author><text>I agree with you on pretty much everything. However, I think it&amp;#x27;s worth noting that Wikileaks isn&amp;#x27;t actually the one paying $100,000, in that way the title is misleading IMO.  What Wikileaks is doing is holding a funding goal of $100,000, with the funding currently around $35,000. So, while it was Wikileaks&amp;#x27; idea, ultimately it&amp;#x27;s the general public (Or, at-least, a few people who would like this to be leaked) who are offering this money as a bounty. So I wouldn&amp;#x27;t consider it exactly the same as Wikileaks just flat-out offering $100,000 - This bounty won&amp;#x27;t happen unless there are a decent amount of people which support this decision and fund it. It still does change the dynamic like you&amp;#x27;ve said though.</text></comment>
<story><title>WikiLeaks offers $100k for details of Obama’s trade deal</title><url>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2015/06/02/wikileaks-offers-100000-for-details-of-obamas-trade-deal/?hpid=z2</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jpwagner</author><text>&lt;i&gt;What&amp;#x27;s wrong with that?&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;In the past, Wikileaks has not been the moral arbiter.  If a whistleblower decides that exposing information is in the public interest, that is on them, Wikileaks provides a medium.&lt;p&gt;Here, whether or not information should remain secret, there is an incentive to expose it.  Wikileaks has decided what deserves to be public -- it&amp;#x27;s irrelevant if I, personally, agree with that judgment when I say: this makes me question Wikileaks as a trusted medium.</text></item><item><author>kauffj</author><text>An individual holds information that is in the public good to be released.&lt;p&gt;Said individual is threatened with significant harm by states if the information is released.&lt;p&gt;Only those with tremendous conscious, like Snowden or Manning, step up in the face of odds like that.&lt;p&gt;Financial compensation shifts the balance to make dangerous humanitarian disclosures more self-interested. It means that more information that should be public becomes public.&lt;p&gt;What&amp;#x27;s wrong with that?</text></item><item><author>ohitsdom</author><text>TPP details definitely need to be in the public, but I&amp;#x27;m surprised WikiLeaks is offering a bounty. Have they done this before? Not that I can recall. And I would think offering money would change the tone of prosecuting the &amp;quot;whistle-blower&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;d be hard to claim that you are a whistle-blower when you are receiving money- that seems a lot more like standard espionage to me.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jarradhope</author><text>Well, isn&amp;#x27;t the bounty is crowdfunded? So it&amp;#x27;s the public asking for this, via WikiLeaks. The press value of this move puts the issue in the media spotlight which also good for the issue in public favour, WikiLeaks using it&amp;#x27;s name makes more sense from a media perspective as opposed to &amp;quot;some random assortment of people&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;Really, the TPP should be public, shouldn&amp;#x27;t we be questioning the trust of the Governments?</text></comment>