Wikileaks has decided Sony Pictures is worthy of its attention by releasing 30,000 documents it says were lifted from the company's servers during the infamous 2014 attack.
Wikileaks' justification for publishing the new trove is that Sony “is a member of the [Motion Picture Association of America] MPAA and a strong lobbyist on issues around internet policy, piracy, trade agreements and copyright issues.”
“The emails show the back and forth on lobbying and political efforts, not only with the MPAA but with politicians directly,” the site's notification of the trove says. There's also apparently evidence of “... connections and alignments between Sony Pictures Entertainment and the US Democratic Party” and details on “ SPE's development of its own films and collecting 'intelligence' on rival pictures, for example documents in the archive reveal the budget breakdown for Oliver Stone's rival picture Snowden, which is currently in production.”
WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief and apartment living evangelist Julian Assange says “This archive shows the inner workings of an influential multinational corporation. It is newsworthy and at the centre of a geo-political conflict.”
Just what “geo-political conflict” is involved isn't made clear, but WikiLeaks' statement mentions the “was-it-or-wasn't-it-North Korea” debate about the hack's origins and also references the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership trade treaty, which is suspected of including new and tough copyright provisions. The case against Kim Dotcom's Megaupload is also apparently discussed in emails, which have been popped into WikiLeaks' cloud here.
WikiLeaks gives itself a very wide remit: it's About page says “Our goal is to bring important news and information to the public” because “ … transparency creates a better society for all people” as “Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations.”
Is publishing correspondence between industry and government fair game under those statements? Or a big step beyond the organisation's whistleblowing roots? To the comments, readers! ®