How to Expose High-Level Corruption Without Getting in (Too Much) Trouble
I have been writing a lot about crime for over 20 years (yes, even before this site existed). I also read a lot about others who do (or did) so. I learned from their successes, mistakes, and subpar decisions. Wikileaks was one example. That site is about a month older than ours.
One thing we try to teach here (in this site) is how to blow the whistle and do so safely. It's about processes, not just technical steps. Another is, how to best protect whistleblowers (not the same as hiding them; sometimes it's obvious to particular parties who they are anyway). Finally, for publishers, what's a good approach to not get in trouble or lessen the prospect of trouble?
In the case of Wikileaks, which is a textbook example in how to expose some of the world's most powerful institutions (US military, Swiss banks and so on), there's no "safe way" to do anything because rich people don't follow the law, they exploit laws to engage in lawfare, e.g. abuse or harassment by process.
Wikileaks got subjected to this sort of thing a very long time ago, notably after Elmer had leaked highly sensitive information about really evil people. Many consider the "downfall" of Wikileaks its decision to take on US politics, military, CIA etc. But Wikileaks was already being challenged years prior to this. One thing Wikileaks tried to make difficult was finding an address to send threats to. Julian Assange spoke to the press about this one particular aspect (we shared a video concerning this matter).
In recent years some criminals (yes, arrested and everything) started doxing me or posting my home address online. Other people then used that as an excuse - saying it was already "out there" and thus OK to send threats to that address (even some letters of extortion as recently as this year).
So the one thing one can do to mitigate or reduce threat is not to make oneself easily contactable. Failing that, it's important to have (and keep) access to sound legal advice and keep communications terse. In most cases, there's no legal obligation to respond to threats and, if the threats go above and beyond what's permissible (by law), then the matter can be escalated by reporting to the relevant authorities.
The more effect (e.g. "reach") some publications have, the higher the incentive to censor/threaten the messenger. However, the goal isn't to reduce one's audience. There are sayings along the lines of, if you don't wish to be bothered, then say nothing, do nothing, be nothing. If nobody does anything about injustice, however, society ends up living like in China - passive, submissive, and voiceless.
Regarding hosting, that's a very critical point. Sites come and go, for all sorts of reasons, including business reasons. One need not even be censored or suspended if the hosting entity decides to shut down an entire operation (e.g. Mastodon instance, photo hosting services etc.), so controlling one's own platform - which isn't exactly the same as self-hosting from one's home - is highly preferable. Nothing upsets corrupt people more than information they cannot take down by contacting some third party like "Twitter", citing some false grounds, issuing threats, or even sending a bribe.
A lot of sites that once upon a time covered EPO crime (about a decade ago) are now offline, defunct, or both. Finally, always stick to the truth and insist on the truth. Don't make any apologies for publishing true information.
If attempts are made to censor something, then publicise these. Make such efforts self-deprecating and unfruitful. Sooner or later the threats will be replaced by gentler requests, which can also be discarded.
Democracy depends on free press and freedom of the press depends on being able to safely publish (and keep available) material that bad people don't want to be known to anybody. █
