I would be really surprised if their data wasn’t redundant-ed up the wazoo - if not by themselves, by the hundreds of gearheads in their fanclub. There’re a lot of paranoid, crypto-happy geeks out there.
That’s an Allen wench, common mistake.
Wikileaks has published an “insurance file” - basically this is a heavily encrypted file containing (apparently) some very juicy information which is freely available to download. It’s therefore sitting on countless personal hard-drives all over the world (i.e. out of reach of government agencies).
But… to date the code to access this file has not been made public, and the encryption is such that no-one will be able to open the file any time soon.
Wikileaks have said that in the event of a massive server loss, or sudden death of key personell etc, this decryption key will be released to the world, allowing access to this “megafile”.
The hope is presumably that the US govt (in particular) will be sufficiently scared about the info contained in this file that they will refrain from any massive action against Wikileaks.
It might be a huge bluff, but it’s a novel approach to data protection.
Why would Sweden want to “deal with” Wikileaks anyway? They are doing a necessary job, and doing it well. The problem is that it’s taking an outside agency to hold your government to account. Sweden should be proud that Wikileaks is based there.
I recall a surreal interview with Valerie Plame a few years back where she couldn’t directly say that she was a US spy, despite the fact that at that point she was probably the most famous such spy living, for the same reason.
Except it kinda gives “them” an incentive to make sure they kill the guy with the encryption key.
The freedom of the press is strongly protected by the Swedish constitution. It is illegal for a newspaper or other media to reveal their sources. It is illegal for anyone, even damaged parties, to even research or try to find the sources, and that includes the military and the government. Which is probably why Wikileaks likes to employ a swedish server farm.
Julian Assange is AFAIK still staying in Sweden and under investigation for sexual assault alt rape. Judging by the press reports the allegations are not that strong, or even coherent, and have been pretty badly handled by the authorities. He has been interviewed by the police but is not in custody, and is free to move around as he pleases.
Of course there is speculation about a honey trap, and CIA involvement, with no substance whatsoever that I can see.
It is a novel approach, it has been used both in litterature an on TV. 
Wasn’t there some talk about Wikileaks not officially considered “journalism” in Sweden because they never properly filled out the registration forms and such, leading to Assange getting a job as a columnist with an actual Swedish newspaper, but then having his first column postponed due to the rape scandal? Almost sounds like a conspiracy.
Hard to say what Wikileaks uses, but this can theoretically be prevented with the use of a dead-man switch. If the guy doesn’t push a button (or type in the right password or whatever) once a week or so, servers around the world can automatically publish the key for the world to see.
Of course, that just means the CIA will have to torture the keyholder, not merely assassinate him. What’s a spy story without torture?
Frredom of speech, copyright laws, defamation etc applied to the internet seems to be problematic. The way I understand it is that (IANAL) in order to be covered by the freedom of press laws you should have a registered publisher who will then take the blame (instead of the source), in case you publish something illegal. In order tp be recognized as a publisher Assange has applied for permanent residency, and work permit in Sweden, something he will hardly get if convicted of something criminal.
I think this needs clarification. The assertion as written doesn’t make sense to me.
Under what circumstances is it illegal? Do you mean it’s illegal for the media to reveal sources, or do you mean it is not legally viable for someone to demand that a source is revealed?
If I report “Today Fredrik Reinfeldt said there should be trade reform” I clearly have not committed a crime by revealing the Prime Minister as the source of the information.
If I report that “unnamed government sources indicate that trade reform is secretly being discussed”, at what point does it become illegal to say who said it? What if the person who said it is happy for me to reveal their identity?
What check or balance is there to stop a newspaper just making shit up then refusing to reveal their (non-existent) source? “Sources close to the government say that surströmming is to become a compulsory breakfast food.”
Is there an exemption for security issues? “A whistleblower revealed that security personnel intend to arrest Mr Al Qaeda at 21 Johnsson St, Stockholm, at 10.20am tomorrow.” Would that be protected?
While facetious, I am genuinely interested.
Just my WAG the key is probably held by a number of different people.
There’s probably also a form of “dead man’s switch” contained in instructions to lawyers, such that disappearance or sudden death would see the key released.
I’m not a lawyer, but if I am reading the law correctly it is actually illegal(as in you can go to prison for doing it) for the media to reveal their sources unless the sources agree to it.
It’s also illegal(again the whole go to prison thing) for government agencies to research who the source is.
Well, I would assume some government official would deny it and possibly the other newspapers would start flinging poo at the first newspaper for making shit up. You also need to keep in mind that the freedom of information is also strong here, it wouldn’t surprise me if the major newspapers got reporters doing nothing other than running around looking at documents from different government agencies.
Ultimately, without some kind of documents to back their claims, having an unidentified source make outlandish claims doesn’t offer much credibility, and it would be foolish for any newspaper that wants to be taken seriously to publish it.
There are exceptions for treason, espionage, violating confidentiality etc.
But in this particular case I’m not really sure, it would seem that this is a confidentiality issue and from what I can tell the exception only apply to the person who agreed to keep something confidential in the first place, once he hands it over to the media, the media can do whatever they want(but it would be considered unethical in this case).
Of course, like Tassvarg said, once we’re on the internet things get messy, so I haven’t got a clue if any of this actually apply to Wikileaks.