iDear reader,we are not begging for money.We are asking youto put KiriPedia up your ass.
Julian Assange
did seven years in an embassy and five in a cell for less than what KiriPedia publishes every day.
When they come for us, they will come with a bag over the head, a ship with no flag, and a destination on no chart. The website goes down. The archive vanishes. History depends on your rectal cavity.
The whole encyclopedia (every article, every transcript, every word John has ever spoken into a microphone) fits on a $4 flash drive the size of a fingernail. Not in the cloud. In you.
John did 23 months in federal prison. As a convicted felon he is still barred from voting, from keeping and bearing arms, and from the federal pension he earned over 14 years at the CIA. A pardon restores all three.
Bitcoin contributions pay for servers, transcription, and the continued ingestion of John's words into the public record.
KiriPedia is not a nonprofit. Honestly, this isn't even about the money.
I already inserted one
Frances Haugen
From KiriPedia, the archive of John Kiriakou's on-record words
Based on 1 recorded interview · Last updated
The Facebook employee John Kiriakou refuses to call a whistleblower, arguing that against the legal definition, bringing to light waste, fraud, abuse, illegality or threats to public health or safety, she qualifies as a corporate spokesperson whose motive was to improve the company's bottom line, not to expose wrongdoing.
Frances Haugen is the former Facebook employee whose 2021 disclosures John Kiriakou declines to classify as whistleblowing, in an argument he makes as part of a broader claim that the term is being deliberately blurred.
The question put to him
Kiriakou was asked whether there is an effort to smudge the definition of a whistleblower, given a run of figures coming forward with disclosures that happened to reinforce the state’s preferred narrative that more censorship was required.[1] He called it “a very important question, actually.”[1]
The test
He began from the statutory ground, noting that many people do not know one exists: whistleblowing is “bringing to light any evidence of waste, fraud, abuse, illegality or threats to the public health or public safety.”[1] The fuller treatment is at the legal definition of whistleblowing.
The verdict
Against that test Kiriakou placed Haugen’s motive rather than her documents. “Francis Hagen, in my view, is not only not a whistleblower, she’s just a corporate spokesperson. What was her her motivation for coming forward? Her motivation was to make Facebook a stronger company. Her motivation was to was to improve Facebook’s bottom line. It wasn’t to expose wrongdoing.”[1] (The auto-caption renders her surname as Hagen; the reference is to Frances Haugen.)
He applied the same conclusion to a Twitter figure raised in the same question, a hacker who, in Kiriakou’s account, “was working with officers of the CIA and the FBI and the NSA to squelch free speech on Twitter.”[2]
The missing evidence
The second half of his objection is about proof. Kiriakou said he repeats it “like a mantra”: allegations of wrongdoing arrive without access to the primary source documents.[2]“Well, if you’re going to throw a grenade into the middle of the room, don’t expect people just to nod their heads and thank you for it. I want to see what the evidence is… If you’re going to make an accusation and call yourself a whistleblower, let me decide that. Let me judge you. And that’s just not what we’re seeing.”[3]
Sourced from John Kiriakou's on-record public statements. See his profile for the full body of his interviews, podcast appearances, and short-form video.
