What do you think?
Rate this book
The Most Dangerous Man In The World: Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ Fight for Freedom
The battle lines are drawn: freedom of speech against the control of the State. The Internet is the battle ground. In this war there will only be one winner. In The Most Dangerous Man in the World, award-winning journalist Andrew Fowler talks to Julian Assange, his inner circle, and those disaffected by him, deftly revealing the story of how a man with a turbulent childhood and brilliance for computers created a phenomenon that has disrupted the worlds of both journalism and international politics. From Assange’s early skirmishes with the “cult” of Scientology in Australia to the release of 570,000 intercepts of pager messages sent on the day of the September 11th attacks and on to the visual bombshell of the Collateral Murder video showing American soldiers firing on civilians and Reuters reporters, Fowler takes us from the founding of WikiLeaks right up to Cablegate and the threat of further leaks in 2011 that he warns could bring down a major American bank. New information based on interviews conducted with Assange reveal the possibility that he has Asperger’s syndrome; the reason U.S. soldier Bradley Manning turned to an ex-hacker to spill military secrets; and how Assange helped police remove a “how to make a bomb” book from the Internet. The mother of one of his children also talks for the first time about life with Julian when he was setting up WikiLeaks.
According to the “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange is “the most dangerous man in the world.” But just who is Julian Assange, and why is his quest for transparency and freedom of the press so dangerous in the eyes of his detractors? In a fascinating account that reads like a Tom Clancy thriller, Fowler reveals all—what it means, and why it matters. Like The Looming Tower on 9/11 or The Lords of Finance on the collapse of the US economy, The Most Dangerous Man in the World is the definitive, journalistic account of a massive global news event that’s changing the face of journalism and the way governments do business.
According to the “Pentagon Papers” whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange is “the most dangerous man in the world.” But just who is Julian Assange, and why is his quest for transparency and freedom of the press so dangerous in the eyes of his detractors? In a fascinating account that reads like a Tom Clancy thriller, Fowler reveals all—what it means, and why it matters. Like The Looming Tower on 9/11 or The Lords of Finance on the collapse of the US economy, The Most Dangerous Man in the World is the definitive, journalistic account of a massive global news event that’s changing the face of journalism and the way governments do business.
342 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2011
31 people are currently reading
164 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
September 28, 2025
sooo interesting to learn so much more about this, especially as so much is happening in terms of censorship and free speech in the US atm
May 10, 2011
This is book two of the four I queued on the basis of this list. If it is possible to draw a straight line through two data points and project across the rest, I predict that the remaining books are also shit. I will keep you posted.
Oh wait, you want to know more? Why certainly, let me oblige. Fowler has, presumably in great haste, produced a potted history of Wikileaks and its Bondian supervillian leader Julian Assange. We get a few snapshots of Assange's early life (hippy mother, he was raised on the run like John Connor), a run through the early years, and then into the Collateral Murder and Cablegate dramas.
There are two main challenges in writing about WikiLeaks. First, it's hard to see inside a secretive organization to learn what actually went on. Oh, it leaks like a sieve now there are more disgruntled associates than actual Wikileaks worker bees, but you only ever get he-said-she-saids that way. Fowler seems to have talked to the former Wikileaks people and got their side of the story, but it was never going to be easy to condense that into a single coherent picture of what happened.
The other main challenge is that his subject, Assange, is basically a dick. It comes across in the book: Assange changed his story and his position quite often depending on circumstances. I almost began to admire his flexibility--he, the ultimate entrepreneur, would do anything if doing so got him closer to his (current) goal, and would change goals as he learned from experience. But Assange was never all of Wikileaks; he built a team of supporters and helpers, and completely failed to take them on the moral and pragmatic journey of delivering Wikileaks to the world. This failure of leadership--being a visionary outside the org but hated inside--isn't a key theme of Fowler's book, but it's something I'll take away with me.
To be honest, there aren't a lot of themes of Fowler's book. He's not trying to help you understand Wikileaks, just to tell you what happened. That's a big difference. Because you can't understand Assange and Wikileaks until you understand the ethical and moral positions driving Assange. His beliefs are different from most people's, and he acts on his beliefs. He's learning, too: he became a media glory hound not just to satisfy an ego gone mad, but because he'd posted a Kenyan political leak that the press largely ignored but which cost activists their lives. He realized that simply distributing information isn't enough--people must notice and care before they'll take action on it. How does that compare to a journalist's ideals? I don't know, because Fowler didn't explore this (for me, the most interesting) aspect of Wikileaks.
In all, Fowler paints a superficial picture of what happened. He digs into the New York Times repeatedly for failing to support Wikileaks. He shows Assange's contradictions. The only person who didn't get some kind of tarring is Daniel Ellsberg, who was a source and provided a glowing front-cover endorsement of the book--he shows up repeatedly in the book glowing like an avuncular angel.
Fowler is interested in telling you what happened, not why happened. That is why I read it in under two hours, and won't be rereading it.
That's not to say I got nothing from it. Some things I learned:
* The nature of superinjunctions in the UK (total gag orders on press--can't even reveal they have a gag order). The Trafigura case in the UK was based on these, and Wikileaks played a part in breaking it.
* That the NYT is not an ideal role-model newspaper, and in its failings could see some ways in which newspapers fall short of the ideals they set themselves.
* That journalists and newspapers find it very hard to cooperate.
* That Wikipedia and Assange have lots of off-shore accounts, attempting to use the tax blind trust dodges to thwart investigations into their finances.
* That Wikileaks haven't been able to take new leaks for nearly a year, because the volunteers with the keys to the upload server have fallen out with Assange.
Oh wait, you want to know more? Why certainly, let me oblige. Fowler has, presumably in great haste, produced a potted history of Wikileaks and its Bondian supervillian leader Julian Assange. We get a few snapshots of Assange's early life (hippy mother, he was raised on the run like John Connor), a run through the early years, and then into the Collateral Murder and Cablegate dramas.
There are two main challenges in writing about WikiLeaks. First, it's hard to see inside a secretive organization to learn what actually went on. Oh, it leaks like a sieve now there are more disgruntled associates than actual Wikileaks worker bees, but you only ever get he-said-she-saids that way. Fowler seems to have talked to the former Wikileaks people and got their side of the story, but it was never going to be easy to condense that into a single coherent picture of what happened.
The other main challenge is that his subject, Assange, is basically a dick. It comes across in the book: Assange changed his story and his position quite often depending on circumstances. I almost began to admire his flexibility--he, the ultimate entrepreneur, would do anything if doing so got him closer to his (current) goal, and would change goals as he learned from experience. But Assange was never all of Wikileaks; he built a team of supporters and helpers, and completely failed to take them on the moral and pragmatic journey of delivering Wikileaks to the world. This failure of leadership--being a visionary outside the org but hated inside--isn't a key theme of Fowler's book, but it's something I'll take away with me.
To be honest, there aren't a lot of themes of Fowler's book. He's not trying to help you understand Wikileaks, just to tell you what happened. That's a big difference. Because you can't understand Assange and Wikileaks until you understand the ethical and moral positions driving Assange. His beliefs are different from most people's, and he acts on his beliefs. He's learning, too: he became a media glory hound not just to satisfy an ego gone mad, but because he'd posted a Kenyan political leak that the press largely ignored but which cost activists their lives. He realized that simply distributing information isn't enough--people must notice and care before they'll take action on it. How does that compare to a journalist's ideals? I don't know, because Fowler didn't explore this (for me, the most interesting) aspect of Wikileaks.
In all, Fowler paints a superficial picture of what happened. He digs into the New York Times repeatedly for failing to support Wikileaks. He shows Assange's contradictions. The only person who didn't get some kind of tarring is Daniel Ellsberg, who was a source and provided a glowing front-cover endorsement of the book--he shows up repeatedly in the book glowing like an avuncular angel.
Fowler is interested in telling you what happened, not why happened. That is why I read it in under two hours, and won't be rereading it.
That's not to say I got nothing from it. Some things I learned:
* The nature of superinjunctions in the UK (total gag orders on press--can't even reveal they have a gag order). The Trafigura case in the UK was based on these, and Wikileaks played a part in breaking it.
* That the NYT is not an ideal role-model newspaper, and in its failings could see some ways in which newspapers fall short of the ideals they set themselves.
* That journalists and newspapers find it very hard to cooperate.
* That Wikipedia and Assange have lots of off-shore accounts, attempting to use the tax blind trust dodges to thwart investigations into their finances.
* That Wikileaks haven't been able to take new leaks for nearly a year, because the volunteers with the keys to the upload server have fallen out with Assange.
August 22, 2012
Very interesting to read this while the battle for Julian Assange's asylum was being finalised (I must admit I was a tad disappointed that he was actually still in the Ecuador embassy when he gave his thank you speech, I was hoping he had snuck out long ago). I understand that Andrew Fowler created a television documentary regarding the same information so this book is almost a written account of the show. There is sooo much information, so many countries, so many organisations, so much back story that you couldn't possibly fit it all into less than 250 pages (not including introduction, acknowledgements, notes and index). The sexual assault charges are only touched on (pardon the pun), Fowler has included as part of the whole rather than just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Fowler is obviously passionate and extremely knowledgeable about the subject matter, however, I felt the almost non linear nature of the text made it hard to work out exactly what happened when and the reasons why and results. The background of old versus new in the world of journalism and its relationship with governments is interesting and the dynamics of that relationship is exactly what this book and Wikileaks is all about.
In the last 60 years when all sorts of interesting things were happening in the USA; Roswell, JFK and the lone gunman (not quite the title for a children's book), Marilyn, the Cuban missile crisis, Watergate, classified documents were on paper, could be blacked out, burned, destroyed so they no longer existed. In the age of digital media and the internet nothing can 'no longer exist' and unfortunately the American government hasn't quite grasped that. Just because it is classified doesn't mean it didn't happen or is justifiable. The internet is a double edged sword, take it for what it is capable of but don't cry poor when the tiger you have grabbed by the tail bites you.
Fowler is also very diplomatic in his personal judgement of Assange, his opinion waivers between brilliant genius and socially inept child who should be spared because he knows not what he does. I think this may be because apparently you want to be in Julian's inner circle and not on the outer and denouncing your main protagonist as a complete nutter would probably not endear you to him and a second interview would be unlikely.
This is a very interesting book and definitely worth a read to gather some understanding of the situation. What happens next is anyone's guess, good on Ecuador for not being scared of a bully and shame on the Australian Government for not doing more. I know Bob Carr has said recently that Australia has assisted Assange's case 60 something times in since cablegate began, but you can't help thinking of a nerd who is only popular by association asking the cool kid if they could talk and the cool kid replying 'nah'. It doesn't count as a conversation.
Fowler is obviously passionate and extremely knowledgeable about the subject matter, however, I felt the almost non linear nature of the text made it hard to work out exactly what happened when and the reasons why and results. The background of old versus new in the world of journalism and its relationship with governments is interesting and the dynamics of that relationship is exactly what this book and Wikileaks is all about.
In the last 60 years when all sorts of interesting things were happening in the USA; Roswell, JFK and the lone gunman (not quite the title for a children's book), Marilyn, the Cuban missile crisis, Watergate, classified documents were on paper, could be blacked out, burned, destroyed so they no longer existed. In the age of digital media and the internet nothing can 'no longer exist' and unfortunately the American government hasn't quite grasped that. Just because it is classified doesn't mean it didn't happen or is justifiable. The internet is a double edged sword, take it for what it is capable of but don't cry poor when the tiger you have grabbed by the tail bites you.
Fowler is also very diplomatic in his personal judgement of Assange, his opinion waivers between brilliant genius and socially inept child who should be spared because he knows not what he does. I think this may be because apparently you want to be in Julian's inner circle and not on the outer and denouncing your main protagonist as a complete nutter would probably not endear you to him and a second interview would be unlikely.
This is a very interesting book and definitely worth a read to gather some understanding of the situation. What happens next is anyone's guess, good on Ecuador for not being scared of a bully and shame on the Australian Government for not doing more. I know Bob Carr has said recently that Australia has assisted Assange's case 60 something times in since cablegate began, but you can't help thinking of a nerd who is only popular by association asking the cool kid if they could talk and the cool kid replying 'nah'. It doesn't count as a conversation.
March 20, 2012
both flattering and not, it is a crucial book to read if you want to understand not just WikiLeaks but Assange himself.
August 3, 2014
Superb.
This man is a hero, not a traitor!
This man is a hero, not a traitor!
Read
June 13, 2021This is a most difficult review to write. Julian Assange is an extremely complicated man. He had a gypsy-like upbringing in Australia filled with turbulence and a complete absence of structure in the company of his mother who was an artist and a half-brother, and was even touched by the Scientology "cult." Married several times, fathered several children, Julian is brilliant with computers, driven, self-diagnosed with Asperger's, and conducting a private war against the secrecy of big government.
The author, journalist Andrew Fowler, conducted interviews with Julian, some of his family, his associates and detractors in the crusade to develop and launch WikiLeaks, and seems to have done thorough research in presenting Assange's story. The book is about government, particularly the US government, military secrets, journalism and what freedom of the press looks like to Julian.
The rights of journalists to be able to discover the facts and publish a story versus government's need to protect some actions and limit/control what is made public is and will always be extremely difficult and dangerous. It is a relationship of never-ending conflict.
The author, journalist Andrew Fowler, conducted interviews with Julian, some of his family, his associates and detractors in the crusade to develop and launch WikiLeaks, and seems to have done thorough research in presenting Assange's story. The book is about government, particularly the US government, military secrets, journalism and what freedom of the press looks like to Julian.
The rights of journalists to be able to discover the facts and publish a story versus government's need to protect some actions and limit/control what is made public is and will always be extremely difficult and dangerous. It is a relationship of never-ending conflict.
Currently reading
November 4, 2019I haven't read much of the book. it has started off really slow and isn't getting much better. I thought i would be interesting but it is to slow for me. It more of a documentary of hid life. I'm on page 65 not much has happened all it has been talking about his life and what has been going on. it is about this guy named Julian Assange and he has this web site named Wikileaks they leak information to the public. They hack into government agencies and get information that isn't being told to the world.
August 16, 2011
I admire Wikileaks and Julian Assange for the work that they do. The trend in the past 10 years is for the government to know more and more about the people, and for the people to know less and less about the government, thanks to the ever increasing power of the surveillance/security state and the ever more blatant violations of basic constitutional rights. Wikileaks is a counter-force to that trend, and has revealed a great deal of wrong-doing, corruption, incompetence, and falsehoods on the part of our government and governments around the world.
This book is part biography of Julian Assange and part inside look at how Wikileaks has operated during the past 5 years. This book reveals the extent to which Assange's personality quirks affect the successes and failures of Wikileaks. If that were all there were to it, I would give this book a low rating. But in fact Fowler does a good job of telling the story of Wikileaks' exploits, and outlines at least the highlights of the revelations and impact of Wikileaks during the past few years.
This book is part biography of Julian Assange and part inside look at how Wikileaks has operated during the past 5 years. This book reveals the extent to which Assange's personality quirks affect the successes and failures of Wikileaks. If that were all there were to it, I would give this book a low rating. But in fact Fowler does a good job of telling the story of Wikileaks' exploits, and outlines at least the highlights of the revelations and impact of Wikileaks during the past few years.
January 6, 2017
I thought I knew Julian Assange until I read this book. I still don't and I concluded that neither do many other people. Descriptions of him range from "witty, charming, intelligent and passionate....intellectually seductive and not just to women" (p.178) to "dishevelled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy light coloured sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelt as if he hadn't bathed in days" (p.148). I must admit I, too, wondered how Assange combined his peripatetic lifestyle with hygiene but this book doesn't really shine much light on this. There is a lot of information about internet stuff which I found a bit dry and I looked forward to the next thrilling bit. However, the thrills are lost in the details. Nonetheless, it provides an adequate background to the phenomenon that is WikiLeaks and signposts many other issues including Scientology and the Melbourne cult, The Family.
April 18, 2012
I really enjoyed this book. I learned something, and it really made me think something about the Internetz. Assange was around when it was invented, and he knows a lot about it. It seems like he has made a lot of mistakes, and gotten arrested for sex in Sweden. Sweden has a lot of fascinating laws about sex! During consensual sex between adults, laws govern different parts of the conversation, like I told him to pull it out if the condom broke, the condom did break, but he told me he didn't know it, but I think he did know it, so I want to sue him for assault and battery. Or something like that. It is complicated, and I cannot tell if Assange committed a crime or not, according to this book. I enjoyed it in almost a "man who mistook his wife for a hat rack" or a "Man who loved only Math" kind of a way, Science, with a human nature story thrown in.
November 1, 2012
Another charity shop buy. I definitely wouldn't have bought this book new, as I'd been keeping an eye on Wikileaks' doings since they started - not in the same way as the FBI, so don't worry, Julian - and thought I knew enough about it not to have to read the book. Accordingly, the book was rather disappointing in that there was nothing new in it at all, all of it too recent and well covered in the news. It tells the reader a little more about Assange himself, who seems to have the usual mix of idealism and egotism that falls to those who espouse freedom very publicly, and who put their necks on the line for it, but, again, nothing new at all. If you don't know anything about the Wikileaks story, or Julian Assange, it'd be a decent enough read, though.
March 13, 2013
The story of Assange is written in a unbiased manner, describing his charming and destructively controlling behaviours.
The book explores his childhood, exploring the nomadic roots, his life in the fight for the underdog, his bravery, intelligence and confidence.
The great irony in the story of Assange is that while he was unveiling the secrets of autocratic rulers his own form of autocracy drove out many great contributors of Wikileaks. Dismantling what was once a formidable arsenal.
However, the story of both Assange and Wikileaks is not over.
The book explores his childhood, exploring the nomadic roots, his life in the fight for the underdog, his bravery, intelligence and confidence.
The great irony in the story of Assange is that while he was unveiling the secrets of autocratic rulers his own form of autocracy drove out many great contributors of Wikileaks. Dismantling what was once a formidable arsenal.
However, the story of both Assange and Wikileaks is not over.
January 12, 2016
Okay. Was fairly interesting regarding internet censorship and freedom of speech, however the author often treats the reader like they are babies when it comes to computer terminology and seems to spruce up a lot of nothing. The book was a mere couple hundred pages, did not really cover the updated saga with Julian Assange. Eh 3 star.
January 12, 2016
I gave it a star because it tried and trying deserves something, right? I really had hoped to get some kind of understanding of who Julian Assange is and be moved to respect his reasoning behind his drive to take risks for the better of all humankind but the book didn't do that. Too much detail on the mechanics and not enough on the so called humanist and truth seeker.
January 15, 2017
Boring book.
July 18, 2012
Interesting story. Shocking book.
June 21, 2013
I love J.A.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews