"Welcome to HardTalk, I'm Stephen Sackur. Today on this special live edition of the show we are going to be talking to the man responsible for Solomon, the website dedicated to airing all of the world's dirty laundry; Ryan Keely, welcome to the program."

"Thank you for having me."

"So you are Solomon?"

"I am, yes."

"Why did you choose that name for your online handle?"

"Because in the Bible Solomon is the arbiter of truth."

"Is that how you see yourself? As the arbiter of truth?"

"Well I am revealing the truth."

"That's not the same as being an arbiter of truth, for example as journalists we are bound by a code of ethics that prevents us from simply publishing information as is."

"Maybe that's why people have lost so much faith in the media and in journalists."

"Your critics refer to you as, among other things, a transparency radical, would you agree with that characterization?"

"No, because I don't think that there is anything radical about providing people with the truth about what people in positions of power are really getting up to."

"You've been characterized as a radical because you apparently don't see the need to ever exercise any caution with your releases."

"If I were to start diluting the truth it would defeat the purpose of my mission."

"Are there any circumstances under which you would either publish information with redactions or refuse outright to publish information?"

"Suppose there was a possibility of loss of life?"

"That would depend on whether the value of people knowing the truth outweighed the severity of the loss of life."

"And how do you make that judgment?"

"I haven't yet been placed in the position of having to make that judgment, but if ever I am I can assure you that I will be extremely diligent about assessing the risks involved."

"Forgive me, Mr Keely, but you have been in that position before, you have on numerous occasions published data that you acquired by hacking into intelligence networks without any redactions."

"Nothing I have ever published has resulted in loss of life."

"That's not strictly true, when you published the Bogota leaks it ignited mass protests not only in Colombia but across Latin America in which people did die."

"I think you're the first person to ever criticize the decision to leak that information, I exposed billions of dollars worth of corruption and those protests produced sweeping political change across the region."

"But people did die."

"Well, you can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs."

"I find it interesting that you would be so casual about people dying."

"Interesting how?"

"Well, you are somebody who lives primarily in a digital world, I'm wondering if that's had the effect of impairing your ability to make judgments about the real world consequences of your actions."

"I am not casual about the real world consequences of anything."

"And yet you did belong to a group of hackers called The Torchbearers who made a game out of breaking into security agencies and intelligence networks; why would you join such a group if you take the real world consequences of your actions seriously?"

"I was looking for information on my father's whereabouts, I thought there might be hackers out there that had the answers I was looking for, so I set about interacting with them."

"Your father was an oil worker who went missing in Iran; were you able to find out what happened to him?"

"He was killed."

"Were you able to find out by whom and why?"

"No, I wasn't."

"So what you're saying is that the mythology that's been constructed around you is largely false, that when you get down to it you're just a boy who wanted to find his father."

"Yes, and as for the mythology around me, people are free to make whatever presumptions they wish."

"Why have you chosen to reveal yourself now? What is it about this moment in time in particular that made you decide that it was the right time to tell the world who you are?"

"I've decided to reveal my identity because I feel it's better for my security if people know who I am."

"How have you arrived at the conclusion that you're safer if people know who you are? You've broken all sorts of hacking and national security laws; now that everybody knows who you are isn't it more likely that you are going to be arrested?"

"I have only twice been public about the national security agencies that I've hacked into: when I first broke into MI6 and later when I broke into MILNET as part of The Torchbearers, in both cases the statute of limitations has lapsed, so there's no reason for me to fear the legal ramifications of what I've done."

"You may have taken steps to insulate yourself legally but I'm sure that you are well aware that if they deem you a threat they will find a way to neutralize you."

"That's why I'm choosing to reveal myself; if they were to figure out who I am it would be much easier for them to neutralize me if nobody knows who I am."

"Did you consider the possibility that they won't care that everybody knows who you are?"

"I did, which is why I've put a failsafe in place."

"What is your failsafe?"

"If anything suspicious happens to me there is a large cache of data that contains embarrassing information about the world's most powerful leaders that will be released online, so I'm quite confident they won't try anything."

"What you just described is precisely the reason why you are viewed as being so dangerous; you are effectively holding the world's leaders ransom and are warning them that if you are not left to do as you please then you will retaliate by striking at them directly with their secrets."

"I am not holding anybody ransom, I am simply letting it be known that I am not without protection."

"Why should people trust you to be in possession of such information? Possessing this information bestows upon you enormous power that you could cause a lot of damage with if you choose to abuse it."

"I can be trusted because all of the information that I have released has revealed a concerted effort to keep the truth from people, not because it's in their best interest not to know the truth but because the truth is that our leaders are far more corrupt and self-interested than we imagined."

"That trust potentially represents a danger in itself; in a recent poll conducted by the Center for Media Studies, 64% of the people polled said that they trust you more than they do the news media, so you could conceivably publish false information about somebody and because that information has come from you people would believe it and that person's life could potentially be completely ruined."

"I am not in the business of fake news, people's trust in me is my only currency, if I betray their trust I lose my currency and I can no longer hold the powerful accountable."

"There are some that have suggested that your primary motivation is not to hold people accountable and they point to the millions of dollars in donations that you've received through your website."

"I use the money that is sent to me to support myself, I only use very little because I live a very simple life, the rest of the money is used to help sources who send me information who are worried that their lives are in danger; the money is used to help get them to safety, and if you go to the website you'll see a full breakdown of our finances."

"I know you've said that you would never do anything to violate the public's trust, but can you understand why there are so many people who are deeply troubled by you and what you represent?"

"I can understand it, but the reality is that most of the criticism that I get is from people who are afraid of me and want to negatively influence people's opinions of me as a preemptive measure, it's their attempt at waging an information war against me, what they don't realize is that in information warfare there is no more powerful weapon than the truth."

"Is there anybody in particular who has used these tactics of information warfare against you?"

"Mostly conservative organizations; commentators on conservative news outlets are constantly referring to me as the greatest present threat to national security."

"Does that perhaps make you more inclined to target conservatives with your leaks?"

"I'm not politically motivated, I publish information based solely on its importance to the public."

"Yes, but your last two high profile leaks targeted Prism Capital, whose CEO, David Huntsman, has been the largest contributor to Jim Balmer's presidential campaign, given that, isn't it in fact the case that you are politically biased?"

"That is the other accusation that is always leveled against me, that I'm biased against conservatives, but it's not true, the Latin governments that fell as a result of the protests that were sparked by the Bogotá releases were all socialist governments, and that Italian politician who was helping human traffickers was a member of the Green Party, which is a far left party, so my record shows that I am in no way politically biased. The reason why conservatives spend so much time trying to convince people that I am a biased agent who is a threat to national security is to insulate their candidate Jim Balmer against any political damage he might suffer in the event of me releasing incriminating information about him."

"Does Jim Balmer have reason to be afraid that you're about to reveal some problematic information about him?"

"As a matter of fact he does."

"And what information would that be?"

"Tomorrow morning I will be posting documents and communications on the site that expose a scheme that Jim Balmer was involved in as a member of the House Armed Services Committee to secretly sell weapons to the Iranians to be used in an offensive against pro-democracy rebels in Syria, an offensive that was being led by Lt Gen Raiz Al-Sayed, the man known as the Butcher of Baghdad. I have evidence that Jim Balmer received a big pay off from the arms manufacturer who supplied those weapons and that he knew full well where they were going and what they were going to be used for."

"I'll be looking forward to seeing that, as I'm sure all of our viewers will be too; Ryan Keely, thank you for being on HardTalk."

"Thank you, Stephen."