Anonymous and others start leaking

[o00o]

Lawmakers Discuss Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks (3hrs)

 

http://cspan.org/Events/Lawmakers-Discuss-Constitutional-Issues-Raised-by-WikiLeaks/10737418252-1/

[kaini]

bruce sterling on cablegate:

The one grand certainty about the consumers of Cablegate is that diplomats are gonna be reading those stolen cables. Not hackers: diplomats. Hackers bore easily, and they won't be able to stand the discourse of intelligent trained professionals discussing real-life foreign affairs.

American diplomats are gonna read those stolen cables, though, because they were supposed to read them anyway, even though they didn't. Now, they've got to read them, with great care, because they might get blindsided otherwise by some wisecrack that they typed up years ago.

 

And, of course, every intelligence agency and every diplomat from every non-American agency on Earth is gonna fire up computers and pore over those things. To see what American diplomacy really thought about them, or to see if they were ignored (which is worse), and to see how the grownups ran what was basically a foreign-service news agency that the rest of us were always forbidden to see.

 

This stark fact makes them all into hackers. Yes, just like Julian. They're all indebted to Julian for this grim thing that he did, and as they sit there hunched over their keyboards, drooling over their stolen goodies, they're all, without exception, implicated in his doings. Assange is never gonna become a diplomat, but he's arranged it so that diplomats henceforth are gonna be a whole lot more like Assange. They'll behave just like him. They receive the goods just like he did, semi-surreptitiously. They may be wearing an ascot and striped pants, but they've got that hacker hunch in their necks and they're staring into the glowing screen

 

http://www.webstock.org.nz/blog/2010/the-blast-shack/

(full article currently appears to be down)

[kaini]

lol, CIA forms WTF (Wikileaks Task Force)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/cia-wikileaks-taskforce-wtf

[awepittance]

 

awesome. I am currently reading some article by CCC (Chaos Computer Club) the german guys assange was working with in the beginning. Sadly its in german but there are deep insides of why we are currently driving into a society of state security. The main point these guys have is that biometric passports etc. are not stopping terror they have the goal of protecting the state from some kind of riot caused by things like the financial crisis. They mention that people in charge for the crisis are much more scared of this scenario than you would assume etc. I am still reading it its very interesting.

 

stuff like TSA backscatter machines and patdowns are what's called security theater. it makes everyone feel safer, without any impact on statistics. so they're happy whilst their civil liberties are eroded, one by one.

 

exactly. They also mention that people where pretty much unprepared for the last leak even in the US government. that also explained the weird reactions by some on last minute. The main goal of the leaks was to increase cost of internal communication in secret state departments. It was really interesting sadly there is no translation

 

coincidentally, the CCC (chaos computer club) was in part founded by Jake Appelbaum (the guy who did the keynote speech for Wikileaks in place of Assange). I still say Appelbaum would be a better spokesperson for wikileaks.

[chaosmachine]

[youtubehd]CDWnDNo1rnI[/youtubehd]

 

great interview. better than the al jazeera one, even.

[Guest futuregirlfriend]

removed?

[chaosmachine]

that's fucked up. it was posted by the interviewer himself. i wonder why it was pulled. here's a mirror (for now...)

 

[youtubehd]RB6Ipiy27eo[/youtubehd]

[chaosmachine]

attempting to embed from msnbc.com.

 

[awepittance]

anybody see that hilarious Maddow live special last night? She repeatedly attempted to knock down Assange and jab him in a an ad hominem fashion but she never once engaged in a legitmate rational argument as to why Wikileaks was bad. I had already fallen off my chair once when she said Obama has completed 85% of his promises in Term 1, then Michael Moore came on, she didn't disagree with him or rebut anything he said about Assange. She even asked him about paying his bail, etc.

at the end of the interview she said ' thank you for coming michael moore, i'm not 100% with you on everything you said, but i appreciate your insight'

luckily Moore didn't accept that passive aggressive attempt and actually cut her off mid closer and said 'wait what don't you agree with me on' she nervously and quickly explained a very half assed argument as to why wikileaks was bad, it was just funny to see her use such a bitchy and underhanded arguing tactic ( not actually disagreeing in the time allotted, but instead ending it by saying you disagree with someone but not explain why)

[lumpenprol]

good interview, very articulate. If I was a chick I'd be wet for Assange.

[pattern recognition]

good interview, very articulate. If I was a chick I'd be wet for Assange.

right, the more interviews i see, the more i like the guy. the sexual assault stuff makes me nervous, but he's on his game. the calls for violence against him by politicians and commentators are just so outrageous, i cannot believe that no one of prominence is taking up his cause and calling for an investigation into these morons. christ almighty, "illegally shoot the son of a bitch"? "dead men don't leak stuff"? this is so much crazier than fiction, and it sucks that these idiots are from the country that i call home.

[awepittance]

good interview, very articulate. If I was a chick I'd be wet for Assange.

right, the more interviews i see, the more i like the guy. the sexual assault stuff makes me nervous, but he's on his game. the calls for violence against him by politicians and commentators are just so outrageous, i cannot believe that no one of prominence is taking up his cause and calling for an investigation into these morons. christ almighty, "illegally shoot the son of a bitch"? "dead men don't leak stuff"? this is so much crazier than fiction, and it sucks that these idiots are from the country that i call home.

 

 

apparently you either have to be a Muslim, or a crazy Christian targeting an abortion doctor to get in trouble for making those kind of public threats

[kaini]

assange seems to have got his composure back... he seemed a bit shook the first two days out, but he is impressively articulate in that interview.

[lumpenprol]

yeah I feel pretty alienated from the US now. It seems what he says is true, that a lot of people have lost touch with the founding principles of the country. But I have some faith in the younger generation I guess.

 

To be honest I don't think Assange started with these principles about freedom of the press etc, I think like most hackers (?) he just got a thrill from trying to uncover secret shit. His Myspace and website entries seem to back up that view, that he liked the self-image of being a dashing international "man of mystery", skirting on the very edge of the law. Nevertheless, he's doing a very good last minute defense of himself on freedom of speech grounds. I think in all of these interviews he should just pause at some point and list off all the things that wikileaks has uncovered that justify his (potentially illegal?) actions. If he wants to be seen as an investigative journo and not a "digital terrorist", he needs to remind people what PUBLIC GOOD his leaks have served. Like most people, until that post a few days ago listing some of the more interesting Wikileaks revelations, I was at a loss as to whether anything useful had been uncovered.

[pattern recognition]

 

apparently you either have to be a Muslim, or a crazy Christian targeting an abortion doctor to get in trouble for making those kind of public threats

i can't think of a story in recent memory where if someone made these statements on one of the big 24-hour news channels they would not be at least suspended and more likely terminated immediately. i mean imus called a women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes" and was fired. rick sanchez called jon stewart a bigot and questioned whether or not jews can be considered a minority and was fired. where is the outrage when murder is called for? amazing.

[karmakramer]

 

apparently you either have to be a Muslim, or a crazy Christian targeting an abortion doctor to get in trouble for making those kind of public threats

i can't think of a story in recent memory where if someone made these statements on one of the big 24-hour news channels they would not be at least suspended and more likely terminated immediately. i mean imus called a women's basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hoes" and was fired. rick sanchez called jon stewart a bigot and questioned whether or not jews can be considered a minority and was fired. where is the outrage when murder is called for? amazing.

 

It really is quite amazing. The veil has been lifted and what we are seeing now is the scary truth.

[pattern recognition]

I think like most hackers (?) he just got a thrill from trying to uncover secret shit. His Myspace and website entries seem to back up that view, that he liked the self-image of being a dashing international "man of mystery", skirting on the very edge of the law.

that side of him kind of put me off wikileaks in the beginning, but the reaction in this country has really turned my stomach, i was hoping for some reasoned response to the whole thing and it's just not happening.

[lumpenprol]

In other news, Cenk Uygur is a badass name

[kaini]

I think like most hackers (?) he just got a thrill from trying to uncover secret shit. His Myspace and website entries seem to back up that view, that he liked the self-image of being a dashing international "man of mystery", skirting on the very edge of the law.

that side of him kind of put me off wikileaks in the beginning, but the reaction in this country has really turned my stomach, i was hoping for some reasoned response to the whole thing and it's just not happening.

 

i've seen a few good arguments put forward that most people who were responsible for big changes in history were kinda assholeish. makes sense - in order to make big changes, you have to be single-minded/a bit 'different', otherwise you are more open to being influenced by those around you and made more moderate. and if you're single-minded, it's natural that you rub a lot of people up the wrong way (pun totally intended).

 

of course this also applies to a lot of the people who committed genocide and similar.

and whether this is just a blip, or the start of something genuinely paradigm-changing remains to be seen.

[GORDO]

UN Statement on wikileaks:

 

http://www.cidh.oas.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=829&lID=1

 

UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection

the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression

 

Joint Statement On Wikileaks

 

 

December 21, 2010 – In light of ongoing developments related to the release of diplomatic cables by the organization Wikileaks, and the publication of information contained in those cables by mainstream news organizations, the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression see fit to recall a number of international legal principles. The rapporteurs call upon States and other relevant actors to keep these principles in mind when responding to the aforementioned developments.

 

1. The right to access information held by public authorities is a fundamental human right subject to a strict regime of exceptions. The right to access to information protects the right of every person to access public information and to know what governments are doing on their behalf. It is a right that has received particular attention from the international community, given its importance to the consolidation, functioning and preservation of democratic regimes. Without the protection of this right, it is impossible for citizens to know the truth, demand accountability and fully exercise their right to political participation. National authorities should take active steps to ensure the principle of maximum transparency, address the culture of secrecy that still prevails in many countries and increase the amount of information subject to routine disclosure.

 

2. At the same time, the right of access to information should be subject to a narrowly tailored system of exceptions to protect overriding public and private interests such as national security and the rights and security of other persons. Secrecy laws should define national security precisely and indicate clearly the criteria which should be used in determining whether or not information can be declared secret. Exceptions to access to information on national security or other grounds should apply only where there is a risk of substantial harm to the protected interest and where that harm is greater than the overall public interest in having access to the information. In accordance with international standards, information regarding human rights violations should not be considered secret or classified.

 

3. Public authorities and their staff bear sole responsibility for protecting the confidentiality of legitimately classified information under their control. Other individuals, including journalists, media workers and civil society representatives, who receive and disseminate classified information because they believe it is in the public interest, should not be subject to liability unless they committed fraud or another crime to obtain the information. In addition, government "whistleblowers" releasing information on violations of the law, on wrongdoing by public bodies, on a serious threat to health, safety or the environment, or on a breach of human rights or humanitarian law should be protected against legal, administrative or employment-related sanctions if they act in good faith. Any attempt to impose subsequent liability on those who disseminate classified information should be grounded in previously established laws enforced by impartial and independent legal systems with full respect for due process guarantees, including the right to appeal.

 

4. Direct or indirect government interference in or pressure exerted upon any expression or information transmitted through any means of oral, written, artistic, visual or electronic communication must be prohibited by law when it is aimed at influencing content. Such illegitimate interference includes politically motivated legal cases brought against journalists and independent media, and blocking of websites and web domains on political grounds. Calls by public officials for illegitimate retributive action are not acceptable.

 

5. Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior censorship and cannot be justified. Corporations that provide Internet services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without arbitrary interference.

 

6. Self-regulatory mechanisms for journalists have played an important role in fostering greater awareness about how to report on and address difficult and controversial subjects. Special journalistic responsibility is called for when reporting information from confidential sources that may affect valuable interests such as fundamental rights or the security of other persons. Ethical codes for journalists should therefore provide for an evaluation of the public interest in obtaining such information. Such codes can also provide useful guidance for new forms of communication and for new media organizations, which should likewise voluntarily adopt ethical best practices to ensure that the information made available is accurate, fairly presented and does not cause substantial harm to legally protected interests such as human rights.

 

 

 

Catalina Botero Marino

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

 

 

 

Frank LaRue

UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

 

[delet...]

anybody see that hilarious Maddow live special last night? She repeatedly attempted to knock down Assange and jab him in a an ad hominem fashion but she never once engaged in a legitmate rational argument as to why Wikileaks was bad. I had already fallen off my chair once when she said Obama has completed 85% of his promises in Term 1, then Michael Moore came on, she didn't disagree with him or rebut anything he said about Assange. She even asked him about paying his bail, etc.

at the end of the interview she said ' thank you for coming michael moore, i'm not 100% with you on everything you said, but i appreciate your insight'

luckily Moore didn't accept that passive aggressive attempt and actually cut her off mid closer and said 'wait what don't you agree with me on' she nervously and quickly explained a very half assed argument as to why wikileaks was bad, it was just funny to see her use such a bitchy and underhanded arguing tactic ( not actually disagreeing in the time allotted, but instead ending it by saying you disagree with someone but not explain why)

 

yeah well, she is a war wongering suck hole so what do you expect.

[chenGOD]

Well that seems like a pretty reasonable statement by the UN.

 

1. People need to know shit.

2. Governments can declare some shit secret, but some shit should never be declared secret.

3. Your employees are responsible for keeping shit secret. Journalists and other peeps have no responsibility to keep shit secret.

4. Governments shouldn't try and prevent shit from being out there once it's out there.

5. Filtering shit is shitty. Governments and biz shouldn't do it.

6. Journalists and other peeps should be reasonable with leaking shit.

[delet...]

it's funny, even new scientist is defending wikileaks, in an editorial it was talking about the digital age eventually ushering in a democracy 2.0, lolz at that.

 

It's funny to me because in recent years ever since the carlye group bought reed publishing, the direction that new scientist has been taking was all bad.

[zazen]

Well that seems like a pretty reasonable statement by the UN.

 

1. People need to know shit.

2. Governments can declare some shit secret, but some shit should never be declared secret.

3. Your employees are responsible for keeping shit secret. Journalists and other peeps have no responsibility to keep shit secret.

4. Governments shouldn't try and prevent shit from being out there once it's out there.

5. Filtering shit is shitty. Governments and biz shouldn't do it.

6. Journalists and other peeps should be reasonable with leaking shit.

 

chenGOD for UN General Sec!

[Silent Member]

thank you #based chenGOD