It looks like several companies are learning what happens when you mess with the internet – and they’re learning it the hard way. Several major companies have been hit by the collective powers of Anonymous after 4chan launched several distributed denial-of-service attacks. What many have been predicting for a long time now has finally happened: an actual war between the powers that be on one side, and the internet on the other. Update: PayPal has admitted their WikiLeaks snub came after pressure from the US government, and Datacell, which takes care of payments to Wikileaks, is threatening to sue MasterCard over Wikileaks’ account suspension. Update II: Visa.com is down due to the attack. Update III: PayPal has caved under the pressure, and will release the funds in the WikiLeaks account.
Over the past few days, several companies have blocked Wikileaks from using their services. Amazon was one of the first to do so, and while Twitter hides itself behind algorithms, it’s pretty clear they are trying to block WikiLeaks and Assange from becoming trending topics. They were joined by several other, more traditional companies the past few days.
Times are clearly a’changing, since Swiss bank PostFinance froze Julian Assange’s bank account, claiming Assange gave up false information regarding his place of residence. PayPal, too, cut off payments to WikiLeaks, citing a violation of use policy, and they were joined yesterday by MasterCard and Visa, who both also cited violation of the use policies. And I have a unicorn. While it’s impossible to prove anything, it’s hard to believe that governmental pressure has nothing to do with these moves.
Anonymous has started to fight back the best way it knows how: massive distributed denial-of-service attacks on PayPal, PostFinance, Visa, and MasterCard – and not without success. PostFinance and MasterCard have both been brought down to their knees, and while PayPal itself is still standing, the company’s blogs were taken down. They’re not just targeting commercial entities, though; the website of the Swedish prosecutors has been taken down as well.
After several first moves by the old world, 4chan’s coordinated attack is the first serious offensive blow from the internet in this war. Defensive moves were already made in the form of the creation of hundreds of Wikileaks mirrors all over the world, effectively making it impossible to take down the website. 4chan’s attacks, too, will be pretty much impossible to stop. If governments thought terrorism was hard to fight… Wait until they try to deal with the collective distributed strength of the web.
I fully support these DDoS attacks. Attacking WikiLeaks and its goals and values is pretty much an attack on everything the web stands for, and to me, these attacks feel like justice being served. There’s little else we can do, and these attacks are entirely harmless; no people are being harmed in the process – they’re just inconvenienced. I’m sure some starry-eyed believers in the system will argue that you should vote with your wallet, but while I find that attitude admirable and cute, it’s also naive.
If the old world plays dirty, so should we.
“If the old world plays dirty, so should we.”
Indeed. Morality has no place in this world. It’s all about making ourselves as bad as the people we’re fighting.
Thom, I’m dismayed by you’re lack of effort to even try to keep the moral highground on this issue.
David should’ve just offered Goliath a cup of tea, then?
I’m wondering where the news about operating systems fits in to this one… oh well. mini-slashdot here we come.
It’s interesting how reality is diverging from this alternate universe where Wikileaks apparently has a right to possess and disseminate others’ information (aka invasion of privacy) that they want.
You can’t wrap yourself in a warm cloak of freedom of information, which others that support Wikileaks, if it’s not your information in the first place.
You obviously haven’t read OSNews for the past two years, so welcome back on board!
Umm, what? It’s the United States government, they are supposed to represent us…they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us. I’m proud to be an American but that pride is fading. We (the US) cannot hold others to a standard that we ourselves will not live up to.
You missed the point of what I said. I was purely discussing the fact that information can only be “free’d” by the originating source. You can apply the same thing I said to doctor-patient or attourney-client privileges.
If someone stole your latest STD screening results and gave them to me, I hyped it up as something juicy to tell your friends and family, then released it on the ground of public health. Did I nobly free information or was I complicit in invading your privacy regardless of how important public health is?
Who gets to decide which is more valuable?
What happened is that someone took information (the “invading privacy” part) and leaked it, and people all around are saying “ohh, it’s freedom of information! see how pure the motives are!”. That’s the divergent part from reality.
As far as what the US Government should do, and if they are working for the citizens, that’s a different discussion.
If either the doctor or the patient committed a crime, and the information would be relevant to the case, then yes, that information would become available.
You can’t apply the rules of the individual to a government. We are supposed to check our government – and we can’t do that if they just label everything “secret” while waving flags around talking about terrorism a lot.
Ever heard Freedom of Information act? You do know that majority of wikileaks info will be totally open or is already. The Iraq War leak was full of documents that you could have just by asking them. Cablegate is pretty much same, except you won’t get the ugly gossip version but more political view of world. Again, please someone show me something new that Wikileaks have shown us?
And OSNews has gone to toilet nowdays. It used to be great place to find info on minor OSes and stuff. Now it’s filled with Thoms personal opinnions which, by reading what he writes, he managed to learn from local leftwing newspaper. Thom, you might be good at finding nip info on technical stuff, but you suck as reporter.
So, OSNews has gone down the toilet because the opinions presented in the article do not match your own? I love cognitive dissonance theory. You do realise you’re free to write your own article which we WILL publish, right? We’ve done so numerous times before.
Funny how people like you never take me up on that offer.
Also, I’m actually not left at all.
How about massive spying campaign on the world leaders – like their DNA! If they were spying on how some negotiations went, what confidential views someone had, that would be expected and nothing to be shamed about, but this is ridiculous!
Oh, and BTW, if WikiLeaks have not shown anything “new”, then why the smear campaign on behalf of US government? Think about it, they are panicking over something, it’s not just hot air.
Edited 2010-12-09 05:52 UTC
I would call that good espionage. Since US has to deal all countries in world, especially some shady african and middle-east countries, collecting DNA information is vital. Collecting personal information of world leaders is hardly new, they did it during cold war already.
Sigh, naive naive. You don’t think that some republican washout politican wouldn’t see this as great way to increase his points in public view? Ofc they do. Also Wikileaks have released some info they shouldn’t, like internal threat analysis.
They aren’t panicking, they are just worried that cable information would/will harm diplomacy, like it has already. There is reason why diplomatic cables are meant to be secure, they are like personal letters. They allow diplomats to share there view of country/person without using diplomatic language that would hinder the actual information.
There is a reason why diplomats are diplomats – they use diplomatic language always. Most cables are actually written quite well, just there are some “pearls” that came out of some idiots(or politicians turned “diplomats” – I personally hate talking to those). And information does not get hindered if it’s written in an objective tone, while there are quite a few cables that are written in an unprofessional manner.
is NOT what Assange is taking advantage of.
FoIA has specific procedures to follow. A formal request must be made for specific information. The government can honor that request, first redacting information sensitive to national security, or the govt can refuse, in which case a Court comes into the picture and decides the final outcome (what can be released, what can be kept “secret”) and issues a court order to that effect.
Assange hasn’t gone through those legal procedures. You know that. He’s made no formal request at all, let alone a formal request for specific information.
Hmmm… Thom. I think u hit the nail on its head.
Organisations should not be allowed to have the same rights as an individual. And especially governments should be ideally completely transparant. (Freedom of information act… sic)
And all this nonsense make this announcement truly ironic.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTYmAtawT4E6ftkR…
Not necessarily to the public. It depends on the details of the case. However IANAL.
No, I would compare this more to an employer(the people)-employee(the gov’t) relationship. Since they work for us, they have absolutely no right to privacy or a right to keep things from us. They either conform to our standards and be open and honest, or they’re fired.
I take your and Thoms’ point now.
I’m still in the process of coming to a conclusion about it all. I guess the problem I have is that people seem to see a massive criminal enterprise, but these are just diplomatic cables between two parties that don’t want a third party to know about it.
People who suspect the US Government of terrible atrocities are somehow instantly vindicated, even when no atrocities are revealed. I took a furrowed brow to that and still am coming to conclusions about it all.
It would be nice if the government would dish on other countries, but the world doesn’t work that way.
Constitutions are a little more complicated than that. I don’t know much about the States, but the relationship between the people, their representatives and the Crown (or, more generally, the state) in Britain is highly ambiguous. It is far from clear that the people have complete power over their leaders.
My guess would be that in the USA the people can legally choose who holds these powers (such as president), but do not have a clear legal freedom to dictate their actions once chosen. Assuming I’m on the right track, that is not a simple employer and employee relationship and shouldn’t be thought of as such.
If I’m not on the right track, I would argue that employees still have a right to privacy under certain sensitive circumstances. You paying someone to do something does not automatically give your the right to know how they did it and—back to Wikileaks—what confidential conversations they had with other professionals whilst doing it.
Unfortunately, that ‘fact’ is not supported by law.
The entire concept of public domain (an idea that’s about two hundred years old) is based around the idea that the government has the power to sieze ownership of IP after a period of time. In this, it is using its power of eminent domain to sieze intellectual property that it cannot trace to an owner just like it might sieze real estate that it cannot trace to an owner – clearly a case where the originating source doesn’t free. Even then, this same eminent domain power can be used by the government to arbitrarially change the date of copyright expiration (as has happened a few times in recent memory), granting copyright to or withdrawing copyright from individual owners or entire groups of owners (most notably, the various acts and laws enacted to comply with the Berne Convention, which caused entire swaths of works to come out of the public domain as far as the US was concerned).
Even before copyright expires, in the United States, there is protection of fair use – to prevent copyright law from being used as a bludgeon to stifle public discourse on current events. The personal right to fair use is not circumvented by knowledge becoming public knowledge through illegal means. In this way, a fact (Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father) might enter public knowledge and public discourse even though the primary source (Star Wars) is still copyrighted. It’d still be a crime to steal a copy of Star Wars, but I can read and write and talk about it all I like.
The exceptions you refer to are just that – exceptions. Attorney-client and doctor-patient priviledge are restrictions placed on attornies and doctors so they can perform their jobs; for better or worse, they are not the right to have personal information stay out of public knowledge. For example, if you saw me take two pills of digoxin, you’d be in your rights to blog all day long about what you saw me take and your suspicions about what diseases it implies I have, even though my doctor or attorney would not not have the right to do the same thing.
Public domain wasn’t created by governments, IP was created by governments for the sake of the artists/manufacturers. Before this occurred works could be copied freely. Therefore there is no seizure as the governments are just changing the date at which this right granted by them shall expire.
It is not a right but a privilege.
The way I see it, The Government is my employee. I’m their boss. I pay their paychecks. Without the overwhelming consent (at least in this country) of myself and people like me, they’re not to exist.
So, I’d like to know why — if I’m paying for this stuff to be produced. If I’m paying for them to produce work product, or carry out tasks, etc. Shouldn’t it also be my right to inspect the results of my employing them?
WTF?
Every citizen in the US is for lack of a better analogy a ‘voting board member’ of the government. We should all have access to whatever documents are produced, actions taken, or efforts undertaken at our expense and in our name.
This cloak and dagger government bullshit is not the way it should be.
I’m not advocating anarchy. I’m advocating the restoration of a civic-minded democracy, where the government should be deadly afraid of the populous, rather then hell-bent on subduing them.
I don’t intend to premote the skript kiddies self-identifying as “anonymous” (they are simply using a DDos pointy-clicky someone else wrote after all).
*But* (cause you knew it was coming)
Wikileaks does not seem to be in the business of breaking into systems to procure information; it was first “free’d” by an original source that had access to it. Wikileaks also seems to have done some work to redact though not remotely as much black strips as the US gov would lay on it before a FOIA request response.
Until Wikileaks starts breaking into systems, I’m going to lay that blame on the insider threat and, as applicable, administrators that didn’t lock there systems down. (Why did an analyst have access to that amount of unrelated information and why was an analyst able to duplicate and transport that information?)
Hopefully the outcome of all this is not innocent being harmed but I think the US gov’s statements are intentionally overstated. The US gov was caught with it’s dick in it’s hands not victimized.
I heartily disagree with you, jabbotts…and here is why: By exposing and releasing those Diplomatic Cables, they have become complicant in the theft of the Diplomatic Cables, and are basically guilty of receiving stolen property and being in receivership of illegally-obtained Classified documents. Open-and-shut case.
That does show fault on the part of the person who leaked those documents. Unless Wikileaks broke in and took the data; they are no more guilty than NY Times for publishing classified documents that show fault on the part of the government.
Granted, things have escalated on both sides since the instigating video leak put US gov and Wikileaks toe to toe.
The question remains though; has Wikileaks done due diligence? Did they make an honest effort to redact harmful information? Seems to me they did work with third parties to do just that and aproached the US gov several times asking them to review the redactions. In terms of publishing politicians names; they are already public figures.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll be right beside you with my pointy stick if harmful civilian outcome is linked directly back to Wikileaks choices. From the other side, do you hold your government accountable for having such information that needs to be hidden to “save face”?
There’s no such thing as “invasion of privacy” when it comes to democratic governments. They should be operating in complete transparency. The public they serve is entitled to understand how they operate. You can’t compare the wikileaks expose to someone dumpster diving to drag out information on a private citizen. Citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy, governments do not.
That said, I will agree that there is a murky area between a citizen’s right to know, versus a citizen’s need to know. Too much transparency can be a bad thing, the issue is finding the balance.
Personally, I think wikileaks has jumped the shark. They served an interestingly noble purpose at the start, but I’m not sure what noble purpose is now being served by the leak of all these US gov’t docs, particularly without providing any context to them. Now, they simply seem to be serving an agenda.
However, I’m very concerned with the implications that any sort of repercussions against wikileaks could have on the internet at large. The real issue is not that wikileaks is releasing this information, the issue is that the US had allowed this information to be released in the first place. Sure, they have the guy that did it in custody, but that doesn’t address the fact that he was able to do it in the first place. Wikileaks is complicit in spreading the information, but other than embarrassing the gov’t, have they actually broken a law? We’ve had the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Deep Throat et al. in the past, and the press was protected, why is the situation with wikileaks any different?
The real story is that a low-ranking disenfranchised soldier was able to extract and disseminate this information in the first place. That’s a serious breakdown in security policy, representing a violation of the trust the US had inherent in their diplomatic ties.
The huffing and puffing about wikileaks is a smokescreen to conceal that. The info should never have been made available, but it was. At least by having it out in the open, everyone’s cards are on the table. If the information had been made secretly available to organizations or nations with more nefarious intents, the repercussions could potentially be more serious. No way to tell.
At the end of the day, the US Gov’t is responsible for this happening, the information is now free, and fingerpointing and posturing won’t change that.
Quite, and let’s keep in mind, by looking at a reverse perspective of this issue, the White House blocked access to ACTA documents under FOIA by claiming National Security. The pendulum swings both ways.
Would you be OK with me obtaining your name and social security number and releasing it on the internet? After all, that’s simply government information, everyone has a right to see it, right?
Secondly, Assange admits to having a stolen copy of private emails of private corporations, and says he will release them as well. So the excuse that “All government information wants to be free” (which I don’t buy, nor should you, even just based on the Social Security number example I gave above) doesn’t even apply to Assange’s operation. He’ll release private info of private citizens if he feels like it.
Edited 2010-12-09 05:59 UTC
I get where you’re going and don’t disagree, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate and point out that there should really not be an issue with publishing an SSN. It is a government record and simply serves as a unique identifier and validation for US citizens to streamline processing of government services. It was never designed to be a form of strong authentication, and it’s simply bad policy that allows the SSN to be abused in this way.
If a list was published with every US citizen’s name and SSN, it might spark the gov’t to reconsider the whole concept and come up with something more secure that would prevent the private sector from utilizing it in an unsecure manner and risking personal identities.
I’m a realist, so I agree with your point, but just thought I’d throw that out there…
Except that Wikileaks Redacts information that can be harmful to innocent individuals.
Back that up please?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe…
Thanks for the answer, but I was asking for proofs of the “WL redacts” assertion. I can’t see how, with the mass of information they get their hands on, they can read, assess the potential damage and redact where if fits to do so.
Wikileaks redacts the information. They initially asked the US department of State for help to do so, but they point-blank refused, saying that nothing at all of the cables should be published. So Wikileaks sought help from some mainstream media outlets … the new York Times was one such I believe.
The fact that it takes quite some time to redact the cables is the very reason why only a small percentage of the cables have been released so far.
Edited 2010-12-09 22:06 UTC
Thank you for your many answers. Although they still don’t make the leaking of diplomatic cables acceptable to me, they provided me with more elements and a better picture of the situation. Nobody else bothered to do so.
As a side note though, I’m not surprised that the department of state didn’t help redact those documents.
Perhaps I should rephrase…
They CLAIM on their site that they redact the names of innocent individuals when applicable
Whether they do or in what capacity is another matter.
Edited 2010-12-10 10:25 UTC
Right on!
” if it’s not your information in the first place.”
Well sir, I really hate to burst your bubble. But if you are an american citizen it IS “your information”. Any information held by the United States government is the property of the people
As an american citizen, I have the right to take my information and distribute it anyway I see fit. The only retribution I should fear should be that of my fellow citizens, not that of the government
Too many people have forgotten our government are our employee’s. Not the other way around
Edited 2010-12-08 21:27 UTC
So according to this logic, US citizens (and consequently the world) should know the names of CIA agents, undercover FBI and police agents, where nuclear warheads are and how many of them there are, what weak points there are in the electricity distribution networks, etc. Why not make the nuclear codes available on simple request then?
Nobody sane would deny that Wikileaks revealing crimes or misdeeds is good. But, and this is what stalwart supporters like Thom and you don’t seem to be able to understand, there’s a line that should not be crossed. That line has been crossed with leaking that diplomatic communication… I still haven’t seen how these cables revealed a crime. Still haven’t seen how it benefits anyone. Someone, give me a concrete example.
Here’s an instance of a useless cable (for those who read French, the original is at http://www.leprogres.fr/fr/france-monde/article/4247889/WikiLeaks-i…) that tells how the president was “transitively” chasing his 9 year-old son’s rabbit. Translation is mine.
Big crime by the US government there.
That’s not realistic. Juries composed of fellow citizens like you will deem you guilty in many cases. If it’s not public knowledge, you have no right to release it unless it’s yours. If it’s public knowledge, why would you release it?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani…
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
Edited 2010-12-09 11:00 UTC
Thanks again for the info. The media have been babbling about the thing without providing examples of where and how the US actions described in the leak are crimes. Except for stealing DNA information (which I am still wondering how it cool ever be of any usefulness to that gov’t, but hey, I don’t have their devious mind), the rest of it is not a crime by the US gov. Like
“King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.” or “Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran’s nuclear program stopped by any means available.”… hardly a crime, not even by the least lenient standards.
People at Wikileaks are not the saints some have been portraying them as. I wasn’t against their actions but that diplomatic thing was too much of a weight on one side of the balance (from my point of view)
IMO the damaging one for the US is the last one.
WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-mani…
This is basically US lies for utterly greedy, selfish purposes. The US shouldn’t be playing with the ecological health of the planet all for the sake of the richest 2% of Americans to become even more insanely rich.
However, back to your point, … if the information revealed via Wikileaks is not an issue, why the furore over it?
It is, after all, the US which is making the claim that Wikileaks is out to damage the US alone. (Clearly this is not so … Wikileaks seeks to expose corruption and illegal behaviour whoever is perpetrating it.) The US is trying to find a way to bring some trumped-up charge against Assange, and extradite him to the US. The US is the party out to execute whistleblowers and suppress freedom of the press.
So, either the leaks are damaging to the US, and biased against the US, or they are not. Which is it?
Edited 2010-12-09 22:00 UTC
From a legal standpoint, it’s irrelevant how “damaging” the data is. The reason for the furor is the simple fact that a large corpus of classified documents have been compromised. Under U.S. law, this is a big deal completely on its own, and any U.S. citizen acting material support of such information release is liable for some life-wrecking criminal charges.
and if they believe they were right to release them, they should not avoid capture.
Wikileaks was founded by Assange in 2006, and it has been operating now for four years.
IMO, the US has only now moved against Wikileaks probably because there is something actually damaging to the government itself, or to a government-sponsored buisness.
http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_t…
From a “government for the people” standpoint, I don’t believe it is government concern for the interests of the US people themselves that is driving the issue.
Exclusive: Key FBI whistleblower: Had WikiLeaks existed, 9/11, Iraq war ‘could have been prevented’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/exclusive-wikileaks-benefits-pub…
Edited 2010-12-10 02:02 UTC
Sorry to fall back to restatement here, but that doesn’t really make my initial statement less true. The argument that “U.S. citizens have colluded to release classified data” forms a consistent and sufficient case, from a purely legal standpoint, for prosecution. What the DoJ’s motivation is for stepping in now (as opposed to earlier) is, honestly, an academic question. It’s possible that they simply didn’t expect WikiLeaks to actually obtain or release a significant body of classified information.
You can be forgiven for finding this hard to believe, but the DoJ doesn’t pursue Life-Wrecking Charges for their own amusement. It’s entirely possible that they simply held off prosecution until a significant and unambiguous breach of U.S. statutes had taken place – effectively, that they gave WikiLeaks (or, rather, U.S. citizens and businesses working with WikiLeaks) the benefit of the doubt for as long as possible.
Just to throw it out there, as I understand it, it’s unlikely that criminal prosecution of Julian Assange or WikiLeaks would fly. U.S. citizens working with WikiLeaks however – for example, who fund WikiLeaks, mirror it, or possess copies of the documents – are significantly more vulnerable to prosecution.
(Sorry if I’m rambling. I’m combining beer and C-SPAN.)
The deeper question to be asked here is “what if the government itself is acting ‘illegally'”? Do you think it is OK for a government to get away with reprehensible behaviour merely by stamping a “classified” rating on something?
Exactly who is the government supposed to be protecting?
I think the US constitution might have something to say about that … something about “government for the people”.
Edited 2010-12-10 02:30 UTC
What I am trying to explain here – and, apparently, I’m doing a very poor job of it – is that this really isn’t a free speech question, and there really isn’t a grand U.S. conspiracy to silence legitimate voices out of embarrassment. The simple fact is that “public prosecutors are pit-bulls,” and any U.S. citizen or company that operates in material support of WikiLeaks is committing or suborning a crime (that of illegally obtaining and distributing classified data for which they are not cleared).
However profoundly morally unsatisfying – or just boring – it may be, broader questions about what the U.S. has done right or wrong don’t actually reduce the culpability of those citizens. Federal prosecutors see a crime – meaning, strictly speaking, that they see people breaking the law – so they’re likely to prosecute the people they see committing that crime. In the eyes of a federal prosecutor, people who work with WikiLeaks are in some ways no different than people who work with the Mob, or drug traffickers: whether the information that they disclose reveals other wrongdoing on the part of the U.S. government or not is irrelevant to the fundamental legal question of whether or not those people have broken U.S. federal laws, whether or not those people are working with a criminal enterprise, and whether or not those people can (and, largely, should) be prosecuted.
If there is a deeper issue, personally, I think it’s the question of “overclassification.” Classification was never intended to protect the government from prosecution from wrongdoing, or from simple embarrassment. Theoretically, classification should only be used to protect documents on which people’s lives (or vital U.S. strategic interests) rest. But much more mundane communications are being classified. And that’s a concern. But we’re not having that conversation, because we’re being bogged down by screaming about patriotic rhetoric, free speech and Black Helicopter theories about the U.S.’s plan to rule the world.
Edited 2010-12-10 02:44 UTC
The EFF disagrees with you apparently.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-agains…
Scapegoat sounds about right.
As for prosecutors … at what point does excessive zeal on their part turn into damage? If the US had simply left the status quo alone with respect to Wikileaks, it would today be a minor source of embarrasment only. Because of the US actions regarding it, it has suddenly blown up in their faces out of all proportion, they are arresting a 16 year old dutch boy for espionage or whatever. They are making the government/themselves look utterly evil and guilty as sin.
How is that helping anyone?
Precisely. So why is the government giving themselves a massive PR black eye by hunting down and talking about killing whistleblowers, when the real problem is their own bad behavoiur and then trying to hide it via overcalssification?
The government aren’t going to win this one if they persist on their current tack. They need a new course, or they will sink.
Meanwhile other parties are having a field day at US expense:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/09/julian-assange-nobel-pe…
Edited 2010-12-10 03:28 UTC
It’s almost like you didn’t read my post at all – like you’d written your response before I even wrote my post.
It is still entirely true that U.S. actors that support WikiLeaks are breaking U.S. law, and it’s reasonable for federal prosecutors to target them. That “it is embarrassing” or “that it makes us look bad” are not necessarily compelling reasons to set aside the law.
Rule of law and enforcement of law isn’t “only when it’s convenient or looks nice,” and the point of rule of law isn’t to win an international popularity contest. The government “wins this” if rule of law is maintained and justice according to the legal system is reasonably achieved, regardless of what you, I or the EFF thinks.
I return too “heated rhetoric and histrionics have destroyed any change for a rational discussion on the subject.” And dragging the EFF into the discussion, repeatedly rambling about U.S. “bad behavior” as tho it where pertinent to some element of this discussion and claiming that a Swedish police action is something the U.S. is doing and that’s just terrible are all examples of this. Please, please, please, realize that some people here have straight up committed federal crimes, and that federal agencies stepping in, investigating and bringing charges against someone are reasonable and appropriate, not the actions of the evil U.S. New World Order.
Whether or not the U.S. has engaged in “bad behavior” or not is wholly irrelevant to whether or not classified data was leaked. If the leaked documents where classified weapon schematics, you’d see exactly the same response: the person who leaked them would be in jail, and U.S. federal agencies would be actively trying every way the could to bring charges against the overseas actor who distributed them to the public. This is just not about U.S. misdeeds and U.S. embarrassment; it’s about several parties committing a federal crime in full public view, and then expecting to escape any prosecution because A) they’re on the INTERNET, and B) public opinion is with them. Neither of which are compelling legal defenses.
Edit: minor addendum. “The Government” is not talking about hunting down Assange. The Government is talking about prosecuting the private whose name escapes me, and maybe prosecuting Assange, that’s it. Mike Huckabee is talking about hunting down Assange. And he’s grand-standing when he does it. It’s highly unlikely that any agency would really try to hunt down and assassinate Assange, and Huckabee knows it. He’s a loud, simple-minded idiot playing to a base of loud, simple-minded idiots. That’s more of the “histrionics and overheated rhetoric” that I’m talking about, not to be confused with the policies that the U.S. might actually carry out.
Ragin, ragin hard. I need more beer.
Edited 2010-12-10 05:49 UTC
Be careful with that.
Uhmmm, no. Sorry you are wrong.
Information isn’t owned by anyone. Regardless of what fascist governments attempt to claim.
Information can be:
known,
shared,
learned,
taught,
protected,
seized or captured,
and many other things….
anything but owned. Non-material, Non-physical object cannot be owned. Especially in the US where we hear everyday that we have a free market capitalist system.
Try again.
Information is power. Withholding information from the population is tyranny. That is all.
Well, David was a horrible person. Decimating and enslaving other nations and killing people as a present to his father-in-law, these are not the deeds of a good man. By today’s standards he would be a war criminal. I don’t think David even tried the diplomatic approach.
First you are trollin… second had David not killed Goliath they would have been the slaves of the philistines and/or dead (undead slaves anyone?).
I mean bring back the days when you could kill ONE guy and pretty much win the war. Diplomacy doesn’t help if they other guys a) want your land b) are on a war rampage or c) are just mean.
Fact is the philistines were only there because the didn’t completely eradicate all the previous occupiers of the land… which they were supposed to have done and ended up living among them “diplomatically” you might say so look where diplomacy got them.
Meh. Redacted. No point in posting this here.
I can sum it up real easy.
How is David any different than Osama Bin Laden?
Edited 2010-12-08 17:44 UTC
@bryanv – keep your religious beliefs out of this.
There’s nothing worse than a religiously-zealotous TROLL!
Go find another bridge!
This thread’s political enough as it is – let’s keep religion out of, okay?
I never stated what my religious beliefs are.
I merely pointed out that zionist religions (as a whole) have no issue glorifying the actions of David, while at the same time the large majority of individuals who praise his efforts condemn the efforts of modern individuals whom act and behave much as David did.
I am firmly planted in my own faith, which is one of the faiths I’m speaking of.
Most people, for whatever reason, do not realize how hypocritical they are of modern day conflicts, while praising the exact same tactics used in history.
My only conclusion to this, is that more often than not, the zionist religions of today ignore the history and ‘boring’ parts of their holy texts and have some seriously thick rose-colored glasses with which they view the past. This confuses me.
These same people shill at the thought of modern ‘clean’ warfare fueled by the very same motives as most of todays conflicts praise the deeds of the horrifyingly grotesque methods of mass slaughter in the history books which were fought on the same pretexts as todays escalating conflicts.
Hypocrite much?
I am not criticizing any religion. I am criticizing the close-minded nature of most people, who like any good zealot fails to see the negative impacts of their own actions while condemning the exact same qualities in others.
I have no delusions of how evil I am capable of being.
Yeah, because they had to invade that patch of land.
God told us to take their land and kill them all. We are so good we left some of them alive, and how do they pay us? Sending Goliath. Philistine terrorists want us dead, so we are entitled to kill them!
You’d think after a few thousand years, they’d have learnt a lesson or two.
If morality has no place in this world, what’s the point at trying to keep the moral highground?!
It can’t be both ways.
Edited 2010-12-08 13:19 UTC
My first sentence was intended to be sarcastic.
You comment is yet another indication for me that sarcasm is a bad tool to use on the internet.
Or just that english is not always your reader native language…
I wish more people understood this. Sarcasm isn’t universal to all languages, and can be challenging to people for whom English isn’t their primary. And hey, isn’t that why we created the wink 😉
Thank you for reminding me of that.
I have an appt, but will reply to my own sarcastic messages and note that they are sarcastic later.
True, how will you fight knives and guns with a lifted finger!?
I’m dismayed by “you’re” grammar.
I’m with the internet on this.
Not sure if DDos is appropiate against MasterCard, VISA or the Swedish prosecutors office. It all seems to childish.
I only see a few place where it is perfect: EveryDNS that dropped WikiLeaks fearing DDOS attacks. Now that is a perfect target. Is the fear of DDOS attacks 1000 times bigger going to make you take them back, or are you going to admit it was political pressure, huh?
Perhaps if the massive numbers of “anonymous” where to contact there local gov representatives or publicize facts showing what these companies did they’d have a more real effect. Maybe make changes rather than temporary inconveniences.
Except… That doesn’t work. Change usually comes despite democracy – not because of it.
I have a highly skeptical view of democracy’s value as the cure-all it has been touted as over the last eighty years. Nevertheless, your opinion strikes me as too pat without explanation. What we might, in my corner of the world, call 6th Form politics. Democracy changes the entire political and media culture of a nation over time, like the sea shaping a cliff-face.
Edited 2010-12-08 20:45 UTC
My point was more that if people want change, they should do something that actually results in change. A traffic based denial of service attack only demonstrates that someone needs to better manage their network. Stop playing with .net toys, go out and work to effect change. A DDoS is not the appropriate response outside of getting media attention; they could have gotten media attention without it.
Don’t like how the government is behaving, take it up with the government.
Don’t like how a business is behaving, cancel your services from them.
DDos? It’s like stealling copyrighted content because you are an “activist” sticking it to the big company but never actually bother to send them a letter. I’m all badass; I stole your content because I didn’t agree with your pricing structure or some such thing. Your still getting sales from others and I’m actually helping get your content more widely spread to people with morals who will pay if they can’t live without.. I’m really sticking it to the man.
One Yes Men prank would have more effect than the thousands of DDos.NET skript kiddies.
The masses of “Anonymous” sending letter to companies stating “These are the products/services you offer which would benefit me however, I can not do business with you as long as you continue to business this way. To date, you have lost ##$ of my sales dollars because of how you do business”. Owners, Board of director members and investors are going to take notice when they receive many letter and consider what sales could have been this quarter.
A DDoS of packets; woopty. A DDoS of physical letters that cost the company resources and show exactly how much money they “left on the table”; ok, now we’re actually doing something.
Also, Wikileaks has lawyers doesn’t it? If a company breaks it’s contract with you, you have the option to invite them into court. Or, do what Wikileaks did and take their business elsewhere.
I should clarify, my point is not that things should be changed. It’s the ineffective method chosen for trying to make change.
Right, so screw over the millions of people that don’t give a damn about Wikileaks or Assange’s crusade, and just want to connect to the internet. Yep, let’s take the cyberterrorism up a nothch, that’ll show ’em who has the moral high ground!! And turn the world against us in the process.
* By “us”, I mean wikilieaks and their supporters, of which I am not one.
Yeah, how dare protesters make it take longer to get to the mall!
Who cares about their rights!?
EasyDNS is a free service. They weren’t worried about political pressure, they were worried about their other 500,000 users. What kind of an SLA are you expecting with a free service?
Plus they gave wikileaks enough notice that they were dropping them, they had time to switch their DNS if they wanted to.
There may be pseudo-villains here, but EasyDNS isn’t one of them.
Good point
Amen, and Amen.
I’m sure that Thom would be singing a different tune if HIS site was being DDoSed for a similar reason or context.
Nice doube-standard, Thom!
Yes, protest is bad.
Always use the methods set up by corrupt governments to deal with said governments.
-_-
If the government put pressure on these companies (like you say), do they really deserve maltreatment? You want to punish them for not standing up against the US Government? Even if they are “cowards” (for lack of a better word), does cowardice deserve punishment?
Yes, he stands on the side of freedom of speech and freedom in general. Also as a journalist, he have to fight the freedom of speech, which at least at one level Assange seems to represent at a greater degree than other policies.
Companies have a right to refuse customers that are a liability and that might bring harm to the company. We can’t all be as brave as William Wallace, shouting FREEDOM while being gutted.
That may be true in your country. But in others it’s discrimination.
In lots of countries you need a legal reason to ban a client.
I rather assumed one had a choice of whom they do business with. “sell me something or I’ll burn your house down” seems more like extortion than a customer’s right to be served. I’d think discrimination would need to be proven rather than defaulted.
It’s not cowardice, but proactive *private* justice.
Which, AFAIK, is not legal in democracies.
As no governement react saying these companies can’t do that without legal backup, it seems that we’re not living in democracies, under a State of Laws.
Not a big surprise, though.
When non legal actions are not condemed anymore by governements because they agreed which such actions, there is no more fairness in respecting laws.
Who care, then, that resistance actions are fair or not. It’s war. War is never fair.
Edited 2010-12-08 13:24 UTC
“It’s war. War is never fair.”
No.. it’s inconvenience. War is very different.
“war on drugs” (so, prolonged prohibition driving the profitability of criminal drug trafficing and wasting tax dollars imprissoning people for smoking a joint but not far more addictive substances like drinking or smoking)
“war on illegal imigration” (so, war against what the US was founded on; freedom and imigration rather than against employers who under pay and mistreat illegals)
“war on terrorism” (so, war against a technique of war; fear of fear so we can legislate away more freedoms)
“war on wikileaks” (more like “please don’t focus on how this information was able to be leaked” war against responsible governance)
I don’t see any of it as warfare followed up by land forces holding ground. It’s political BS spin.
Okay, okay.
True, tt’s not a war, just a conflict with sides spread from all other the world, each using latest technology and attack vectors to cause damage to what is considered critical by the other side.
Happy?
I’d agree that it is inconvenience. I may even stretch it to espionage. Wake me when pulling a VM from Amazon’s cluster results in death and warfare or when DDoS’ing a business network justifies an armed response. Let me know when they put troops and metal on the ground to hold Assange’s land holdings.
I mean, I don’t think this is all nothing. I just think calling it a war provides a lot more hype and spin rather than reality.
Please report what has been done using OS’s, and not opinion pieces.
There are other websites I can visit for that.
What category does this fit into?
Please don’t be upset. This site is not the place for it Thom.
Agreed. Sometimes Thom treats OSNews like a personal blog – which is annoying given he has a personal blog. However Thom knows his blog articles do not get the exposure OSNews articles get, so when he has something “important” to say, it gets promoted to OSNews.
Yes, because The New York Times is only about New York. Daring Fireball is only about fireballs with an attitude. Digg is about digging holes, and Slashdot is an interesting websites covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe. The Washington Post is a newspaper for US Postal Service employees in Washington DC, and the Seattle PI is an industry magazine for private investigators working in the greater Seattle area. Time Magazine details the progress of time all over the world, and Escapist Magazine covers various means of escaping from around the globe.
What are you trying to say? ..I’m dense and need more examples!
Tut tut, sir, that made me chuckle 😉
Maybe this site should change it’s name. Oh wait it wouldn’t get the traffic it currently needs to operate.
I found this website all those years ago because I typed “Operating System News” in Google, wait it was Yahoo on top back then.
On articles about SCO vs IBM which was about Linux, it is an okay to do a “My Take” because you could express your opinion about news as it relates to an OS.
BTW am I the only one who enjoys it when you try to put the word “unicorn” in every story, did someone dare you, or make a bet that you can’t keep it up for a year?
OSNews is our website, and we get to decide what stories we put up here. It’s always been that way. To put it bluntly: you do not get to decide what’s “okay”. We do. We’ve been doing what we do now for two years, so this isn’t a surprise. Nor was it a gradual change, since we *announced* it two years ago, in great detail.
Luckily, we live in a free world. You can decide what stories to read (you CAN skip stories, you know), and, also, you get to decide what websites to read. You can decide not to read OSNews any longer – and that’s fine with us.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452676
visa.com is down since a few minutes ago. I don’t think the DDoS attack on PayPal ever worked, if there was any btw.
If it is okay I will continue to read.
With flashblock and adblock.
Free world.
Your witty little retort in no way justifies injecting your own personal opinion into ostensibly factual reporting. Thom gibbering about Thom’s opinion – down to handing out your judgement on what people should and should not do – is not journalism.
If you want to be respected like Ars Technica or LWN, try holding yourself to the standards of actual news outlets – at least do us the favor of clearly separating your editorial opinions from the site’s factual reporting.
Isn’t it astounding how easy the Internet makes it for people to express their dissatisfaction? Well it also allows you to do things differently just as easily.
You, my man, seem like a brave lad who knows what it takes to makes a successful news site. Not only as successful as OSnews but just as successful as Ars Technica. You’re better then Thom so it should be easy.
I personally find OSnews to be just to my liking. Technology news with a stint of (technological) politics.
Edited 2010-12-08 23:53 UTC
What I can’t argue with is that you run the site and thus you (and the other editors) get to decide it’s content. However please spare us the insulting attempts to justify being off-topic. I respect you more for saying, “What I say goes.” However, it’s a bit pathetic to retort with sarcastic remarks on how, “Slashdot is an interesting websites (sic) covering the use of slashes and dots all over the globe.”
Just because it needs saying… The New York Times is a newspaper that is based in New York. Is OSNews headquarters located in a place called ‘OS’? Is that what you are sarcastically trying to tell us? Or are you making a stupid argument because you’re unable to come up with a coherent one? 😉
PS. I like OSNews (and thus, by extension, your articles). I wouldn’t try to hold you to a higher standard if I didn’t.
But it does influence OS’s
I’m not going to link it though because the leak contains a “may be” and the company has an army of lawyers and in a sense it will also be unfair because it’s not really their fault.
The leak however will do some good because the the said company will have to implement better controls or preventative measures.
Does this leak might bring some good in the os world.
Other than that journalist is required and permitted to have opinions these days.
Like it or dont like.
Edited 2010-12-08 15:22 UTC
Excuse me! And who are you to dictate what news this site reports or not? This is a issue that effects everybody worldwide and as such needs reporting on. Plus judging by the number of comments to this article, a LOT of people are very interested in what is happening and awaiting news of its final outcome. You it seems are a minority of 1 on this subject.
While I feel that what has happened to Wikileaks and Julian Assange personally is a disgrace, I’m not sure that DDOS attacks are an appropriate response. Instead, I wonder whether some of the myriad of lawyers that are circling around Assange right now should mount lawsuits against Amazon, Visa, the Swiss bank, etc. for contract violation.
Get a lot of noisy press coverage, maybe even make a few bob for Wikileaks in the process. Geoffrey Robertson has almost single handedly beaten off more governments in court than sit in the United Nations Security Council. He’s perfect for the job.
That’s justice, and it’s also not illegal.
Edited 2010-12-08 12:54 UTC
Well, it seems that after years of “good” services, the current world organization is starting to show its cracks, for better and worse.
The upcoming years promise to be quite interesting…
Why in the world would they go after the prosecutor in his sexual misconduct trial?
Because they are kids latching on to whatever “attacks” the chosen brand. A legal response would be more appropriate and effective. I’m glad that’s being suggested by a few here.
Just so we’re clear the accounts are not only closed but the money is also on hold/seized.
It’s a pretty important matter, and while the governments (and in fact, the banks behind them – it’s not the other way around, banks dictate the governments) plays that game indeed, please, find something we can do that will change something, except fighting it with any means necessary.
We’re listening.
Change bank.
But not after having the former well informed about your reason: incompatibility between their ethic behavior and yours.
Fight with your wallet.
Is to get the Murican Sheeple to do it enmasse.
They still buy things at Walmart, because its cheapest. Never mind that Walmart destroys community companies and then they pull out when all the jobs go away (due to them soaking the business up) and then people move away making.
Voting with your wallet never makes a difference. Though I do it… unless it makes a *SIGNIFICANT* dent in their income, they (the companies) don’t quite care.
Edited 2010-12-08 14:55 UTC
If only there was some extremely convenient excuse to shut it down, like thousands of people posting child pornography (and worse) every day. Oh well, that’s just crazy talk I guess. This is 4chan we’re talking about, not some sort of… hive of scum and villainy or something.
I have always been surprised 4chan has never been attacked or vilified by politicians or mainsteam press. They even invent silly metaphorical entities like Anonymous to avoid breaching the subject of 4chan.
Either everyone is trying to mentally block 4chan by refusing to acknowledge their existance, or they are really afraid of them.
First, “anonymous” isn’t an entity.
Second, I have one word for you: honeypot.
4chan is a large community, when people refer to 4chan they’re generally referring to /b/, which many of the other sites in 4chan hold in disdain.
Anonymous is a subset of /b/ users, which are an even smaller subset of 4chan users.
Vilifying 4chan for the actions of a subset of users is ironically symbolic of what Anonymous is fighting against, the censorship of the internet based on the actions of a few.
Besides, if /b/ is going to be vilified, Anonymous is relatively low on the list of reasons. There are much more disturbing things to deal with first.
I didn’t post here for ages, but this time I simply had to lock in. In couldn’t agree more with what Thom has said.
The extralegal persecution of wikilieaks is not only a full out assault on what the internet stands for, it’s also a full out assault on free speech and freedom of the press. Sadly, many old media outlets are to dumb and to complicit to notice this and rather spend their time being dismissive of those dirty hackers from wikileaks.
Concerning government pressure. The Guardian (one of the few old media outlets worth reading in this matter) reports that Paypal’s vice president all but admit that it was government pressure. “State Dept told us these were illegal activities. It was straightforward.” So if your masters tell you it’s illegal that is it? What about, you know, the rule of law, due process etc.?
Of course he’s now furiously backpedaling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-embass…
I never thought I’d say this, but: Give em hell, 4chan!
The Guardian has become largely a repository for churnalism. This is unfortunately a consequence of not being able to afford much of their own investigative journalistic articles. They therefore make themselves extra available for stuff like this Wikileaks material.
The default answer of the media each time it suffers an attack is “censorship” “freedom of the press is being denied”. This is how large economic groups behind mass media attempt to protect themselves. But now that we see a -real- attack against the freedom of the press by the largest of the governments, half of the mass media seems to actually be siding -against- WikiLeaks. So, what is the game then? I can only hope this helps the world to learn a very valuable lession.
A lot of the press hasn’t been free for years. They have for two decades now even attacked the very concept of the free press, or liberal media as it is also known, by trying to pretend it is the free press and not the state or corporate press that is biased.
“So, what is the game then?”
A while back there was a leaked document discussing how to take out an entity like Wikileaks. The primary aproach was destroying it’s credibility. Seems they’ve been working away at that.
The other question is; if Wikileaks is fully in the right.. why have it’s own staff been critical of how the organization is being managed?
When Wikileaks own staff and Cryptomb start being critical of Wikileaks; one has to take a step back and look.
Ok, since this is an opinion piece I am going to get in the brawl.
While I understand and appreciate Wikileaks trying to make the U.S. more transparent and therefore more accountable to the international community, two wrongs don’t make a right. This information has been illegally obtained and the information is PRIVATE to the U.S. Government and therefore I don’t think it’s right (morally or legally) to distribute it.
If someone took all of your personal information and started putting EVERYTHING… every comment you made about someone, every action action you’ve committed etc., chances are you’d be very upset and fighting to get all of your personal information off. Truthfully, it would be an outrage. Attacking the site holding your information hostage is your only option. What are you going to do call the ‘Internet Police’?
Finally, if Wikileaks was making information transparent from all over the world, then I *may* feel a little bit more compassion towards them. But the fact that all they do is attack the U.S. just doesn’t seem right. You can’t say you are fighting for accountability and transparency and then attack only one entity. Otherwise, they are just a bully.
Government != individual.
Government != Governments
So what would be your stance when Wikileaks publishes the weak points in the electricity distribution network of the whole USA? Or the list of CIA agents and contacts abroad?
Will you finally admit that not everything should be “transparent”?
I never said everything should be transparent. You’re just making that up to strengthen your otherwise weak argument.
Edited 2010-12-09 11:53 UTC
Fine. So why don’t you just tell where the line is for you? I’m wondering where you draw it when revealing classified diplomatic cables is fine by you, that’s all.
I’m getting sick of hearing this Apples to Oranges comparison of privacy. Like the US Government is some poor individual, (who’s private emails revealing sexual preference or some weird shit like that) is entitled to privacy.
I don’t think they should publish military tactics on a public website for all to see before they attack another non-democratic regime for personal financial gain, crying wolf about some non-existing WMD’s. Guess we’ll fall for it again when it’s time to suppress the people of Iran. Cause surely it’s up to the US to decide who get’s to have A-Bombs. Because we want someone who uses them responsibly to decide that!
It’s not really Wikileaks’ fault that the US has so much shit to reveal and so many people ready to rat their own company out. Kill the Messenger for gods sake!!! That’ll stop the corruption and whistleblowing for sure!
The government is our employee, making daily decisions on our behalf (whether we want it to or not). It cannot have secrets for us, its employer.
We are entitled to this information and that’s all there is to it.
That’s not all there is to it. See my response to a similar point earlier:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?452681
Edited 2010-12-08 21:14 UTC
That’s not true. Check all their published information, not just the most recent items.
Congrats on not doing any research or even being informed on what wikileaks has done.
Even a reasonable comment is worthless if all you do is buy into the rhetoric….
Edited 2010-12-08 15:52 UTC
You’re completely overseeing one crucial detail. The government has been democratically elected by the people. The US constitution starts with “We the people”. Democracy = Demos & Kratos = People & Power. So it’s the people who should be in charge in a democracy. Unfortunately we tend to forget.
The people have granted the government certain powers. Great powers that can easily be abused. That’s why the first amendment is so crucial. The people have to be legally protected against a government. They have to be able to voice their opinion. They have be able to scrutinize the government and it’s the press’ task to inform the people about what’s going on. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press. Also, the Judicial body has to be able independently review the law and again check the government adheres to the democratic laws, like the first amendment.
Right now, all these valuable principles are being violated. Without a court order, the government has taken down numerous Wikileaks facilities. Facilities that are crucial for a democracy. People do no longer have the right or the possibility to protest against the government by donating money to opposing forces. People no longer have the right to scrutinize the government, the press no longer has the right to inform the people. All this without any court approval.
I’m not suggesting that everything the government does should be a 100% transparent in the tiniest details. There’s a tradeoff to be made, but right now that tradeoff is swinging toward the government. Wikileaks is simply trying to restore this balance.
Very insightful article: http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/
I’ll say it again
To be clear: I DO NOT AGREE WITH GOVERNMENT SECRETS. I agree with the opinion that many others shared that there should be political transparency. I just don’t agree with how the information was obtained. It’s illegal and whether you like it or not, private, material.
I wish the actions of the U.S. gov’t were revealed in some other legal manor. I know it sounds stupid, silly, and idealistic but that’s how I feel. For example, if the U.N. actually worked, I wish it would be the U.N. legally trying to uphold transparency, etc. I fear Wikileaks vigilantism. It always starts off innocently but then can grow into a bad thing. I hope not.
Thom, I understand that Gov’t != Individual. I am not trying to argue that. What I am trying to say is, What did you expect the U.S. to do to Wikileaks when all this info was released? They’re not going to just sit there, they are going to attack Wikileaks. Wikileaks ‘attacked’ first. Whether you think the U.S. is a victim or a bully, it doesn’t matter. The U.S. is going to attack back…just as ANY ONE PERSON would act if their info was ‘leaked’ out. I believe other countries would react the same way. Main Point: I don’t understand why people are so shocked at the U.S.’s approach to the release of all this information.
Secondly, I must apologize. Please excuse me, but with my short time on Wikileaks, I did not see any other information about any other country. I have not been able to access Wikileaks since the beginning of this media blitz. So I was basing my opinion of Wikileaks with what I saw there months ago. I cannot say that I browsed the entire site and consumed all of the information. I’ve only seen things there relating to the U.S. . If it’s true that Wikileaks is after the entire international community, then please excuse my comment on this.
This is nonsense. WikiLeaks didn’t do anything illegal. The person sharing the information did. He’s in custody.
So, if someone stole some software for example, and then gave it to me. It’s legal for me then to host that software for all the world to use/download, etc?
Releasing leaked documents is a free speech issue and thus protected in many countries. For example, look up the US supreme court decision on the Pentagon papers.
Why do you think that hosting stolen software is and should be comparable? Or were you just looking for a stupid analogy and shied away from a car-analogy?
Receiving Classified “Secret” documents when you are not cleared to be in posession of those documents is a crime – what part of that slipped through your mind, Ralphie?
Is it? Again, could you point to the relevant laws and the relevant case law and reconcile your opinion with for example the supreme court ruling on the Pentagon Papers?
Could you also explain why a criminal enterprise like the New York Times, that frequently publishes secret information, has not been shut down yet?
Indeed, look up the Pentagon papers. I’ll even give you a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
and a quote:
“Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. “
And your point is?
That the case law specifically dealing with the Pentagon papers actually supports my view, as quoted. I even made it bold for you!?
As I didn’t talk to you, could you enlighten me as to what you view is and how what you made bold does in any way negate what I said? Because that’s what you think, isn’t it?
You miss an important point in your analogy:
… stole some “100% public funded” software…
Why do you assume “the public” would want that software published freely to everyone?
Lets say the government of Nauru published some software we’ll call it World of Warcraft. Would a majority of it’s people want to charge for it, or open it’s source?
True.
In democracy, in the end, it’s always up to the people.
But how could he do such choice if the existence itself of this software is hidden by his own government, which people pay too to works for them (theorically)?!
What happend when – always justified for your own *security* – your choice, your weight in the nation decision process, is stolen by your government (and the next, the next after him, etc) ?
Talk about stolen stuffs…
The “software” isn’t hidden, I know we have classified documents. I also know not all of the “board members” are loyal, so do most other “board members.” Which is why we don’t let everyone even on “the board” know everything w/o some process. Like the freedom of information act, which isn’t going to hand over all of our secrets carte blanche to everyone.
Well I see Wikileaks as a pimp. Pimping is illegal in most countries.
o_O
It’s more akin to a hooker walking up to you, and offering a free bj, then telling everyone they gave you a free bj, then getting arrested.
It’s not illegal to get a free bj.
This is in fact not true. Under U.S. law, knowingly receiving classified documents for which you are not cleared, possessing classified documents for which you are not cleared, and distributing classified documents for which you are not cleared to parties that are not cleared are all crimes. Any one of which can get you prosecuted for treason. Whether you believe it’s moral or not – which is debatable, certainly – handling classified material for which you are not cleared is unambiguously a serious federal crime, with grave consequences.
Now, Assange isn’t a U.S. citizen, and I really don’t know how these laws would affect him (international legal relations are extremely complex). However, a strong legal case can be made that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is acting in support of treason, and thus would potentially be liable.
Now, the ethics of this particular situation are up for discussion — and highly subjective. But certain aspects of the legal situation are crystal clear.
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:28 UTC
Indeed. One of the aspects of the legal situation that is utterly crystal clear is that US laws about treason do not apply to Julian Assange, because he is not a US citizen.
Another aspect of the situation that is crystal clear is that any U.S. entity that operates in support of Assange (i.e. provides hosting or funding) is not acting in support of treason, because Assange himself cannot be guilty of treason.
Also another aspect of the situation that is perfectly clear is that if the US has requested help from other sovereign nations in its various military endeavours, during which non-US military personnel have been killed in action, and then it transpires that the US has lied about those selfsame military operations to the people of other nations (think WMD), then the US government itself is guilty of murder, and should be brought to justice. [/q]
You are correct about treason, but espionage is different. Many countries have espionage laws and might be willing to extradite someone who violates them.
My bold. God, I love OSNews amature-hour universe-the-way-I-wish-it-was comments. Tital 18, quoted elsewhere, specifically states that if you operate in support of another party who attains and distributes classified data without clearance, you can be prosecuted for the offense in full measure. Note that it does not require that the other party be charged with anything, convicted of anything, or even be a U.S. citizen.
Towards the end of http://www.osnews.com/permalink?452778 , specifically:
Edit: cleaned up the quote blocks a bit.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:47 UTC
Does this reasoning also apply to US press, such as the New York Times, who also published Wikileaks material?
If not, why not?
Read more on this theme here:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/from_jefferson_to_assange_20101…
Also, if U.S. organizations are to be held accountable, since foreign nationals have been killed in the name of U.S. government lies, why should the U.S. governement also not be held accountable?
from the link above:
Edited 2010-12-09 01:01 UTC
Ask the DoJ. It’s remotely possible they could make a case, but it’s not likely that they’d try. IANAL, but I doubt that just covering the story (or even commenting on some of the leaked information) would rise to the level of being party to the conspiracy.
An interesting question, if also a loaded question. As I recall, around the time of the last election, there where some voices calling for criminal investigations against Bush administration personnel for a variety of possible crimes rising out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I believe president Obama opted not to pursue such prosecutions, as a gesture of reconciliation to the far right. As to why international courts have not begun prosecutions… well, ask Geneva.
On a tangent, I’m a little bemused by how often you and I end up arguing, given that – and this might surprise you – our views in general tend to line up fairly closely.
Edited 2010-12-09 01:12 UTC
That was nice of him</sarcasm>. Now, what about just recompense to the foreign nationals (and their families) who were killed as a direct result of U.S. lies such as WMD and the various shenannigans exposed via (not by) Wikileaks?
I’m “difficult”.
Edited 2010-12-09 01:30 UTC
Wrong. You forgot to add something like “and he does not live there.”, which, now that I’m writing this, appears insufficient to covers all cases of people being judged in the US: I saw a documentary yesterday about the Nairobi bombing in 1998 and they said one of the terrorist has been judged in the US. So no, being a US citizen is not a complete requirement.
It would be a requirement if the US was just, rather than corrupt.
Opinion from an American whistleblower:
http://www.ellsberg.net/archive/public-accuracy-press-release
Comment from British justice:
Assange may be released
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/assange-may-be-r…
Edited 2010-12-09 12:10 UTC
A bombing is a wholly different crime and type of crime.
I’m not saying either side of this argument is correct; I’m just saying this particular point is moot.
Why was this modded down? You can hardly claim anyone speaking on this subject isn’t a little flaimbaity, just by its nature, but that’s no excuse to mod down topical, articulate statements of opinion.
Down mod != disagreement. It’s what you do to bad actors who are putting up stuff that you think others should not read.
With that said I’d like to now respond to one of the poster’s points:
Welcome to the future. Facebook is already doing this to the extent possible. It is more true than ever that if you don’t want something to be a matter of public record, keep it to yourself. Is this right? Perhaps not. Should it be legal? There are many reasons to say “No!” But, there will always be people who care little for what is technically fair and legal and who have the capacity to look up dirt on you. If there’s anything to find about you that’s negative someone will find it and will react to you based on it. Governments should be less exempt than most, not more.
Welcome to the tip of the iceberg.
As has been often said of late, welcome to OSNews.
I’ve been on osnews for five years. It wasn’t always this bad. It shouldn’t be this way. I think it’s necessary to speak up now and then to remind incensed readers that modding should be dispassionate.
I substantially agree with you. I haven’t been on OSNews for five years: I’ve been here for between two and three (I was a reader before I was a forum member), and even in that short time, I’ve noticed a significant change in tone. And I’ve commented on it.
Sadly, I think the people who have a problem with that change in tone are vastly outnumbered by the people who either don’t care about it, or actively prefer it.
As you said yourself, two wrongs don’t make a right!
One can’t fight what he consider illegal actions by using illegal means to stop them. Not without revealing his hypocricity and unilateral morality “values”.
But that what’s currently happening, right now: bank account are closed *and* seized without any due process, sites are closed or censored under pressure, and so on. It’s not rule of law, just power.
The masks are falling, causing far more damage than what this finally disappointing cablegate will ever have done alone…
And the irony is that they do it because they don’t want people to see how they look behind their masks!
They are. They have leaked several other secret informations concerning other countries. Like, for instance, a list of blacklisted sites under an Australian bill against pedopornography (from memory), in which several were clearly blacklisted by mistake, or illegaly. But without the leak, main stream will have never know about overblocked sites, or the censoreship power such bill can be.
That’s not a fact, just your opinion, mostly because you didn’t follow WikiLeaks history since long enough…
I’m surprised and disappointed that McCarthyism hasn’t been brought up yet.
I’ve seen different things in the press along the lines of, “You are either with the US Govt or with WikiLeaks.”
True – two wrongs don’t make a right. But let’s start with the first wrong. The US Govt doing illegal things that they don’t want anyone to know about.
True not everything that is being leaked is illegal. OK then, how about immoral.
I’m not talking about what it takes to fight against Osoma bin Ladin and right wing muslim nut cases. They are no better than right wing “christians”. I put “christians” in quotes because I truly don’t believe they are doing this anymore for Christ than Osama is doing this for Alah. Both of doing this to try to gain control over other peoples’ lives.
Sounds like McCarthyism to me.
The attacks seems to be very weak and unprofessional. The organizers are relying on some people voluntarily running a .net program on their PCs. Not really a mass attack, no distributed dos, no large botnets consisting in at least tens of thousands of computers. It’s like trying to demolish a 50 floor building with a hammer or like trying to cut a forest using a swiss knife.
They took down easy a small bank network and a small swedish site but trying to dos amazon’s and paypal’s asses down, that’s entirely another story. I don’t know if it’s doable, but to have a decent chance of success you need to use very large botnets, hundreds of thousands of zombies.
They brought down MasterCard.
Priceless
+1
No the attacks are effective… and organized. You just log in with loic and the irc topic or one of the ops take controll of loic on your pc.
And “.net program” works on linux over wine with .net libraries (you can install them with winetricks) very well
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3899/selection003o.png
also pandalabs has good coverage ddos:
http://pandalabs.pandasecurity.com/
You get all kinds of ineffectual people when things like this go on, but for every thousand of those who who wouldn’t know a ping of death from a phishing scam there are one or two who own a piece of a botnet. And, for some of these people, the internet is srsbzns, and wikileaks is part of the internet.
Don’t be fooled in to thinking that the people who post cats on 4chan are the same ones making these headlines. Think of 4chan as more of a cheering squad: You can’t be blamed for supporting the DDoSers if no one knows your name.
Just to clarify some points about the swiss “bank” that closed Assange’s account.
First, this “bank” – Postfinance – is not an actual bank. They don’t have a bank license[1], so they don’t really have the same rules regarding bank secrecy and stuff.
Now, they closed his account because – unlike real swiss banks – PostFinance REQUIRES its clients to have an address in Switzerland. And Assange gave a false address. They probably just checked it because he suddenly became famous though.
But still, he gave false information. He should have opened an account at UBS or Credit Suisse who are swiss banks that really don’t care who has an account (we – unfortunately – have a lot of accounts belonging to dictators and other criminals here in Switzerland).
Not to say that Assange is a criminal, but they don’t ask for an address when you open an account there.
I support wikileaks, but I get really pissed of at mainstream media that just report loads of incomplete/false informations.
[1] http://www.post.ch/en/post-startseite/post-konzern/post-publikation…
Afaik he didn’t give a false address, but the address of one of his lawyers, as he is or was at the time trying to become a resident in Switzerland.
Do not agree with the story, nor do I condone the DDOS. Thom’s been sucked up by the conspiracy bug.
And what conspiracy would that be? Did I miss something?
I’ve gone back and forth on whether or not I thought Wikileaks has been going too far with some of their leaks. Most of what they’ve published is stuff governments shouldn’t hide or should be ashamed of doing, and it’s time for us to take the excess power away from the “government” and give it back to the people, in other words forcing governments to once again represent the interests of the people. There have been a few things that gave me pause, however. For instance, leaking private communication from diplomats that could actually put their lives in danger. Taking action that you know will put people’s lives in danger is bad. And perhaps some of those individuals who have been put in danger should be able to take a few whacks at Assange with a stick.
That being said, the government reactions to wikileaks has shown me just how important it is to keep up the fight for freedom. What happened to free speech? Our governments are supposed to work in favor of securing our rights in this area! Now, if you have a security clearance, and therefore have given the government a guarantee that you will not leak information, then breaking that is treason. Even then, there are some things that are so bad that it’s morally obligatory to commit treason for the good of everyone else. However, if you’re a private citizen, and you broke no laws obtaining classified information, then it’s purely a matter of free speech for you to provide that information to others. Wikileaks walks a fine line, I think, but lies and calls for assassination are NOT the appropriate response. Governments should take this as a signal to (a) behave better, (b) have fewer secrets, and (c) tighten security. It’s their own fault that the information is both available and damning.
I’m very glad that this attack happened. It was time someone stood up for what’s right!
Wow – Let’s see if I get this right:
WikiLeaks illegally obtains documents from people who have “Secret” clearance to copy those documents and commit Espionage against their own country, and therefore is guilty of being in posession of stolen property and possible collusion with said perpetrator of Espionage?
Screw you, and screw your screwed-up logic, Thom. You would not be supporting DDoS activities if it were against this site, so why float the banner of having a double-standard?
If this is your line of thinking, then by that same logic you should be able to welcome someone attacking this site in the same manner that the snot-dripping punks at 4Chan for things posted in the similar vein as your post: the door swings both ways. If you agree with committing an illegal act, and vocally support it here, you ARE as guilty as those that perpetrated the illegal act.
Maybe it’s time for someone to train LOIC on 4Chan?
Way to go, Einstein!
–Freshe Bakked
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, partner. Are you opposed to the basic principles of a free society? You just stood up for thought crimes, there, and for prosecution for political views. I think you’ll find very few on your side.
Here’s an experiment: “I think Timothy McVeigh was right and someone needs to pick up where he left off!” – Should I now be arrested for terrorism and mass murder? If your answer is “Yes” you may feel free to get out.
This happens all the time for no reason at all, and less often for some reason. They’re used to constant attacks.
Edited 2010-12-08 18:15 UTC
Yes, let’s see.
Could you please cite the relevant national and international laws that make it illegal for a new organization to be in possession of these documents?
Could you also please reconcile your assertion with the relevant case law, for example the supreme court decision about the Pentagon Papers?
That’s what whistleblowers do, isn’t it? So are you arguing that whistleblowers in general should be regarded as bad?
Also, just a reminder, but afaik you are innocent until proven guilty, and nobody has been found guilty in this case yet.
Finally, even if someone will be found guilty, that doesn’t mean wikileaks is guilty of anything. Look at the Pentagon Papers case again.
This is really getting silly, but again, take a look at the law before you make these assertions.
About the perpetrator, nobody has been found guilty of anything so far, no matter how hard you try to ignore this fact.
Or do you really want to argue that this is simply a case of property laws and property laws should trump free speech?
The US Government – and all Governments, if you like – have the inate right to protect against the public disclosure of sensitive or “Secret” information. The UK has a “Official Secrets Act”, as well as many other countries around the world. The US does *not* at this time have such an Act or codified law on the books at this time, due to leftist / liberal members of the US Congress who have repeatedly killed such bills, but this does not mean that the theft and acquisition of items classified as “Secret” is legal…or RIGHT.
Now, let’s turn the tables: show me anywhere in US Law that says that it is perfectly legal to steal sensitive or “Secret” information or documentation, or to be in legal posession of sensitive or “Secret” information when you have no such clearance.
Erm, that’s massively idiotic. You cannot find a law that WikiLeaks has broken, so you ask us to find a law that which makes WikiLeaks’ work legal?
Unlawyered.
Thom – Being illegally in posession of “Secret” and classified material *IS* prosecutable:
http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/translatersent051908….
That’s just for starters.
Another legal fail. You clearly didn’t read the document you just linked to.
The person in the link was found guilty of illegally obtaining documents.
This is not what WikiLeaks is doing. The person in your link is akin to Manning – not to WikiLeaks.
Lawyered.
18 U.S.C. I.37 § 793
§ 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(h)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State†includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
Your “Lawyered” comment is bullcrap – whom ever is your lawyer must really be a good one if he can’t simplify the Espionage Act for you.
You Fail.
18 U.S.C. I.37 § 798
§ 798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information†means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,†“cipher,†and “cryptographic system†include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government†includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence†means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person†means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
(c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the furnishing, upon lawful demand, of information to any regularly constituted committee of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States of America, or joint committee thereof.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation; and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1).
Do you want more, Thom?
first document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note , here on the net we deal in bits until they amend the law to relate to reality good luck trying to get your bits “returned”
second For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States
last i checked the net wasnt any of the above and as far as US law goes it isnt applicable to anyone who isnt a) a us citizen or resident b) a US based company/entity
Both arguments are spurious. “The ‘net” is not a location. It is composed of real, physical entities – corporations and individuals – who are in specific jurasdictions and whose actions are governed by local laws.
Second, your pithy argument that the leaked arguments are “just bits” doesn’t hold legal weight. Pretty much all parties that I am aware of – certainly the Department of Defense – interpret digital documents as qualifying. You’d be extremely hard-pressed to convince a court of law that a digital document, since it’s just bits, did not qualify under Title 18.
Thanks for bringing some facts to the table.
Wikileaks fans are so self-righteous as to not care about the law, they think that the law is beneath them, their cause so righteous.
Yet these same folks would raise hell if some Social Security Agent happened to accidentally release their Social Security Numbers to the world. I guess some government info wants to be free, but some does not.
Actually, it was the US state department that wanted to get credit card numbers and even DNA details of UN members.
Wikileaks: Hillary Clinton ordered U.S. diplomats to spy and collect DNA, credit card, password data on UN leaders
http://sweetandsoursocialism.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks-hil…
Wikileaks: State Dept. Ordered Staff to Illegally Obtain DNA from UN Diplomats
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/11/wikileaks-state-dept-ordere…
How would this be legal?
And, just to bring a little more balance to this story, here are some other interesting developments:
WikiLeaks founder praised by Pentagon Papers exposer
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9200459/WikiLeaks_founder_pr…
Caving to pressure from supporters, PayPal releases WikiLeaks’ funds
http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/09/caving-to-pressure-from-supp…
And the Congressional Research Service is also bullcrap?
“This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it.”
http://opencrs.com/document/R41404/
Ralph – the leaked Diplomatic Cables were obtained through a UNIFORMED MEMBER OF THE US ARMED FORCES…or, did you conveiniently forget that fact?
Pfc. Bradley E. Manning SHOULD HANG!
This is just speculation on my part, but wouldn’t it be interesting if Manning joined the US Army JUST TO DO THIS!?
Manning and Assange in collusion? Welcome to Leavenworth, boys!!
I hope we have the guts to grant him political asylum. I consider him to be a hero. He had the guts to stand up for what’s right, putting his own life in danger. You could hope you have half the balls he has.
Huh? Didn’t I just link to a report by the Congressional Research Service that explicitly made the point that there’s a difference between people who have an obligation to keep secrets leaking these secrets and media organizations that publish them?
I think he should be awarded a medal. But that’s obviously not for us to decide, but for the courts, which probably is a good thing.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think he should hang for giving you information about what your government has been up to?
Your copy from the CRS was somewhat taken out-of-context, so I’ll just ignore it. Manning took a SECRECY OATH in order to have sufficient security clearance to STEAL what he did. Are you that dense that you can’t GET IT?
90% of what was in the Diplomatic Cables were assessments by The State Dept. on the stability of other nations, and special ops info that PUT AT RISK AMERICAN LIVES IN WAR!
Your ignorance is barely above Thoms. Get a clue. If you’re not an American, clean your own government up before you decide to pass your oh-so-mighty judgement of ours. Chances are that any freedom or democracy that you enjoy was due to something that happened in July, 1776 – DEMOCRACY! If you aren’t an American and that singular event hadn’t happened, chances are that you would be living in either a repressive Monarchy or a Dictatorship.
Edited 2010-12-08 20:27 UTC
The US’ variant of democracy is based on the Roman Republic, Athenian Democracy, and the Republic of the Seven Provinces.
Doesn’t even know his own history. I guess that explains why the US is going down the crapper. Too bad for 99% of Americans who are generally good people.
Really? That’s all you got? I quote from the summery of a CRS report on the subject and you simply state it’s somewhat out of context and ignore it. You don’t even have the courtesy to state how it is out of context or how other parts of the report that I linked to contradict the part I quoted.
Really, this is beyond pathetic.
Well, he took an oath and he probably broke it. I think he had good reasons to break it and should be commended for doing it. And btw., I haven’t read anything that implies he took the oath in order to “steal” the secrets.
Well, first off, not even a 1000 of the 250000 cables have been published. So how do you know what most of them consist of?
Second, not even a tiny fraction of those cables released come anywhere near your description.
Third, wikileaks not only asked the Pentagon to help them redact the cables, so that nobody would be harmed, they even redacted them though the Pentagon refused to help them.
Fourth, name one, just one instance, where a leaked cable put Americans at risk in a war.
You know what’s funny? I’m German and I think the US has done a lot more for my freedoms than “just” 1776. They literally gave us democracy after the war. So, yes, I’m thankful. But it also pains me to see how the US and people like you seem willing to throw all those freedoms the US always stood for over board.
As to cleaning up my own government. I’m all for it, but to do it we need whistleblowers, freedom of the press and organizations like wikileaks.
Edited 2010-12-08 20:45 UTC
First, Julian Assange is not a US citizen, nor is WikiLeaks a US organisation. Hence, your precious espionage act can go to hell. In other words, you still haven’t shown a single US law violated by Assange or WikiLeaks. I’ve broken US law more times than I can count – I break it almost every day – but since I’m not a US citizen (thank god), I actually didn’t break it at all.
Second, I assume this means you believe The New York Times should be prosecuted as well?
Good luck with that.
Absolutely, Thom.
We see your leftist / liberalism shining-through, Thom – and that can go to hell in a handbasket.
OSNews has now become another faggoty version of /.
Enjoy your ignorance, Thom. You’re the one who started the snide comments and can’t deal with the facts. We’ve extradited hackers before, and now we’re going to extradite Ass-ange.
Manning will hang, and Assange will be extradited.
Deal with it, son.
Freshe Bakked – out.
Edited 2010-12-08 20:09 UTC
Wait – you’re going to “extradite” Assange? You might want to look up what extradite means, kiddo.
Thanks for the laugh, kid.
If you’re talking about:
‘Failure to fulfill dual criminality – generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties.”
Espionage has been a crime in the UK since at least 1911. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/espionage-and-the-law.html
Second, what’s this about the New York Times? If we’re going back to the Pentagon papers type of argument, then see http://www.osnews.com/thread?452770
No, but, any U.S. organization that supports or works with Assange is potentially liable, see above. Materially, if Amazon had hosted WikiLeaks, or PayPal had continued to process payments to WikiLeaks, they could have been prosecuted under U.S. law.
Can’t non-US citizens be prosecuted for espionage?
I vaguely remember the story of a russian spy ring in the summer and I must confess I don’t even know where that story went. One of those people was a woman whose facebook photograph appeared in news paper front pages… for some time. Couldn’t these people be prosecuted? What if they were just residents? what happens then?
The citizenship requirement seems weird.
Espionage is different from treason.
Foreign citizens can certainly be guilty of that.
Were I found guilty of espionage, as a US citizen I could also be charged with treason.
I doubt a foreign citizen found guilty of espionage could be tried for treason.
Do you really want to give the US gov a challenge like that? They’ve been wet dreaming about any event they can twist to lay more legislation on network traffic.
… is that Wikileaks reveals the identities of the so-called ‘anonymous’.
GNU-Darwin recommends not to use PayPal until they restore Wikileaks payments.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
Julian Assange should get on his knees and thank God he’s in the UK. If one person dies from the compromised security of any leaked document he is guilty of treason and the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment.
These people who scream about freedom of information are immature morons who don’t understand what information can cost. With information in the wrong hands people can lose lives. I have friends who have spent time on the front lines.
People who say its okay to give compromising information and endanger them I have serious problems with.
The fact that osnews supports this action begs me to abandon this site, which I expected to be agnostic to this type of nonsense.
Edited 2010-12-08 18:08 UTC
Jesus, repeat after me: Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.
Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.
Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.
Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.
Julian Assange is not a US-citizen, he cannot commit treason against the United States.
Who says this? Wikileaks, who have repeatedly asked the Pentagon to help them redact the documents before they are released so that nobody is harmed?
Wikileaks, who redact the documents they release working together with irresponsible organizations like the Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde in redacting the documents?
Nice talking point (I don’t know if it’s true or not), but Assange is a citizen of Australia last I heard, and he’s released diplomatic cables between the US and Australia, so he’s committed treason against Australia, no? Or yes?
Also, Australia, New Zealand, and the US are members of ANZUS (an alliance like NATO). By undercutting the security of the US, Assange undercuts the security of ANZUS, which would be treason against Australia too. Not that Australia will charge him with treason, but might see reason to do so, depending on what he leaks.
Australia says U.S, not WikiLeaks founder, responsible for leaks
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3E6N80BW20101208?sp=true
AAAAAARGH. I stopped reading your comment the moment you said treason. He is not a US citizen so he cannot be charged with treason. The fact that you’re saying that:
A) means you don’t know what treason is.
B) You’re just repeating worthless rhetoric spewed by others.
Yes.. you’re more than welcome to go away and join other sheep who cannot formulate an original thought by themselves.
Ok first of all my original post implied being thankful he wasn’t a citizen of the US. An honest read of my original post would have recognized that. Again otherwise he could be liable for the death penalty(as I believe he should be).
Secondly, why are you calling me a sheep? The information is secret for a reason. Stealing confidential documents that aren’t his that are used for national security is a-ok? and only sheeple worry about it? What planet are you from? Someone is going to post illegal documents that will someday compromise security and have someone killed. If you can sleep at night with that, then I don’t trust you either.
And again, this kind of vigilantism really shouldn’t be part of osnews.
Had he been a US citizen it still probably would not be treason.
I called you a sheep because you’re spouting that treason nonsense.
I think you need to read the definition of treason.
Definitions of treason on the Web: a crime that undermines the offender’s government
Another definition: In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one’s sovereign or nation. …
Julian Assange is not a US citizen. Julian Assange therefore cannot commit treason against the US.
To further understand how wrong you are, you need to understand a little about Julian Assange’s actual nationality.
Read up on this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign
This military disaster is often considered to mark the birth of national consciousness in Australia. The campaign was ordered by the British and completely bungled by them, and it cost the lives of thousands.
Now try to understand this:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe…
The disastrous Gallipoli campaign was terminated due to information about it being reported in the press, despite the attempts of the British government to suppress the information. This is the very event that many people refer to as the birth of the consciousness of the Australian nation. It is hugely powerful, a rough equivalent would perhaps be the American war of independence.
Furthermore, it is all about saving the lives of thousands of Australians (had the campaign continued as the British government wanted) all through the act of disobedience to the government and the publication of information about what they were doing.
Another couple of quotes from the same article are relevant here:
Edited 2010-12-08 22:38 UTC
Are you actually reading what I wrote? I wrote that he was in the UK. I never ever ever said he was a us citizen. Why can’t you make that an honest assumption based on what I wrote? You even quoted it.
Secondly I wrote if someone dies as a result of it. An honest reading of what I wrote would’ve acknowledged it.
You disagreeing with wars is all fine and good; I’m not pro war myself. But I have friends who have been on the front lines. Exposing documents that can compromise their security really is distasteful to me. And visa and the rest of those companies are taking the moral high ground.
I think their security by putting them on the front lines without need is more distasteful, personally.
That can’t even happen in this case.
I didn’t see a single document that reported a location in the US or military target on the front lines in the contested documents.
It’s all commercial interests and companies _outside_ the USA.
All this really exposed is that the US isn’t able to even care for itself, let alone defend itself.
Here is the exact quote of what you wrote:
The fact that the US constitution makes the death penalty the punishment for treason is irrelevant … Julian Assange cannot commit treason against the US.
You also utterly ignore the fact that no-one on front lines (or anywhere else) has been harmed by the information published by Wikileaks, according to US officialdom itself.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messe…
Thom, what’s the deal? I’ve been reading this site for a LONG time, since before Eugenia came aboard. While this site used to be an awesome source of news about alternative operating systems, I find it more and more just about Thom’s opinion. Can we get back to good old fashioned OS News? If you really want to espouse your opinions try posting them on http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/ where the last post is dated in February.
Wake up, people. There is no group called “Anonymous” and there never was. This is just what the old-world media used as an identifier when they failed to understand what they were reporting on. I’m quite annoyed to see a supposedly savvy person such as Thom perpetuate this error.
There is no Anonymous organization. It has no agenda. There are no leaders. It’s not like a cell or a cult or an agency. When you speak of anonymous as a noun you are referring to ONE person, not a group. When “Anonymous” does something it isn’t a group, it is a single person. When multiple single people do something similar it isn’t “Anonymous the organization” doing something it is just a bunch of unnamed people.
When an un-named tipster calls the police and tells them where a crime will be committed, it isn’t the action of an organized crime-reporting group called Anonymous. If a hundred un-named tipsters prank-called the police with fake reports of where crimes would be committed, it isn’t the action of an organized prank-calling group called Anonymous. In both cases the callers are anonymous.
Do I make myself clear?
What and Who is “Anonymous�
http://www.thelasthope.org/media/audio/64kbps/What_and_Who_is_Anony…
Yes an unidentified entity is an “anonymous” entity. “Anonymous” is also the self chosen name for decentralized group of self-identifying individuals. It started as individuals critical of the a particular religion and has expanded.
Hah, no and no.
There is no “Anonymous” organization. There is no “Anonymous” organization. I say it twice in hopes that if nothing else you will remember this point. There are groups of people who are anonymous who talk about what “anonymous” wants and does, but these people are either (a) wannabe fakes, or (b) referring to anonymous in the singular as described in my original post. Anyone who is not an un-named person and is declaring that there is some “Anonymous” group is wrong, having no factual basis for the claim.
It did not start as individuals critical of scientology. Individuals, who were not named and tried to remain un-named, who were critical of scientology did a number of things, such as DDoS attacks, to express that. There was no group at that time, nor before that time.
However, people who are un-named and therefore anonymous did many things before the scientology stuff. It is the scientology incidents which drew enough mainstream attention that clueless reporters started referring to “Anonymous” as a group, as some kind of organization. Prior to the scientology stuff there was also no group and also still DDoSing and other activities took place. After the scientology stuff these things continue, but there remains no “Anonymous” organization.
I am not saying none of these un-named individuals talk to each other or coordinate in an ‘organized’ fashion. They certainly do. Suppose that one day ou and I have lunch one day and both agree that buying Google is a good idea, then the next day we both buy Google. Would it be fair to say that the You-And-Me organization is now buying Google? No. We did not formulate a plan, we did not sign up with anything, we may not even know the other person is doing anything, we are not responsible for the other’s actions, neither one of us can speak for the other about what the other is doing.
Despite what you may have heard there is no Anonymous organization.
Centralized control and command structure using top down management? No.. obviously not such an organization.
A decentralized masterless mob of people who all self-identify as “Anonymous” the group not “anonymous” the english word? Yes.. there seems to be such an organization.
I don’t see a central office command as a requirnment for a collection of people to associate with one another. It’s surely not a well organized group but it is clearly a group.
I did not specify that central command and control was necessary for a so-called “Anonymous” group to exist, and I did not argue that a lack of such control means that no group exists.
I am saying that no group exists. People are not identifying themselves as “Members of the group Anonymous” – instead people are naming themselves “anonymous”. There is no grouping going on.
A collection of people working on similar goals at the same time does not make an organization. An organization requires more than that.
If you and I and all other people talking about Wikileaks began calling ourselves David that does not mean that the David organization is talking about Wikileaks.
Edited 2010-12-10 13:08 UTC
More than one person claim to be Shriners. They don’t specify, “I’m a memober of the Shriners group”.
If more than one person associates themselves with others; you have a group of people. The name they choose to represent that group is not the qualification for it’s existance.
Anonymous
The Anonmymous
Anonymous, local 54, member 82
You really think the name of a group matters that much in qualifying if it’s a group of people or not?
Lots of distributed individuals are identifying themselves as “Anonymous”; does that not make it a group of people identifying the group as “Anonymous”?
I mean sure, if it was all a fraud by big business to invent a new boogieman then wow, it’s a heck of a social engineering feat. But unless there is evidence showing that multiple people are not actually calling themselves by the common group title “Anonymous”, existing evidence supports the group’s existence.
And really, this is an honest request for relevant supporting information.. perhaps the true history of the Anonymous PR campaign by big business showing how they’ve manufactured the perceived history.. say.. given by the MP3 link I provided earlier from HOPE 2008. I mean, if I’m one of the masses that have fallen for the fraud; enlighten me with the factual time-line so I can see where the deceptions are.
I’ve been to the East.
and civil disobedience.
Highly recommended activities.
No justice, no peace.
Edited 2010-12-08 18:56 UTC
I get the biggest chuckle out of the hapless hipsters who support their brand of “Civil Disobedience”. I attended a demonstration in the city where I live several years ago (more like a couple of decades), where there was an Anti-War protest. I laughed at the “NO MORE WAR” chants, and everyone else watching smirked as the protest continued. What got everything moving in what appeared to me to be a mass-realization of the truth was when I started counter-chanting with “GET A JOB”. The roar of laughter from the by-standers was deafening.
“Civil Disobedience” today is the whiners way.
Thanks to “civil disobedience” you have a free-er world today than you had just 40 years ago.
Rosa Parks, for instance.
Civil disobedience is an important component of democracy. People have the right here to express their views in a Civil manner (ie not in a way that breaks the law)
The fact that you place all civil disobedience into a a single catchall is a shame.
I would recommend you read up on the topic a little more.
While you are, also look into the concept of the ‘silent majority’ as a cross reference.
Actually, civil disobedience requires breaking the law.
You’re talking of ‘peaceful protest’.
Totally different things.
http://www.dictionary.com
Have your read their definition?
“the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Compare noncooperation ( def. 2 ) , passive resistance.”
Since when is boycotting or picketing automatically breaking the law? Dictionary fail.
Did you read your own post?
“the refusal to obey certain laws”
That was pretty awesome.
Edited 2010-12-08 22:32 UTC
It has been argued that the term “civil disobedience” has always suffered from ambiguity and in modern times, become utterly debased. Marshall Cohen notes, “It has been used to describe everything from bringing a test-case in the federal courts to taking aim at a federal official. Indeed, for Vice President Agnew it has become a code-word describing the activities of muggers, arsonists, draft evaders, campaign hecklers, campus militants, anti-war demonstrators, juvenile delinquents and political assassins.”[14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance
I don’t think it’s definition is as clear cut as you make it sound.
Yeah, I should have stated that I was trying to stick to the original usage, as recommended by Ghandi and Dr. King.
That said, I do advocate slightly more extreme-yet-still-non-violent-methods.
How far? I need to think about that further, but I think these attacks are justified.
I’ll be honest, my understanding of the term is it doesnt have to be illegal in the nature of the action taken. (Read a few definitions (google) and the term is remarkably vague. )
Seems I have to take my own advice and read up on it more!
Thom, I normally agree with you, but in this regard, your response is simply uninformed.
These are private entities acting in that capacity. If they dislike and disapprove of the way that a customer is (mis)using their services, they have the right to cut them off. OTOH, they have NO obligation to provide services to any- and everyone.
Dissenting groups have the right to boycott these commercial entities. WL has the right to challenge these decisions in court. DDoSing them is petulant and childish. This is not “vs the internet” but versus juveniles playing with things they have no understanding of.
WL never faced consequences for leaks of any other kind – US DoD, corporate misbehavior, etc. Only when it irresponsibly published diplomatic material wholesale. Because WL disregarded the diplomatic processes of one nation, it will do the same with others, and therefore undermines international relations. It’s hard enough without juvenile (infantile) idiots interfering with the processes of grownups.
Iran is a pariah state not because of its ongoing support for terrorists, but because it failed in its duty to protect the embassy of a foreign nation 32 years ago from rampaging students.
Iran is a pariah state because its the force behind a huge amount of trouble in the world atm.
An Iranian.
“Iran is a pariah state because its the force behind a huge amount of trouble in the world atm.
An Iranian.”
Sound more like a Zionist shill than an Iranian.
Sure the Iranians want a little more influence in their immediate sphere but they have been very co-operative with the west and US with Afghanistan, Inspections of Nuclear Facilities, Iraq etc. Also like Russia and China, they are not happy about a hypocrite empire setting up military bases on every border and carrying out targeted assassinations on their citizens.
You might want to read up on some of the material leaked about Iran and Iranian Military history. Now when was the UN/IAE last allowed to inspect US or Israeli Nuclear facilities/sites?
Back under your rock.
As for Democratic Governments having secrets – I always though leading by example was a better way to instill change rather than by the stick but then I also grew up and realised that Western Democracy seems to have a nasty Fascist Taint about it.
An Australian.
Its not only about nuclear facilities. Iran is responsible for many issues in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Palestine, Lebonan and Israel.
And, please, dont let our goverment get any nuclear bomb. Because they kill us, their on people as easily as a ant under their legs. How do you think they will behave when they have nukes?
ALL of our neighbours are frightened and scared. Thats not because our goverment ‘wants more influence’. Thats because they are mad men.
I’ve been saying exactly that on each and every article Thom has written in the past days. Quite oddly, nobody ever replied to that.
If you think every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website, find a representative and ask them to craft some law. Then ya’ll can vote on it. Currently we do not have such a law.
What we do have is the Freedom of Information Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_Sta…)
Which provides a process for accessing government controlled documents and also exceptions.
ps. Regarding the first paragraph above, I think posting your exact military positions and locations to a public website would be a bad idea. Posting every interaction your military has is a bad idea. I would not vote for any act that allowed that. I’m probably in the majority, which is why there is no such law. This is the law of my countrymen. If you don’t like it, you may be happier somewhere else. If you don’t live here, I don’t know why you think you have a right to my info?
Who says that? What does this have to do with the story at hand?
Who claimed we did?
And what you have is the First Amendment and rulings like the ruling by the Supreme Court that found the publishing of the secret Pentagon Papers legal. And a First Amendment and case law that lead the Congressional Research Service conclude regarding wikileaks:
“This report identifies some criminal statutes that may apply, but notes that these have been used almost exclusively to prosecute individuals with access to classified information (and a corresponding obligation to protect it) who make it available to foreign agents, or to foreign agents who obtain classified information unlawfully while present in the United States. Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government employee has been prosecuted for publishing it.”
Edited 2010-12-08 21:51 UTC
Wikileaks is kinda new. First time for everything.
Also, most of the discussion here seems to be based on the idea that people think we should have 100% transparancy. I don’t know how you missed that.
Edited 2010-12-08 22:03 UTC
Not really, just because they are publishing on the internet doesn’t really make them new. Anyway, the US seems to have quite a hard time finding any legal grounds to go after them: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/world/08leak.html
Really? Has anyone actually stated this? I think I simply missed it, because I haven’t read anyone stating it and I think that simply inferring stuff like that leads to attacking strawmen more often than not.
Of course the government is supposed to keep things from us, I don’t understand how that’s not obvious.
Oh, come on. You really want to argue that saying “It’s the United States government, they are supposed to represent us…they work for us. They were never created to grow bigger than us and keep things from us.” is the same as saying: “Every single document in the US or your own country should be published to a website”?
Really?
Do you believe they could keep things from us and be 100% transparent at the same time?
Really?
From that article:
““I don’t want to get into specifics here, but people would have a misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the Espionage Act,†Mr. Holder said Monday at a news conference. “That is certainly something that might play a role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our disposal.†”
Seems they are having a hard time deciding on which of several legal grounds to get him on.
You’re a funny guy, but if you’d actually read the article you’d know that Holder is specifically referencing not only looking at the Espionage Act, because the Espionage Act has never been successfully used against a media organization that released information. (Also take a look at that CSR report again.)
Anyway, what I would be really interested in is why you seem so keen on wikileaks to be prosecuted. What did they do to deserve your wrath? Making public the wrongdoings of yours and other governments? Isn’t that a good thing?
People tend to get really defensive when they’re ashamed.
I think making public the wrongdoings is awsome. I think publishing the names of tribal leaders who’ve accepted aid from the US in the Afghan war leak was seriously evil. When you aid the Taliban, the kiddie gloves should come off.
I think Wikileaks is in no position to honestly represent my interests. If they want to leak responsibly, they need to do it the way the major newspapers generally do it, or to some judges/attorneys/congressmen. By actually redacting things, and publishing only need to know info.
You may be right, but who decides what is “need to know info”, and where is the line between redacting and censorship?
I do believe there are exceptions to the rule “be honest all the time”, but is a mentality such as “people shouldn’t know because they are not qualified to understand” a good one? How can there be any democracy (we’re talking about the thinnest kind here, i.e. representative democracy) work if the people don’t even know what the government is doing? How can you hold the government accountable for anything if you don’t know anything about it?
Total exposure to the truth may be an extreme but in my opinion it’s far better then what there is now. Secrecy is a (sometimes useful) tool that should only be given to those who understand what they forfeit by using it.
As for security concerns, the Iraq leaks, for example, come after the end of the war (let’s face it, it’s over). As well as the afghan ones.
We have Freedom of Information Act to address what I think are your major concearns. As for security, I think outing our Afghan Tribal allies is a great way to get what support we have there murdered or stifled. It will help the Taliban and Al Queda. It seems like an act of someone involved in the war, not just watching. This is why you get reactions like “hang em.” Why didn’t they take out every single village and tribal leaders name? It took me just seconds of looking over it to find names. He might as well have been sitting on a hill radioing in targets.
I will ask you one thing. How big a fraction do you think is the information that has been uncovered by the Freedom of Information Act compared to what Wikileaks has uncovered? Do you think it is effective at all?
The Freedom of Information Act is like the government saying “this is what we are willing to let you know”. Wikileaks is like (some of) the people fighting for the information _they_ think they ought to know. I think each has a right to fight but the US Government is playing dirty.
Honestly, they could protect their information better. If civilians get their hands on this so easily what about a security agency?
Edited 2010-12-09 00:11 UTC
The Freedom of Information Act could be better! So could many things, I personally would write to my congressman about other things first. Maybe I should add it to the list.
“Wikileaks” is not “from” the US, therefore “they” don’t have any right to know. If this was some document that an American was handing to a newspaper who would consult with an team of lawyers, it would be much much better. Basically have at least the decency to make a real attempt to give the info in a responsible way. Like I’ve said before, I’ve seen the doc, they didn’t try.
They could have, but insiders happen. I hope they’re fixing their mistakes.
“Wikileaks” is not “from” the US, therefore “they” don’t have any responsibility to keep the information hidden.
That depends. If it’s espionage, and the country that they are in has espionage laws, and have an extradition treaty with the US, they should be careful.
I think it’s interesting the golbalization of things, especially with the internet now. A person in China can hack away at servers in Brazil and as long as the governmnet in China doesn’t care, there is no effective “responsibility,” even though we know there is a victim and an attaker. Basically it will continue until someone from the penetrated country tries to motivate the government of the attackig country to do something etc.
Assange, yesterday, published the location of the world’s only pharmaceutical plant that manufactures vaccines for particular diseases. Because of Assange’s irresponsible act, that plant is now a high priority target for terrorists, and all because Assange didn’t have the first clue as to what info he really had, nor the ramifications of releasing that info to the world (or, simply didn’t care, which is just as bad, if not worse).
Edited 2010-12-09 06:59 UTC
Have you realized that none of those who wrote countless comments about how WL is the next God sent thing replied to the info you gave?
Astounding they are so blind.
How cute that you believe that information wasn’t known before that.
For all the moralising going on, this hit ordinary people who have Nothing to do with it. In many ways the attack was indiscriminate in its effect. For this reason I cant condone it.
We have clients in an industry that is already suffering Very heavily during the downturn. A number have already gone under or are close to. This attack today caused them to lose thousands of pounds in lost revenue. Money they can ill afford to lose.
Has this helped prove a point to the US gov? I dont think so.
Has it hurt ordinary, uninvolved, people? Yes.
p.s. I do not work for a bank/credit card/financial company
That’s kind of the point — if it didn’t effect people what good would it be?
Change requires getting the normal people riled up so they are at least aware of something that frankly — 99% of Joe Sixpack and Susie Sunshine types would otherwise neither care about or even realize is going on… and if that means holding companies for ransom to get them to back the hell down, well — at least it’s better than taking up arms and doing it 18th century style. (Though increasingly I’m sure the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves)
As the old George Carlin joke goes, “you don’t stop drugs by going after potheads, you do it by arresting the BANKERS who launder the drug money. You put a few rich white bankers in prison and you won’t even be able to buy drugs in schools and playgrounds!”
Which is why VISA is exactly the type of institution to have a giant bullseye painted on it when push comes to shove…
Of course given that credit is as Peter Schiff said when taking President dumbass to task for calling it “The lifeblood of the economy” — It’s not the lifeblood, it’s the CANCER… So excuse me if I don’t exactly shed a tear for an institution as responsible for the collapsing economy as every other form of moneylending.
Ah, Anonymous — None of us can be as ruthlessly destructive as all of us. Were that we were this effective when it came to stamping out religious hoodoo like Scientology.
Besides, given the flashtard train-wreck their website is when it’s working, combined with them redirecting Opera users to the mobile site thanks to a faulty browser sniffer, combined with absurdly undersized and illegible fixed metric fonts and a “WCAG, What’s that” attitude, so far as the Internet is concerned IMHO Visa is just getting what’s coming to them.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:45 UTC
clearly banks and finance are the source of all that is evil. Bring back the barter system!
I wonder if you would grandstand in quite the same way if it was Your company that went under during this ‘attack’ and Your job that was lost.
Its frankly shocking the mentality you hold that innocent bystanders are an ‘acceptable loss’ to make your political point.
One would have to be working for an evil corporation to have lost their job.
Worker Beware.
All the arguments have been made so I’ll just cheerlead based on my personal take:
GO 4CHAN!
Paypal is still standing but you can do it! Bring em down!
irc://irc.anonops.com/OperationPayback
I think that they are the people in the red handed about bringing down VISA and Mastercard.
The next thing is that the government will mandate that ISPs implement methods to protect against DDoS attacks or begin to require that all internet services be traceable to origin. The result of this petulant act might be that privacy on the internet is judged to be less important than protecting availability of the internet and the anonymous internet ends as we know it. And it’s not that hard. All they do is to compel ‘important’ firms to move to some registered internet and remove the protections that we currently have on the unregistered wild-wild-west internet. This may just give them justification to do that.
Marketplace (from APM) just reported on this. Amusingly, they referred to “the hacker organization Anonymous,” making the same mistake that so many other, lesser news outlets have made. Most of the rest of the piece is fairly good tho, if somewhat cabbagized, and is probably worth checking out.
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/12/08/pm-hackti…
More “further reading” from NPR: this issue was covered extensively on Talk of the Nation today.
http://www.npr.org/programs/talk-of-the-nation/
I don’t know if it’s be mentioned in the pages upon pages of comments already:
For the record, Paypal are notorious for suspending accounts; generally people with controversial religious, political or social views.
Nobody says you have to agree with “controversial” personalities or organizations, but suspending a Paypal account and freezing (stealing) funds is too much.
I feel vindicated by the Paypal attack. In fact I hope it’s permanent. Payback’s a bitch.
PayPal also won’t process transactions that deal with, er, prurient material.
*couch*notthatI’dknow*cough*
Paypal.com is up and running as I write this.
Paypal has policies on whom they will do business with. Paypal is a US company; in the US, you are allowed to refuse to do business with anyone you want to, as long as those reasons have nothing to do with discrimination against a “protected class” (for example, you can’t refuse to do business with someone because of their race, ethnicity, gender, etc). “Leakers” is not a protected class. Paypal is under no obligation to do business with Assange or his operation. Those attacking the Paypal site are criminals.
How about discrimination against Foreigners’? Assange is Australian therefore of a different “race” to the US.
You might be just joking, but I’ll answer the question anyway.
I don’t know if “foreigners” is a protected class in the US. But even if it were, it’s not the case that one is required to do business with all members of protected classes, it’s that one cannot refuse to do business with someone just because they are a member of a protected class. One can still refuse to do business with that person for other reasons.
For example, PayPal couldn’t refuse to do business with someone on the basis of that person’s being Latino (for example), but could refuse to do business with that person for suspected criminality, or violation of PayPal’s terms of service, etc.
PayPal is within their rights not to do business with Assange as long as the reason for such refusal is not related to Assange’s membership in a protected class.
Note that I don’t speak of PayPal’s freezing of Wikileak’s PayPal account. Apparently PayPal has released those funds to Wikileaks, but now that tha’s done, PayPal doesn’t have to conduct further transactions involving Assange or Wikileaks.
Full scale deflection, bent the needle.
What caused this to happen?
Apparently, the US government has taken a short break from attacking Wikileaks (but not other MSM outlets who also published cables) for just long enough to announce ‘World Press Freedom Day’.
http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announc…
As I said, when I encountered this news, my irony meter broke. Completely busted. Blew a fuse.
Edited 2010-12-09 00:34 UTC
I find it greatly concerning and very objectionable that Thom Holwerda has advocated actions that are illegal in most countries, including the US and the EU. I am referring to this line: “I fully support these DDoS attacks.”
Is it the policy of OSNews to encourage illegal activities like these?
In regards to DDos attacks: the Internet relies on cooperation among a great number of very diverse people. It cannot survive if too many people abuse it for political or other ends. What if the victims of these current attacks respond by attacking their attackers, and those who support them such as OSNews?
While Mr. Holwerda is obviously entitled to his opinions and is certainly not required to agree with mine, I believe that advocating acts that are both illegal and seemingly diametrically opposed to the spirit of OSNews is inappropriate.
Edited 2010-12-09 03:46 UTC
Again, civil disobedience.
No justice, no peace.
But a DDos attack is not civil disobedience. It is more like rioters tearing up their own neighborhood.
o_O
How many people have even been to Visa’s website? I can’t even think of a reason to go there…
If Visa employees DDoS attacked Visa that would make sense.
If you somehow can tear up a neighbourhood without causing damage. Then yes, they are the same..
But the fact is: They are not
Edited 2010-12-09 14:03 UTC
You “tear up” the Internet by destroying its interconnectivity.
The Wikileaks website, which launched no DDoS attack of its own, has come under heavy DDoS attack.
Whom do you imagine launched that DDoS attack against Wikileaks? Who would be interested in doing this? Who would sponsor such an act?
Was this initial DDoS attack on Wikileaks legal in your view? If it was, why?
It could have been the US government trying to delay the release of information from the leaked cables. Or anyone else wanting to do that. It was certainly wrong. I can’t say if it was illegal or not, since it may have been done by the very entities that define “illegal.”
Let us hope that these strategies do not escalate into a world wide web war that destroys the usefulness of the medium.
Who are the entities who could define the legaility of such an act (DDoS of a website operating under foreign sovreignity)? What process gives those entities the authority/mandate to do so?
It is possible to make a law against misuse of a network regardless of whether or not the other end of it is across a border. Otherwise, depending on jurisdictions, there could be a tort.
But my point was that DDoss are bad for the Internet, regardless of the intentions of those who cause them.
Would this happen to be the selfsame government who is sponsoring this event:
http://wonkette.com/431902/u-s-state-department-hilariously-announc…
Perhaps I could steal the text from one of the nomination letters they have apparently been sent:
Yeah, except those companies effectively control whether or not wikileaks gets ahold of the funds that are donated to them. And by choosing to refuse transfering those donations, that is a blatent attack on the organization.
The DDoSing is hardly going to ruin any of these companies. But it is a reminder to them that caving to political pressure is still choosing a side.
Sadly, this site has become less and less about computer hardware/software technology, and more and more about politics. I think this site has lost its way.
Really Thom, no harm. People who use and rely on the companies that are under attack will probably disagree with you.
Probably won’t be hanging around here anymore….
“Really Thom, no harm. People who use and rely on the companies”
I do
“that are under attack will probably disagree with you.”
I dont
“Probably won’t be hanging around here anymore….”
I will
There is a reson to the ass in assume
Assume.
Ass.
U.
Me.
Yeah.
I forgot, it’s all about you…
Sorry, Assange fans, you have no moral high ground when you start taking down sites.
We’ve already seen Assange try to blackmail his way out of the charges in Sweden (“If I get arrested, I’ll release my ‘insurance’ file.”) Now we see wikileaks fans taking down sites for having the temerity to not do business with Assange.
And Thom, your comment about Paypal getting pressured by the US govt, so what? That same govt pressured Twitter to delay their “Down for maintenance” period during the Iran post-election protests so people could continue to communicate the events on Twitter. In PayPal’s case, the “pressure” you refer to was simply a letter saying that the US State Dept considered Assange’s activities to be illegal. Paypal doesn’t “admit” to being coerced, like your “summary” implies.
Update: The sites in question (Visa, Mastercard, PayPal) are up and running now.
Edited 2010-12-09 05:51 UTC
Well, that tears it. 4chan’s gone from a nuisance to being nothing more or less than information terrorists. It’s high time somebody put them down.
And before you 4chan kiddie haxxors brag that no one will be able to find you with all your little haxxor tricks, wise up. The only reason no one has found you before has more to do with the fact that no one has cared enough to look for your worthless carcass in the first place. But taking down several credit card sites in the name of some moronic digital jihad? Guess what? NOW they’re going to care.
Oh, and by the way, Julian Assange is an anarchist pansy with an overinflated ego, but if that’s your hero, hey, I guess it suits you.
See the UPDATE to this story, here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/paypal-wikileaks/
The original story was that the US State Dept wrote a letter to PayPal saying that the State Dept deemed Wikileaks to be engaging in illegal activity, and therefore PayPal suspended Wikileaks’ PayPal account.
But no, it turns out that the State Dept wrote a letter to Wikileaks, saying that they deemed that Wikileaks was engaged in illegalities, and based on that letter from the State Dept to Wikileaks (not from the State Dept to PayPal), PayPal decided to suspend Wikileaks’ PayPal account. The US State Dept made no contact with PayPal.
I await Thom’s update to his summary of events according to PayPal’s clarification.
Edited 2010-12-09 08:19 UTC
yes but they didn’t tell us who notified paypal and i really doubt it was the recipient
also it’s pretty funny cause i thought that USA actually had laws and judges who were the only responsible to determine if something is illegal, i guess i was wrong.
What happens though if it is the USA itself which is doing the illegal things?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html
Just throwing a simple ‘What If’ out there:
What if the information contained in the leaked documents was all positive, and shed just a positive light on the people\governments\actions referred within it ?
Would the actions of the US government be the same ?. And if not, what does that tell us ?.
Illegal or not. Shooting the messenger, doesn’t solve the most important part’s of this whole case.
1. The inadequate security of classified documents.
2. The way in which elected diplomats and government official’s do their job behind closed door’s, isn’t acceptable by the people who elected them.
Those two points should be officially questioned and resolved before anything else.
What does it mean that the account is ‘restricted’? Does it mean that we still can’t transfer new funds to that account?
It looks like a new comedy of errors has spun out of this whole situation. Here’s something that arrived in my EMail this morning from EasyDNS – a Canadian registrar that many people apparently can’t distinguish from everyDNS (the people who shut down the main wikileaks domain):
http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/03/wikileaks-takedown-fiasco-unders…
And the really absurd part of it? Not only were they NOT the registrar who pulled the plug on WikiLeaks, EasyDNS is actually a backup DNS provider for the wikileaks.ch domain.
http://blog.easydns.org/2010/12/06/the-implications-of-wikileaks-dn…
Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-agains…
Say NO to online censorship!
https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship
Edited 2010-12-09 22:57 UTC
Ebay and it’s subsidiary Paypal is one of the most reprehensible corporations around – fee gouging, canceling sellers accounts without reason and allowing billions of dollars of counterfeit products to be sold each year to unsuspecting buyers. I really wish that they would go broke.
Well, if trolls can make them risk the wrath of the US govt, perhaps trolls can make them change policies.
“There’s little else we can do, and these attacks are entirely harmless; no people are being harmed in the process – they’re just inconvenienced. ”
Uh huh. Just as harmless as public transportation going on a strike on the day you want to use it to get to the job interview, which might be a big deal for you.
Some people rely on paypal or visa services. If their actual service servers would go down, and block your paypal money transfers, and temporarily invalidate your visa card, you wouldn’t think it was entirely harmless.
i’m not against the action. It’s just that the “entirely harmless” part felt like something the author didn’t quite think through.
As a military veteran I am all for free speech, free expression, etc. With that in mind there comes such a thing as responsible journalism and the posting of information. WikiLeaks failed to exercise responsibility in its latest postings on the Internet.
There are some things that should not be known through out the world. It’s just the way that it is. I think law enforcement should aggressively go on the offense against WikiLeaks and 4Chan for what they have done. They have possibly put the United States and its people in danger as well as caused damage to diplomacy. I am quite sure that the King of Saudi Arabia and others did not ask for their comments to be viewed by Al Quida and other dissidents so that the possibility of terrorism on their people would happen.
Again there is such a thing as responsible journalism. If you post something that could be construed as not accurate or causes possible danger than you should be expecting ramifications of your actions.
Also I would not take too much stock in information posted by a website that is ran by an accused sex offender who will not face his charges yet alleges they are untrue. If they are not the truth then why is he afraid to go to Sweden and prove his innocence? I will tell you why-he is a coward, plain and simple.
The time has come to enforce responsible journalism and punish those that fail to exercise it. Free speech and expression means that you are free to say or write what you want so long as they are into the bounds of safety, security, and responsibilities. We all have those responsibilities.
Check your facts.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/10/wikile…
Wikileaks is just as responsible as its five partner mainstream media outlets are. This is verifiable fact.
Backup here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i0Vruimmvy8loGkls…
Yor claim:
If that is ture, then it is also true of the five partners of Wikileaks, who helped Wikileaks redact the cables before posting them. The New York Times and Washington Post are two media oulets amongst those five.
I know it is hard to check facts when outlets like Time are contradicting verifibale fact in their attempts to smear Wikileaks, but it isn’t impossible.
SOME sources, such as Associated Press, are apparently still willing to report the truth.
There are some wrongdoings by the government that they do not want people to know about, so they simply “classify” it (aka bury it). The only way such wrongdoings can the be rectified is via whistleblowers. It’s just the way it is.
According to Ron Paul, lying is not patriotic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxPB9yy7IJ4&feature=sub
Edited 2010-12-12 06:06 UTC
You had me up until the last paragraph. I’m a former military man as well, so I agree with being responsible, but there is such thing as the polar opposite. Too much policing leads to censorship and obfuscation of the truth. Sometimes stepping outside of the realm of safety and security exposes the public to something that they would not normally stand up for. If we never ventured outside our comfort zone then we might as well never leave home and never see the world outside either.
Both sides are being cowardly. The governments hide behind the companies to do their dirty work and 4chan hides behind millions of zombie windows machines running in grandma’s living room to do theirs. The only people making a stand up fight are wikileaks and the men and women who they are exposing, with the leaked documents, that are fighting to stay alive in a wartime environment. This is a classic example of no clear moral high ground. There is no black and white. Just shades of grey.