Print

[SocialTransparency]

Afghan says it's 'shocked' by leaked U.S. documents

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/26/afganistan.wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T1#fbid=FoKgVXomt6K

[RedShieldwolf]

Most interesting thing here (to me) is Pakistan playing both ends against the middle. Definitely something to keep an eye on.

[mefree]

Afghanistan war logs: how Wikileaks turned crowd-sourcing into journalism - Telegraph.co.uk
26 July 2010, 8:21 am
By Matt Warman



The news that the largest leak in American military history came via the website Wikileaks will not surprise long-term watchers of the controversial, multi-award-winning site.

Despite a recent period of near-bankruptcy, it has consistently released information that major corporations and governments wanted concealed – the Abu Ghraib “torture manual”, footage from American jets allegedly committing warcrimes, the secrets of Scientology and even Sarah Palin’s private emails have all been published by the site.

Founded by secretive Australian Julian Assange, Wikileaks was originally based in Sweden and garnered 1.2 million leaked documents in time for its launch in January 2007. It taps in to the world’s web users’ desire either for justice or revenge on former employers or acquaintances, but its most significant stories have been held up as largely in the public interest. The Abu Ghraib revelations resulted in international condemnation of American methods and arguably contributed to political commitments from Barack Obama to close down the detention centre. Assange claims that by using the global community of internet users, his site is able to promote accuracy, scrutiny and discussion of sensitive information.

Anybody with web access can submit a story to Wikileaks. The site, however, states that its "primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations." Wikileaks has now evolved an editorial policy by which only documents "of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest" are in fact published, and it has recently ceased to permit users to comment directly on stories. Earlier this year, Assange said that submissions are vetted by five reviewers, and that the background of the “leaker” is also checked.

A number of countries and companies, notably Australia, China and Bank Julius Baer have tried to censor the site or have it taken offline, but its complex method of web-hosting has ensured that it is very difficult for its servers to be identified. Wikileaks has also used a Swedish company called PRQ, which specialises in “bulletproof hosting”, asking no questions and maintaining few records of its clients so that it cannot be accused of promoting material that could be illegal.

The site has been heavily criticised in the past for endangering the lives of individuals, just as American and Pakistani representatives have said this latest leak of American military logs will too. But only last weak Assange told America’s Wired magazine that Wikileaks was "getting an enormous quantity of whistle-blower disclosures of high caliber". The only reason more has not been released was a lack of volunteer journalists to verify the submissions, he said, adding that BP was set to be one of his site’s future subjects.

video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/7910367/Wikileaks-founder-defends-releasing-documents.html
found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7910383/Afghanistan-war-logs-how-Wikileaks-turned-crowd-sourcing-into-journalism.html

[mefree]

WikiLeaks: Group vows to put more documents online - The Associated Press
26 July 2010, 3:52 pm



It has no headquarters and its public face — a wiry, silver-haired Australian with a physics Ph.D. — carries his desktop computer in a backpack as he moves from place to place.

WikiLeaks is a bare-bones organization on a mission to root out the secrets of the high and mighty, from Sarah Palin to the Church of Scientology. Its founder, Julian Assange, said his group's biggest coup so far — the publication of tens of thousands of classified U.S. military reports on Afghanistan — will likely unleash a new wave of leaks.

"It is our experience that courage is contagious," Assange said Monday, telling reporters at London's Frontline Club that his greatest fear was "that we won't be able to do justice to the material that we're getting in."

According to Assange, the torrent of leaked information being uploaded to his website is enormous, with a reserve of unexamined documents so unwieldy that the site has been more or less inactive since December.

What's in the backlog? The 39-year-old former computer hacker refuses to say.

"We have files that concern every country in the world with a population of over 1 million," he said. "Thousands of databases and files about all sorts of countries."

more at http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioYulvIim0-RIFAVR75vMiomt9VgD9H6UC6O0

[mefree]

WikiLeaks & the End of Secrecy - Internet Evolution
28 July 2010, 5:21 pm

Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks organization are incredibly dangerous, subversive, and bad for the status quo. And they should be widely copied around the world.

If information does indeed want to be free, as Wired editor Chris Anderson told us all last year, then it took an anarchist like Assange to take that thesis to its logical extreme. He has freely rattled several national governments and militaries, multi-national corporations, religions, and anyone else with a penchant for secrecy.

Assange is combative and unapologetic. "WikiLeaks will not comply with legally abusive requests from Scientology any more than WikiLeaks has complied with similar demands from Swiss banks, Russian offshore stem-cell centers, former African kleptocrats, or the Pentagon," was the organization's subtle-as-a-poke-in-the-eye response to Scientology attorneys in 2008 after posting some church documents on WikiLeaks.

I think it's worth mentioning what WikiLeaks does to protect itself and its sources of information -- and not just because this is a Security Clan blog. The lengths to which it goes to encrypt (and decrypt) information, thwart would-be eavesdroppers, and anonymize its transactions distinguishes it from organizations like The New York Times or the Drudge Report that specialize in scoops and exclusives.

more at http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=679&doc_id=195063&f_src=internetevolution_gnews

[SocialTransparency]

 As RFTTP is about the freedom of speech and the sharing of information, At this point in global history I feel an uber bumpage is needed for this thread. I fear a change is on the horizon. Censorship will occur. Silence will take the place of discussion on the global net. It has already begun!

 The houses of power will not tolerate the minions seeing the global havoc wrought via geo political money mongers. How dare we the people see how our governments actually work. How dare we become privy to information our leaders are not doing the will of the people. Or are they? To deny the individual knowledge is to deny them the freedom of expression and thought.

 One needs only to look @ Google and its internet relationship with China. To profit, Google must accept censorship from the ruling politburo. Ideological subjugation of the masses by the few dictate the health,wealth and happiness of the many.

 Are we so called free people willing to accept censorship? Laws that may be set in place to filter what you can or cannot read?


 Google and its shareholder's want a major slice of China's internet pie. @ this point in global history Google like it or not has accepted a certain amount of net censorship to gain a profitable hold within China's internet landscape. Only time will tell if that censorship falls to the wayside.

 With major information on our own and our alleged global partners back room dealing being revealed via Wikileaks are we beginning to see attempts at silencing the host and holder of those behind the scenes revelations? I feel the answer is yes.

 When do "state secrets" and the revealing of those secrets harm we the people? Who makes that final decision? Our elected officials? If so who elected them and gave them the right to filter the flow of information be it good or bad to we the people? Why the answer is WE DID!

 Some will say freedom comes at a price. Is ignorance or being kept ignorant by a particular elected government in the best interest of the people? Guess we are all going to find out!

[mefree]

Interesting articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/wikileaks-exposes-more-th_b_792346.html

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B52DE20101206?ca=rdt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/columbia-university-walks_n_792684.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wikileaks-swiss-defense-fund-closed-2010-12-06?dist=afterbell

[SocialTransparency]

Interesting articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/wikileaks-exposes-more-th_b_792346.html

http://us.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B52DE20101206?ca=rdt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/06/columbia-university-walks_n_792684.html
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wikileaks-swiss-defense-fund-closed-2010-12-06?dist=afterbell

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/wikileaks-exposes-more-th_b_792346.html

One of the only journalists with a relatively large following who has handled the WikiLeaks revelations in a way that is consistent with the tenets of professional journalism has been Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!. She has delved into the substance of the documents free of the psychobabble and voyeuristic obsession with Assange. The rest of the herd, with some exceptions, have been either wasting precious airtime or column inches trashing Assange or discussing how best the government can shield itself from future whistle-blowers.

The fact is Julian Assange possesses no security clearance and doesn't work for the United States government. He could not have "leaked" anything even if he wanted to. The documents in question are not private. They are official correspondence by federal employees and therefore are public property (and will be treated as such when they become a normal part of the national archives). Missed in the blather about WikiLeaks is that whoever inside the government might have leaked the documents probably did so out of a sense of civic engagement or even duty. Besides, if the motives of U.S. foreign policy are as pure as our leaders claim they are, then what's the big deal if these documents see the light of day?

Just the facts.  

[SocialTransparency]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/dont-shoot-messenger-for-revealing-uncomfortable-truths/story-fn775xjq-1225967241332

[mefree]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-mull/journalism-is-not-an-atta_b_794159.html